All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:01:24
REAL DEAL SPECIAL (12 November 2025): Bill Binney & Katherine Horton UNDER FIRE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, welcome to another real deal special with Bill Binney and Catherine Horton under fire.
Catherine's been so much under fire, she's taking a break to recover, but I'm delighted to have Bill here with me today.
And we're going to take around some of the latest developments in Washington, especially related to the Epstein files.
And Bill, did you see where Trump's former campaign manager is now registered as a foreign lobbyist for Israel?
I find that rather stunning.
But it's really pretty typical, Jim.
I mean, executives or people in positions of authority in government, when they retire or leave, they go to industry to get to use their connections back into government to get contracts and things like that, which is what that guy was doing too.
So you know, I called it the incestuous relationship, you know?
Yes, yes, yes.
Well, my interpretation is he is and always was for Israel, and that Trump too is and always was for Israel, and that Mega was like a cover when he really wanted to make Israel great again rather than the United States.
Your take?
Well, you know, it's much deeper than that.
And let me give you an example.
Yes.
All the developments we were doing technology-wise in the Sign Automation Research Center that I founded with John Taggart, former, he was an electrical engineer, PhD, and he was the, he was a pretty up, pretty high up.
He was RO6 in the research organization in NSA.
There's like an advisor to the research chief.
And as we were developing things, you know, there in 97 and 98 to attack the World Wide Web, you see that the difference was we had two systems we were looking at, the public switch telephone network, which went into satellite phones, voice over IP and stuff like that, and regular landlines and mobile phones.
But we had a lot of help with the telecommunications companies there.
You know, they didn't, they helped us out with all that we needed in terms of supplying rooms and facilities and maintenance and stuff like that.
But the real problem was in the World Wide Web where the communications were busted up into packets and sent around in different directions sometimes.
And like one email could be busted into 10 or 12 packets or however many it took, usually I think 64 characters per packet, you know, and then passed around and routed across the network to, and then had to be reassembled at the other end.
So if you were tapping the lines anywhere in between the endpoints of the communications, you would have see bits coming by a little bit at a time, you know.
Then you have to recompile all those bits and put them back together to form what you were saying to one another on the net.
See?
So it was, we called that, we called that sessionizing.
We would sessionize the packetized data to make it back into the form it was originally to be sent in.
Like it was the email.
When you call it up on your on your computer, it displays your email.
That's what we wanted to, that's what sessionizing does.
It pulls all those packets together and displays it in that form to you.
And so that's what that's what the real problem was.
And that was running at fiber optic rates, 155 megabits per second per fiber line.
And we started breaking into that in 1977.
So we were doing like STEM four stems, 644 megabits per second, you know.
And then at that time, I was I had several hats, okay?
I was the technical director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis and Reporting Shop, which about 6,000 analysts and so on.
But also, I was, because I was so technical, I was also the chief, the chair of the TAP, the technical advisory panel to the Foreign Relations Council, which was basically to review all the technology we had and what we thought we should share with what partner.
Or if an issue came up that one partner needed assistance, what kind of technology should we share to help them do that, you know, or manage that problem?
So all of the technology sharing was supposed to go through that TAP process for approval to the Foreign Relations Council, and then they would approve it, and then we'd be shared.
And so as we were developing that technology to sessionize all this fiber optic lines, I didn't know it at the time as a technical advisor, as a chairman of the TAP, the technical advisory panel.
I did not know this was happening, but someone inside NSA was giving all of our software, all of our source code, source code now, not executable.
So they're giving our source code to unit 8200, which is the equivalent of NSA in the Israelis.
This was all being done under the table.
So, you know, and then when I found out about it, in 1998, when we had succeeded at making and being able to do fiber optic rates, which meant the whole world was ours now.
We could capture and store it all.
The only limitation was power and space.
That was it.
Everything else we could handle.
And we were doing at the time the 12 most popular protocols, TCPIP, X.25, things like that.
So we were doing up to 12 of those protocols and we're working on the smaller, minor, more, you know, more less frequently used protocols to try to get everything.
But we had like 98% of it, I would say.
And at that time, that software was given to them too.
So then, I think it was about a year or two later, somehow, somehow, two companies come on the commercial environment sharing or selling software and equipment to manage sessionizing stuff on the fiber optic lines, being able to do exactly what we had started doing in 1998.
So, and they were Narris and Varendt.
And guess what?
The two guys who founded them, they were from 8200, Unit 8200.
So, you know, we were saying, hmm, what happened here?
You know, we knew at the time a lot of industry was trying to get our software because they knew what we were doing.
So they were coming in asking us if we could give them our software.
So what Ed and I, Ed Loomis, who was the, who took over from John Taggart in 1996, I think it was, he and I went up to the intellectual property lawyers of the NSA and said, we're getting these requests from industry, and they're asking us if we can give them this software to handle the sessionizing of packets, packetized data on the fiber optic lines.
And they said, no, you cannot do that because it would be like giving disadvantage.
It would be advantaging certain companies over others in their ability to do something, you know, because we would leapfrog them in advancement.
Well, then they told us that, no, and that was in early summer of 1998.
And then in August of 98, well, late June, July, early August, we gave a copy of our software to our field site at Bat Ibling and said, hey, we have this sessionizing software.
