All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 27, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:04:37
REAL DEAL SPECIAL (25 November 2025): Bill Binney & Katherine Horton UNDER FIRE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's Jim Vetzer.
Welcome to Real Deal Special Report continuing our ongoing series of interviews with Bill Benny and Catherine Horton under fire, Bill.
You're looking fit as a fiddle, my friend, on this Thanksgiving Eve.
I'm very pleased to have a chance to talk again.
Something on your mind I know you'd like to get across.
Well, I keep trying, you know, Jim, to get across to the government as to how they could find all the bad players in the agencies and fix, actually, actually, you know, find all these dope smugglers and everything all around the world if they want to do it smartly.
But, you know, even if it gets through to them, they absorb it later after I die or something, and then they start to fix it, you know, they can take credit for it.
That's okay.
But the point is they need some way of maintaining the fixes they put in place and the ways of verifying and validating what everybody in these agencies are doing, you know, so that they can see that they're still conforming with the Constitution, the laws, and they're doing what's proper and right.
Yeah.
And not swindling money out of, you know, different accounts and different agencies and just making things so much more expensive than they really have to be or doing things to drag out programs so they can, quote, as they put it, milk these programs for years.
I mean, that's the way they put it internally.
And when I was working on it, that's the way the contractors looked at it.
Don't go too quickly, don't fix it too quickly, because we need to draw it out so we can get more money.
You know, but once you put some fix in place, the only way to ensure that it keeps going and continues after you leave office, basically, is to have those, and we talked about this before on one of your shows, look at the network logs of all of the agencies of the government and have an automated analysis of those logs ongoing daily as things are done,
because the network log contains the entries of everybody moving money around, you know, moving people around seeing all kinds of activities of the how your analysts analyze data, what data they look at, how much data you have, what programs are succeeding, what are failing, how much you're wasting or spending on them.
And you could follow all of that and automatically recover and see all of it happening as in near real time, basically.
So that so that, I mean, it's just a matter of parallel processing all of these different network logs.
And then once you do that, you can ensure that people in succeeding administrations do not violate the laws or the constitution or any other problems in the government.
You can detect them all and alert everybody immediately.
And in the process, what it means is you don't alert just one particular path.
You tell it to many paths.
The judicial path, the Department of Justice path, the Congress, everybody gets to know all at once that this is happening so that nobody can stop it from being known.
And if you put something in place like that, it can ensure the continuation of the programs that you put in place.
If you don't do that, you don't have, you know, and you have to have it backed up by people to go along and afterward and ensure that what is being done and discovered is correct and verified so that you can validate it and take it to court if you have to.
Bill, you've been proposing this agenda for around 30 years now.
And you no success.
And what that tells me, the government is so thoroughly corrupt, they do not want to have the rule of law.
They want to be able to pick and choose actions that are going to benefit themselves or cronies or group, whatever, willy-nilly, without risk of exposure.
You represent transparency and exposure.
Yeah, and there's nothing they could do about it either because it would happen automatically.
Yes.
Yeah, that's the genius of the plan.
It actually would work automatically.
Yeah.
And it would do everything all at once, too.
It's not a problem.
Scaling is not a problem.
It's a matter of just adding more processors.
That's all.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think what you're up against is a corrupt state.
I think it's a property of humanity when they get into those positions, you know, they just become power corrupts.
Yeah.
Well, that and money, you know.
And it's just sad that that has to be a case.
I mean, you're a living litmus test, Bill.
And the fact that you have such a clear, simple, straightforward proposal that would work, but you've been resistant means they don't want to do it.
They don't want to do it.
They told me that right to my face clearly.
You are never going to do this program.
That's exactly what they told me.
But I didn't tell them, Joe, Jim.
I was putting the program together in my thin thread program as I was going on.
I never told them anything about it.
I was looking at everybody who came into my network, looking at the blog, seeing where they went, what they like, because I wanted to know what they were interested in.
What concerned them about what I was doing, you know?
Boy, could I tell it right away?
You know, I could see these people coming in.
I saw exactly where they went, what they did, all of that, you know?
Well, see, the problem is, Bill, you're not only intellectually superior, you are also morally integrated.
And you're dealing with people who are neither.
And they don't want exposure.
They don't want to be caught.
They don't want to be punished.
They don't want to pay for their sins, which are far more than ordinary vices.
I mean, we're talking about looting the people, you know, all kinds of.
I mean, Epstein is a little microcosm of what's going on on a massive scale in the U.S. government.
I mean, that was for the benefit of Israel.
These are powerful agents within the United States who want to.
Yeah, but this is actually a worldwide issue, too.
Yeah.
Is that a thought?
If this could be implemented really anywhere on a scale, it would work so well, Bill.
Yeah.
I mean, you've utterly convinced me.
I haven't any doubt about it.
I mean, it's not that hard if you just stop and think about it, you know, as long as you know that everything that everybody does internally in the government or even in the private industry, that when they have network logs, everything they send down the line is recorded and it's there for a period of time, you know, wherever much storage they have, they can put the log, you know?
So the point is that it's there to retroactively analyze, but you can also do it.
And there's no problem in doing it in near real time.
I mean, by near real time, I mean within a minute or so, you know.
Like, for example, if they had that program I proposed back in 1992 operating in NSA and around the world for their network logs, Snowden could never have done what he did because as he started downloading within a minute, everybody would know, you know?
So it's just, I don't know, I just have a problem with the way people treat when they get into government and get into senior executive positions.
They just, I guess it's the same kind of thinking that the intelligentsia on the coasts have.
About everybody between the coasts is inferior and intellectually subhuman or something.
I don't know.
Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely right.
Well, you know, I mean, there have been occasions when I've run into corruption head on, but it was on a minuscule scale.
You're talking about wholesale.
Yeah, yeah.
Talking about a complete government.
So, you know.
Well, I mean, but exposing them all, too.
I mean, look, the lower ranks, you know, in the government, when you first come in, you try to do the best you can.
And over time, you get, I call it a cloning process.
You know, they kind of clone you to think the way they want you to think as you move up in rank.
So it kind of conditions you as to the ways and means to get to get ahead in the government structure.
You know?
Yeah.
Yes, to get ahead in the government structure.
Yeah.
Anyway, we should be thankful for a lot, but we could have been thankful for a heck of a lot more.
I mean, we didn't have to have the problems that we did.
We still don't.
We still don't.
And I'm fearful the situation is only getting worse.
Yeah.
I mean, even Trump, in whom we've had so much confidence, seems to me to be falling woefully short.
Well, I think he's getting some bad technical advice from technology people.
Yeah.
And I think also, you know, I'm not so sure about the military.
I think, you know, some of them may be pushing the wrong buttons, so to speak.
It seemed to me as people like you and Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who ought to be his advisors.
He ought to be consulting with you.
Well, but, you know, I think there's so many people after I started talking about what they were really doing for the last 20-some years.
Yeah.
The first seven, I stayed in the proper channels, the inspector generals and the intelligence committees.
Right.
And it only got me almost indicted three separate times for doing the proper thing, you know?
Yeah.
And exposing criminals, you know?
Yes.
That's what you get for trying to follow the law and defending the Constitution.
Isn't like having my books banned and being