Try it out.
Give us some comments.
Analyze how it works and see if you have anything you see problems or things that we can do to improve it and stuff like that.
It was like a first test run in the field site.
So we gave it to them and they said, gee, this software works so great, we're going to put it on the whole site.
And then what happened in 12 hours, within the first 12 hours of them putting that on the site, it was forwarding so much data back.
The problem is they didn't change the selection routines.
They kept the same dictionary, select, book, select, you know, term select process, which meant virtually everything came back that they were collecting.
Well, when you put a system on that can collect everything just about, and then you don't have a selection system to work it down to where you're getting only what you want out of it, and it just forwards everything, you're going to be buried in data in no time.
And that's exactly what happened within eight to 12 hours.
We got a call at home.
This was, they put it on the site Friday night.
So we get a call on Saturday morning to come in and shut them off because they were about to crash the entire forwarding system of NSA.
Okay?
Now that's not the end of it.
Right after that, I don't know if I told you this before or not, but right after that, in the month after that, I think around the 25th or 26th of September, it's on the web.
You can go find out about it.
They just reported it.
I didn't know this happened until just about eight months ago.
It turns out that NSA and CIA get together jointly got together and funded two guys from Stanford to replicate our program on a commercial basis.
And it became Google.
Really?
Yeah.
It became good.
Well, it's metadata indexed, right?
Content distributed, you know, profile building because we were building profiles on people and communities on everybody in the planet that we had in the database.
So that was like 45 billion people.
So, and our process was doing that automatically.
And that process was handed to these guys to replicate in the commercial environment.
And it became Google.
Now, it was there.
They had a right to do that because we were developing it for the government.
And the government has the right to outsource things to the commercial environment.
The reason they did that, though, was pretty clear.
What would you think if the NSA or any government agency had all the content of everything you were saying or doing on the web or in the phone networks?
You would say, hey, that's a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, and also using it to put people in jail and then fabricating it by doing parallel programming.
I mean, to get to a parallel process to find the equivalent data as if you were doing it in a standard policing way, then substituting that data for the NSA data to prosecute people in court.
So the point is, if you outsource all that to commercial environments, it's all their fault.
It's all their problem.
Don't look at me.
I don't have the data.
They have it.
It's like deniable.
It's like you can, it's plausible deniability.
We're not violating the Constitution.
That's a commercial environment.
They're collecting this data.
You know, not us.
It's like switching the blame over.
Well, and then it wasn't that, that was, that wasn't bad enough.
After we retired, once we found out about all this bullshit that they were going through, violating everybody's rights and everything, right?
And complaining to the places we should, like the Inspector Generals of the Department of Defense and the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the House Intelligence Committee.
I mean, those were the proper channels, and we went and complained to them.
And all they did after that was target us, shut us down everywhere we tried to start a business up.
So they commercially shut us down.
They got people to fire us.
And we had evidence of that from even the chiefs of the industry that we were doing subcontracted for.
We were fired from that job because that's what they wanted.
They didn't want us working it.
They wanted nobody to compete with the company they set up and financed so that they held them kind of on a string that you owe us because we helped you along, we set you up.
You have to work with us and give us all the data we need and want.
You know, they didn't want us because we'd say, hey, you know, we challenge the warrants or the non-signed warrants by basically in court.
But the people they paid didn't.
Okay.
So at any rate, that's the experience I've had with industry, with government and the relationships with government and people in government in high positions going out to get high positions in industry and getting paid well to get to use their contacts and influence back to get other contracts back to the companies they came from.
It's just a real criminal, it's a setup.
And that's the point I tried to get across to everybody.
When you set up an organization, a secret organization that has nothing but, you know, classifies everything so that you can never see it, right?
And they have the Congress that doesn't know squat about this stuff, only knows what they're told, which is a bunch of, let's say, limited truth, very limited truth.
When you do that, you have no control and no way of knowing exactly what those secret organizations are doing.
I mean, the Congress didn't know they were being spied on by NSA all along.
You know, House and Senate and the President and the Supreme Court, even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and NSA was under the DOD, Department of Defense.
That's their chain of command they're spying on.
And why did they do that?
Well, because they needed to know what they were thinking, what they were planning, if they were going to change budgets or do something to, you know, to have an impact on what they wanted to do internally inside NSA.
And the point was, once money is given to NSA, they looked at it as their money.
I always looked at it as the public's money, and I needed to spend it judiciously.
You know, I needed to be a, you know, get value for money.
These people said, we'll just get more, you know.
And that's because you're an ethical guy in the art bill.
I mean, that's so obvious.
Did he sandwich profits and make tons and tons of money?
I mean, Google's worth billions, billions, probably.
Yep, that's right.
That's one of the most valuable companies in the world.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And they made it all off of the research you and NASA have done.
Well, it's the basic design that I built into the analysis of data.
You know, that's why I keep saying the stuff about Epstein.
You don't have to worry about getting the data from FBI.
It's all in the database.
I can go get it.
I know how to, I know how to do that.
It's all there.
Every bit of it.
Not just for what they know, but it's for what they don't know around the world.
All the relationships, everything.
My inference is, though, you designed it.
You didn't reap billions from it.
No, I didn't get any.
In fact, I got to retire, Jim.
I retired.
That was my benefit.
I mean, I couldn't stick with it.
I mean, NSCA is a necessary agency.
It used to be an ethical agency, or most of it used to be.
But now it's just gone off such a deep end.
I don't, you know, it needs to be, it needs to be purged.
The databases need to be purged, but only after you get all those criminal bastards that did this.
Is there an overlap between NSA and CIA?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
They share data.
Yeah.
And they also share like the, like Vault 7.
Most of that, I assume, came from NSA and GCHQ.
Because many of you, NASA is a branch of CIA as well.
Even the media is a branch of CIA.
Yeah.
Because if you remember, I don't know if you remember Casey.
Well, we in VIPS, veteran intelligence professionals for sanity, we had through our contacts people who had firsthand witnessed Casey saying that we are infiltrating the media and you'll know that we've succeeded when most of what they publish is false.
And he said that in February of 1982, coming into as the director of CIA.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I know someone is there when he said that, you know.
Yeah.
Our disinformation.
People hear him saying it too.
So.
Yeah.
Our disinformation will be a success when everything the American people believe is false.
Bill, how bad is that?
How bad is that?
We thought they were supposed to keep us informed, not disinformed.
Now you also know why all these ex-CIA people and ex-DIA or whatever people go now to media as consultants or consulting on military or intelligence or whatever.
That's how Hayden and all those people got into the, you know, they got into these higher paying consulting jobs.
And, you know, we just had two governors of Virginia and New Jersey elected who have ties to CIA.
I mean, how overt are they going to get it all?
Yeah.
Well, well, look at this way.
And how they subvert or how they get around Congress and what Congress intends.
Yeah.
I mean, Sensenbrenner, you know, when they talked about using Section 215 to get bulk commercial data on people, Sensenbrenner, who was one of the people who wrote that bill, said, you were never intended to do this.
That was never the intent of Congress.
So they're violating the intent of Congress.
And what did Congress do about it?
Nothing.
And what did the FISA court, when the FISA court found out that the FBI had lied to them to get at least 75 warrants in 2002, what did that Supreme Court do about it?
Nothing.
You know, I would have, I mean, and then when this business about spying and violating the Constitution made it into the Supreme Court in the case climate Amnesty International versus Clapper, the Solicitor General of the United States lied to the Supreme Court when he said that if anybody, if any of the data the NSA was used to arrest and indict and prosecute anybody,
that person and their lawyers would be told that that was the case.
And in fact, that was a lie.
No one was told.
So what did the Supreme Court do about that?
Nothing.
Nothing.
I mean, I would have said, don't you ever come back to this court.
You're fired.
Get out of here.
And I'm holding the entire government in prejudice against them for violating the Constitution and ordered immediately stopped.
Did they do that?
No.
So what kind of Supreme Court do we have?
This whole business is corrupt.
Everything.
The courts, I mean, they think it's national security.
That's bullshit.
There's no reason that they shouldn't have stopped 9-11 or any of these other crimes if they watched the people they already knew were bad people.
They didn't even do that.
And they say, well, you have to do this bulk collection to get the development of others coming in to join the criminal activity.
No, you don't.
All you have to do is watch the people who are involved and see who comes in and talks to them or communicates with visits them or whatever.
And these then are people being converted into joining the club.
You don't have to look at the whole world to do that.
All you have to do is look at the people who are part of the crime that you know.
And this is stupid.
And oh, but it does what it really does.
It gives them power on every, I mean, I'm sure Cheney liked this.
It gives them power over everybody, all of your political enemies, anybody you want on the planet, you know, in any parliament, anywhere, in any government of the world.
You know all the secrets, you know, or most of them.
You know, Michael Rubrik's book, Processing the Rubicon, based on publicly available sources, especially Cheney was running 9-11 from a bunker beneath the White House the very day.
Yeah, well, he was in charge of all the spying on the planet, too, in the U.S. citizens and everybody.
We called it a Cheney blood oath inside NSA.
And because his plane went down just 60 miles north of my office on the Duluth campus, University of Minnesota, I wound up investigating Paul Wellstone's death.
Dick Cheney had warned him directly that there'd be severe ramification for him personally and for the state of Minnesota if he opposed them on Iraq.
And he opposed him on Iraq.
And Cheney, my research suggests it was Cheney and Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld who decided Wellstone had to be taken out.
They used a directed energy weapon.
They actually manipulate, Bill, you may not know, but people didn't even know it was possible.
They affected the GPS.
They had him two miles south of where he ought to have been to draw him into a field where they had this electromagnetic field created and it popped all the computerized components on the plane and guaranteed it was crash.
And then they had prepped it in Superior, Wisconsin, where it took off with some kind of loading, maybe nanothermic.
So it would burn for seven hours.
They couldn't put it out.
So it would completely destroy all the components and no one would be able to prove how it had been done.
Gets rid of the evidence.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, well planned, small op, white van, just a couple men crew, you know, with a weapon.
But getting the plane into the kill zone was a key.
It was when a pilot who'd been flying east told me how he'd come out of the clouds and he was two miles south of where he should have been that we realized it was manipulating the GPS and done.
Nobody thought it could be done at the time.
Well, that's part of what the Ukrainians are doing.
I think to combat the hypersonic missiles from Russia, they blast signals up there to jam it and jam the and distort the coordinates company coming down to the missile so that as it moves around, it loses track on the target.
So it'll blow up in the field somewhere.
Does that make sense?
Sure, sure, sure, sure.
Yeah.
I do.
I do think the hotspots have calmed down at least temporarily.
Venice way, like as Russia gave them the S-400 and the anti-ship missiles.
Iran, because Russia gave them the anti-missile and China sold 124 top-line jets, and Ukraine, because they have just systematically destroyed the Ukrainian army, which is giving up in droves.
So it had three major hotspots, each with a potential launch of nuclear war appear to be calming down.
Does that compart with your assessment?
Yeah, I just wish the Ukrainian war would kind of stop a bit and that Gaza would stop.
And, you know, we'd stop wars.
I mean, wars should not be the way to resolve issues.
Okay.
Yeah.
Diplomacy is the best way to resolve issues.
I mean, look at, look at what, look at what Russia is giving up.
Look at Ukraine, they're losing their future.
Their future is their younger populations and so on.
I mean, it's bad for both parties.
I mean, I just oppose war, period.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Because I was in the, you know, I was in the army from 1965 to 1969.
And I was at NSA most of the time.
And I watched this stuff in Vietnam.
And I don't know if I told you this, but we knew the Tet Offensive was coming two months in advance.
And we knew it was going to run from the, we didn't know the name of it, but we knew the attack was going to run from the DMZ down to the Delta, the whole length of North South Vietnam.
Yeah.
And the only people who were ready, I mean, all of this was reported to the generals down there in the Pentagon and also in Vietnam.
And the only people who were ready or prepared for an attack when it came were ASA Army Security Agency.
That's what I was part of in the Army, Army Security Agency.
There was the part of the NSA-CSS, the CS Combined Security Services, the military, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard components, you know.
Yeah.
So we knew that was coming.
And at the time, a friend of mine was a colonel, had an ASA battalion on the road from Saigon to Cambodia, which was the major point of attack by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong because it was the border area between two divisions.
Okay, that's the standard military.
You hit between the orders or the zones of control so that they have to decide between them who's going to respond and how much and how.
Potential forty percent of his men in the trenches 24 hours a day for a month and a half, I think it was.
Wow.
That was a lot of fun.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure it was.
But when they were attacked as the point of major point of attack along the line, they stopped them cold and they lost one man on the first day.
That's it.
Incredible.
Yeah, something like 800, you know?
That's incredible, Bill.
I know, but that should have been the story across all of South Vietnam.
Sure, sure.
But it wasn't because you had the intel, they just didn't act on it.
Yeah.
And these generals, well, because they, I call it the arrogance of power.
Yes.
You know, you think you have so much power, nobody can challenge you.
Nobody's going to do anything.
You know, if they ever come up, we'll just blow them away, you know?
And that just proves how stupid that kind of mentality is.
And I bring that all on people like Westmoreland and all the generals underneath him.
The U.S. is a lot of that, Bill.
A lot of that.
I mean, first of all, you know, I challenge even why the hell we were there in the first place, because of them Lyndon Baines Johnson saying, oh, yeah, this destroyer was attacked in the Tonkin Gulf.
No, it wasn't.
Even the captain said it wasn't attacked.
Yeah.
For God's sake.
You know, so we're in a war that we shouldn't have been.
And not paying attention to intelligence, getting our people killed and killing a hell of a lot of other people for nothing.
Yeah, yeah.
That was part of his payoff to the military for participating in whacking Jack.
I'm sorry to say.
Well, they withdraw all our forces from Viet Mam by the end of 1964.
Yeah.
Well, that's what he didn't want to be there.
Yeah.
I was in Marine War 62 to 66, so we overlapped.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, which became the military-industrial intelligence congressional banking company.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know, and think tank.
All these think tanks are part of it too.
Right.
That's why you can't believe a damn thing they say.
How much is the U.S. economy a war economy, Bill?
We hear this all the time.
Is it real or a myth?
How much of it?
Yeah.
Well, that's a directly, I think it's probably at least a trillion, right?
At least a trillion.
What percentage of the economy, you know, but that multiplies without war?
If you lose the multiplying effector after that, it's probably, you know, five to six trillion.
You know, a problem with the multiplying effect with military equipment is that it doesn't reach out to non-military organizations because it's so specialized.
Yeah, but it keeps going.
We got tires, robbery, you got upholstery.
Yeah, yeah, all of that.
Those have real multiplier effects that benefit the whole economy in a far more comprehensive way.
But the military, it's all very specialized, very narrow.
A very narrow group gets very, very rich.
Very rich.
Yep.
Well, I mean, that's why they have to have all these wars continue.
I mean, that's the point.
You need a perpetual war to keep feeding this organization you've created.
How much could we prune away and still be viable?
Do you think?
I mean, I'm including.
Let me put it to this way.
If I took the case in point, the Sinthrid program that I did with John, with Ed Loomis for just a little over $3 million to try to do the equivalent and fail, they spent $8 to $12 billion.
Yeah.
That's over, that's several thousand times.
So how much could you, I mean, if you had people who knew what they were doing, directing, if they had to hire people to come in to do it and couldn't do it internally, fine.
They need more effort.
That's fine.
But you need people who know what they are doing, what to do, directing them.
I always had level of effort contracts.
I bought their time to do coding for me or bending wires or putting stuff together or whatever, or shipping things around the world.
You know, anything that had to do with the development of the intellectual property involved in finding and doing and executing jobs internally in the software, I did.
And I needed, I needed programmers who knew how to program in a code level and certain code languages to get in to do that.
I would lay out the logic, you know, a logical diagram of the flow, a computer programming flow, and then they would code that.
And so that's, and it was all done on level of effort.
That means I buy your time, whatever your time is, that's what I pay you.
I don't do this.
When you get into these fixed price contracts, that's a great one for industry because they can say, wow, this is what we can do it for, but we're going to make that two or three times the amount because we need to make it expensive because we're saying we need to tell them it's really complicated.
You know, it's really hard to do.
And we're probably only one of the ones in the world who can do it.
And by the way, if anybody says they can do something otherwise, we're already doing it too.
So don't worry about it.
We got it covered.
And what happens in the end?
They fail.
Right.
I used to, my first cut at figuring out what the vision statement for industry and working with the government was, like their first, my first construct of their vision statement was aim low and miss because everything they tried to do, they didn't succeed at.
They only got part of it done.
But then I found out later from one of the guys from SAIC, a vice president, came, was hired into NSA to manage the transition programs, multi-billion dollar programs for NSA.
And of course, a lot of the programs went back.
The contracts went back to SAIC.
Why?
Because he was a vice president, came in to manage them and he sent them back.
But he told the contractor I had, where I bought his time, level of effort, to do this NTRED program, right?
He had to be a part of that because that was the only program that could handle massive amounts of data inside NSA.
No other program could do that.
And yet they were saying it couldn't scale and everything downtown talking to Congress.
That's why the industry wanted to get rid of our program.
They were lobbying Congress to get us canceled.
Have you ever heard of that?
Jesus.
That sounds like a crime to me.
Totally corrupt.
Yes.
And so when they did that, why we were left with having our contractor taken away to do work for this SAIC plant inside NSA.
And what he told my contractor was, don't embarrass big companies.
You do your part.
You'll get your share.
There's plenty for everybody.
And we can milk this program for 15 years.
Milk the program for 15 years at the tax fair expense.
Yes.
Yes.
Megan corruption.
And you know what happens in between when you don't have the intelligence that it can produce and you can't stop threats?
People die.
Yeah, you're totally vulnerable.
Yeah.
I mean, they still haven't recovered from that.
Most military contractors are viewed as producing substandard or defective equipment so they can get maintenance contracts and double or triple their profits over time.
Yep.
Deliberately.
That's the long-term plan.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I couldn't stay there.
I was trying to get out there to get with Ed Loomis and Kirk Weeby and try to do a company and just show how you could really do it and do it cheaply as opposed to expensive.
So when you get back to the to the Pentagon's budget, how much could you save in it?
I would say at least half, at least easily 50%.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You must have been a thorn in their side, Bill.
You're staying between them and gigantic prophets.
Well, they're getting them.
I'm out of the game, right?
I have no influence.
I mean, I keep telling them, I keep saying on Truth Social, here's how you should do this, you know.
And do they do that?
No.
Or they claim they do that, but they don't.
You know, I mean, if they were, if they were applying the principles that you and I discussed on one of your previous programs, if they were doing it and say, like they say they are, then the FBI would not have 270,000 violations of the Fizz laws.
Yeah.
That's obvious.
That's an obvious giveaway that they're not applying the principles and definitions and layout of the logic that I was talking about with you on your other program.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Well, see, you'd make a great inspector general for all these ops, Bill, but they don't want you because you're honest.
Yeah.
And they're interested in money.
They don't give a shit about ethics.
I just was concerned about people getting hurt all around the world, you know?
Yeah.
Not just here, it's everywhere.
And you get into wars like, you know, like you do in Ukraine or into Gaza or something like that.
And, you know, it's just, it's just.
The Israelis want all the Palestinians dead.
The Zionists, the supremacists, they want them all dead.
Netanyahu, Ben-Gir, all these others, cats, they just want them all dead, Bill.
It's got nothing to do with morality.
They have no respect.
They don't give a damn.
They're just exercising raw power.
Brutally, that was my assessment of the U.S. military in 1969, 68 and 69, when I got out of the military.
I was saying, all we are to them after the TED offensive is just meat on the line.
Yeah, plenty of meat.
Just throw the meat up there, let it get butchered.
You know?
So I said, this is not for me.
I mean, a lot of the guys in military, they were trying to do the right thing.
They're good people, you know.
But man, the orders and stuff you had to do was just corrupt from the top down.
So I couldn't stay in the military.
If it was an honorable place to work and stay, I would do that, but I couldn't, you know.
Well, and NSA succumbed to, right?
I mean, they all did, yeah.
I don't see any branch of government that's a bastion of integrity as you've already employed not even the Supreme Court for crying out loud.
Yeah.
Yep.
Well, I mean, we got this great blueprint.
It's called the Constitution, but we massively violate, ignore, compromise, contradict.
It's embarrassing, you know.
You're talking idealistic and believe in America, but it's so far removed from the reality, you wonder if you're just being fooled deliberately.
Is it just a con job?
Well, that's why some of the World War II veterans, the ones that are left, have been saying publicly, you know, what have we, what did we fight for back then?
We didn't fight for this thing we have today.
Yeah.
Well, we're fighting for the Constitution and the principles in the Constitution, you know?
Yeah.
That's what they were doing.
That's why I was doing the best I could there, too.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And if you need those principles, they're really great.
I mean, they still are good.
I mean, there's nothing wrong.
I mean, who wouldn't agree that everybody should have the freedom to do things on their own and the freedom of speech and freedom to pursue happiness and stuff like that?
I mean, without interference.
And whenever a government does act, they should have probable cause to do so.
Yes.
And, you know, it's all built in.
And of course, when it's like combat, you're actually fighting for your fellow man.
I mean, the guy in the foxhole beside you, you know, it's got little to do with the ideals and principles of America, which we're, which we're en masse violating grossly by even being there in the first place.
Right.
And yeah.
Yeah.
And even internally here, we're violating them here inside the United States.
Yes.
I mean, that's pathetic.
Yes.
Well, the FBI is a joke.
The FBI is a caricature of a law enforcement investigative agency.
A joke.
It's a joke.
It's embarrassing, Bill.
The developments every day just reinforce incompetence and corruption of Washington, D.C. We're buried up to our eyeballs.
It's unreal.
But even so, you know, if you looked at the organizations, where are the people inside the organizations?
Do they have any backbone or any belief in the things that they really signed up for as, you know, originally?
Yes.
I mean, where are they?
What are they doing?
Well, they're all hiding.
You're not saying anything.
Yeah, then you got the Peter Strzoks and Lisa Peaser out there that are Benoit Trump.
I mean, was it because they don't like his politics?
Yeah.
It's just grotesque.
A lot of truths seem to be coming out these days about all these issues.
It's been said that 2025 is a year of revelation.
I think it may be.
Well, it should be.
Yeah.
Keep in mind that every time they think they are going to lose data or information, I'm here to tell you they're not because that data is stored somewhere.
Right, right, right, right, right.
So, and there are ways to get to it and ways and means of figuring out what's in there and what's important to look at and who is involved.
And not just here in the United States, but around the world.
Bill, you solved that problem 30 or 40 years ago for a minute.
I know.
And they had when Hayden said if we'd have had the connect the dots thing, we could have stopped 90, he already had it.
Yeah.
You know what he told Diane Rourke after she was in there talking to him?
He said, he told her, he said, you know, this program just keeps getting better and better as time goes on.
Well, guess what?
The more data you have, the more you resolve, the better picture you have of what you're looking at.
He was talking about getting better.
He just didn't understand how it worked.
Total information awareness.
Yeah.
That was, and that's what I said back then.
In 2013, I think what they did was they pushed Poindexter out there in 2003 with this total information awareness program.
Right.
He was proposing.
But he wasn't proposing that.
He was being thrown out there to see what the reaction would be because they were already doing it inside NSA with the program I developed.
So they re-designated terrorist information awareness.
Well, terrorists.
They changed the program, just the name.
But it wasn't just the terrorists.
It was everybody.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't think the world has begun to catch up with the capabilities that you devised.
Well, I don't think the world has.
When I found out what they were doing, Jim, I stopped doing anything that I was planning on doing.
Yeah.
I had so many plans with this program to do automated analysis of everything, you know, all the way through targeting of every in every criminal activity and every threat in the I was prepared to say, here's a real threat from this, from the Russians or not, you know, and so on like that, as well as criminal activity.
Or the cartels, what have you.
It was like automating analysis of the data, not just collection of it and sessionizing, but automating the analysis of it and building the networks and relationships and things like that.
But I stopped that because if you could imagine, right now they have the ability to collect all the data, store it and search it.
But it has to, any analysis of it has to be done manually after that.
So, I mean, they have limited programs to sort things out for them, but it gets to be huge piles and it takes a lot of time and effort for an analyst to go through it.
And once they find something to report, they have to stop and write the report.
And then, you know, all that time is taken up and then they're back to the same day.
They never catch up.
And this is written about internally in the agencies too, GCHQ, MI5, NSA.
And Snowden published some of the internal memos.
You know, he had them and they published them where they were saying they're buried by data.
They can't figure anything out because there's too much data.
They're saying it to their own manager.
What are their managers doing?
Oh, what they do is they take the problem and they break it into parts.
Oh, I'm going to put the analysis of the internet over here.
I'm going to put the analysis of the phone calls over here.
And I'm going to put the analysis of the metadata over here.
And then somebody's going to report it.
Well, that's three different parts of the same problem.
And each one gets to look at one third of the problem.
So what are they going to deduce?
They have an, as I would say, an integrating factor problem.
Like that elephant problem, right?
The mind feeling different parts of an elephant, trying to figure out what they got there.
But what it does, but what that does, though, is, oh, I'm a manager, not just of one person or one organization.
I got three organizations on.
That means I need to be a higher level manager.
So I create my empire, right?
Eight more, of course.
Yes, yes.
Am I right?
Snowden wasn't actually a threat to America.
He was just pointing out problems we had here that we weren't dealing with.
Yes.
Yeah.
And making it obvious so that it couldn't deny it.
Yeah, that's true.
I mean, he really didn't.
There wasn't anybody in the world that didn't think we were already doing that anyway.
Yeah.
Nobody who had the mind to deal with this issue at all.
Yeah.
Yes.
If they were plugged into the local wall socket with power, yeah, they knew they were being watched.
So, I mean, there was no surprise to them.
That didn't change what they were doing.
I said on one program when I was being taught, when talking about this, I said, well, you know, look at it this way.
If the bad guys that take the terrorists, if the terrorists see that we're watching them and collecting everything they've got, then they may stop using the internet to communicate.
Well, they and the phone network.
So they don't communicate internationally.
So that means they can't organize an international attack or organize anything across boundaries at any distance, right?
So that means they lose, we win.
If they communicate across that, then we get them.
We can figure out what they're going to do if we were doing it smartly, but we're not, right?
If we get that data, then we find out what they're doing and we can stop them.
So that means they lose, we win.
So what do you mean?
Which way would you like it?
They lose, we win, or we win, they lose.
You know?
Yeah.
So what effect did that have?
Zero total corruption?
Yes, or incompetence, I mean, my guess it's a mixture, but it's, it's mostly uh, it's mostly power.
I, I say three words, govern what they do, power, control and money.
Yeah right power, control and money, and that's always been a human problem.
Yes yeah, all the way back to the Egyptians and and the Mongols and uh, you know, down through history, you know historical perspective.
Yes nice nice, nice.
Can anything be done, bill?
I mean, is it too late?
Are we lost?
I mean I, sometimes I feel like we've already fallen over the edge and it's, we're in free.
Well, let's put it this way, it could be, it can be fixed.
It can be fixed, it can be purged.
You can use the same principles, devise a purging program to purge all the databases of all the agencies, of anything that's illegal uh, or any, and discover all the corruption involved in the process doing that.
But uh, that can be done and you can reduce the problem to only relevant data that's supported by probable cause, in which case that's rely, that's legal and it should be known and open, openly known, and what they're doing and who's, and and that they are doing this.
This is the data we're doing, this is how we're doing it.
It's all legal and this.
These are the.
This is the criteria.
You know, and here's the we reason we say this is probable cause.
We justify that.
We justify everything we're saying is probable cause, and we have coordination with the courts and the Congress and everybody knows and the public.
Yes so, and if you do that, why?
Yes, we can fix that because once you do that, they don't have the data that they can use to to violate the laws or anybody's privacy, or the data wouldn't be there.
And then you have to ensure that they don't go around trying to get other data from, and that's one of the things I would say.
You start passing laws to ensure that companies don't do it and you don't give companies retroactive immunity, like they did in 2008 for all the crimes they've been committing about violating the privacy laws, about privacy laws of, and the privacy of of U.s citizens or anybody really yeah, you don't want.
You don't want irrelevancies in the database to waste the time of your analysts looking for threats.
You don't want that in your database.
You don't want it period, because it makes them dysfunctional.
That means you fail to do the intelligence problem.
You become then just that they are right now they're a forensics organization.
When the crime's committed, they find out who did it and they search all the data that they have on them back retroactively, analyze and say, oh yeah, we knew all this about them.
Well yeah, but you didn't stop them from killing people.
Once you excuse past offenses, you incue, encourage future, I mean.
And on a larger scale yeah, they got to get out of jail free card.
Yep, and that's why I Brain blamed all of this on Jerry Ford and why I didn't vote for him.
I voted for the peanut farmer.
Yeah.
The reason was because he pardoned Nixon, who was up on charges going to go in court for spying on U.S. citizens, the equivalent of NSA, CIA, and FBI.
NSA was an internet program, CIA was the chaos program, and FBI was co-intel pro.
They were all spying on U.S. citizens with no probable cause, only because they opposed the war, the Vietnam War, or, you know, they objected to policies of Nixon.
So, but that meant it's a violation of the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment, the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth, because when they prosecute these people, they were using data again acquired through the NSA and FBI and CIA for illegally tapping them.
And, you know, it just gets worse and worse.
So, and from there, once he pardoned him, what that said to every president after that, and he figured he had to do it because he wanted to be able to do anything he wanted to do that he saw was needed at the time, even if it violated laws, which Nixon did.
So, what he did then was pardon him, and that told every president from there on: you have a get out of jail free card.
It's the next president because he's going to want to be able to have the latitude to do whatever he thinks is necessary.
Yeah.
And, you know, that just sets the stage for perpetual criminality.
Yes.
And the road to perdition was paved by the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He actually had the integrity, Bill, to do the right thing.
He was seeking to do the right thing on multiple fronts, which is why he was taken out.
Yeah.
That's right.
No, I agree with that.
Grim.
I mean, this kind of activity is still continuing.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Can you believe putting a bounty on Maduro's head when he's the leader of another?
I mean, we had three presidents, Carter, Reagan, and Ford, all signed executive orders against the assassination of foreign leaders.
That got W into trouble when he took out Saddam Hussein.
That's why they couldn't have the mission accomplished celebration on the USS Lincoln off of San Diego.
I think Rumsfeld figured it out that if he announced they got Saddam, then he'd be saying he'd violated the law, which of course he had.
So they dug up a body double.
They put him on trial.
They pretended the whole thing was such a fraud.
Bill, it's just awful.
American horrors abroad is just boundless, boundless.
I think the other nations of the world are marshaling in a collaborative way to rein us in.
And I say, thank God about time.
Yeah, and then we have to start building more military bases overseas.
Insane.
$500 million base in Gaza?
Give me a break.
What's going on here?
And then Trump interfering, you know, saying to the president of Israel should pardon that Yahoo as notorious a war criminal as ever existed in the history of man.
I just worry.
I just worry.
You know, American people, I'm afraid, are the most gullible the world has ever known as a large population.
Well, you see, I thought it was a design program decades ago.
You know, they started this, uh to dumb down the population yeah, and through the educational system.
Dumb it down yeah, and then and then uh, and then bombard them daily through the control of the media yeah, with messages that indoctrinate them to think a certain way.
Yeah, you know, and it's just uh Like we're the only good guys in the world.
Everybody else is bad.
Doesn't matter how many of them we kill.
It doesn't matter what we do.
We're still doing the right thing.
You know, I just don't, I just can't see that anymore.
I just, this has been a more of a left-wing program since the 50s, really.
Yeah.
Fluoride turns out to be a neurotoxin, kills brain cells, which do not regenerate.
I mean, there's so many converging.
And now the system is overwhelmed by all these immigrants.
They got like 50 different languages in public schools.
How can you deal with that?
You cannot.
It's guaranteed to fail.
Guaranteed to fail.
So I don't know how we survive as a nation, as a culture.
I'm very pessimistic.
Well, I mean, and that's the same true.
This is a global issue, really, you know, because it's what's happening.
It's what's happening in Europe across the, I mean, when I saw them convert to the Euro, that was the first thing.
I thought that was, that was pretty, I didn't think they should do that because, you know, the currency of a country kind of reflected the history of that country.
Yeah, yeah.
And, you know, marvelous, marvelous pranks.
And it was fascinating.
I loved European culture when you had all these distinct little nations in each one.
So precious.
So precious.
Yeah.
And then they, and then they blasted that away with this one currency.
Yeah.
And that was just the start of it.
Yeah.
And then they start the influx of the globalists start the influx of people coming in.
And now you don't have, you're losing your culture.
I mean, if you looked at London or Paris or Vienna or any of the other major cities around the world, I mean, in the Western world anyway, they're changing because of this global migration.
I think whites in the UK are already minority.
I mean, I've been to London seven times, my favorite city, but I'm telling you, I think London, I think England is lost.
Yep.
I mean, they should do what exactly what Trump is trying to do with the illegal immigrants.
Kick them out.
Yeah.
You think it's possible to reverse?
I'm very, very troubled.
But it takes a lot of, it takes a lot of willpower and muscle to do it.
You have to have the power behind you and the ability to do it.
And then the policing agencies and so on to be able to do it.
But you have to have the intelligence to identify exactly how to solve the problem.
You espouse it, but I don't see anyone in the current government with that capability bill.
No, they don't.
They think the problem is so big.
I thought this whole business of spying on the entire world and looking at every transaction in the world, banking and all that, even down to the penny transactions, that was a finite problem, a simple, finite problem.
I mean, I didn't, I didn't, and how to envision that way of dealing with it is also a simple problem.
But it's a matter of having the proper way to look at it, so to speak.
You know, for example, I think I told you the story when I started this, how to figure out or how to construct the entire telephone network, social networking in the telephone network or any other network in the world.
Yes.
I proposed that in early 1997.
And I brought together, because of my, I was a technical director there of the analysis area, I brought people in from about 30 people from all over the agency in all different groups working all the problems of the world.
And I said, look, this is what we're going to do.
We're going to put together this thing and, you know, be able to see the networking and social network of anybody on the planet.
And the first question, it wasn't a question.
It was a kind of a statement.
This one person said, you can't do that.
I said, the combinations of that are just two, are just infinite.
You can't, we'll never be able to see through it.
You know?
And I said, wait a minute, think of it this way.
If in any instantaneous point in time, the numbers of atoms, atoms, mind you, in the universe are finite.
This is a much smaller problem, an infinitesimal of higher order of that.
You know, it's an infinitesimal.
Now you can get your mind around it.
Now, now you can solve it.
But to start out by saying the problem is infinite, I mean, you know, you need to defeat yourself from the beginning.
Right.
Absolutely.
But that's exactly what I told them.
And I just went ahead and did it anyway, because obviously I wasn't going to get any help from them.
They didn't know what they were doing.
Or they felt they were defeated from the very beginning.
That was a bad, bad attitude.
Not the way to look at it.
Well, Bill, let me say, I appreciate it, intelligence, especially geniuses.
It's been a glorious conversation.
I cannot thank you enough.
Really, truly wonderful, just sensational.
All these things are achievable, Jim.
And all we have to do is get the powers that exist to realize it and say, okay, we're going to do it.
Yes.
So that they use the right human resources.
It's solvable.
Easily.
Wonderful, Bill.
This is Jim Tetze, your host of this real deal, a special interview with Bill Benny.
On behalf of Bill Benny and Catherine Horton under fire, this has been quite a fabulous conversation.
▲
Export Selection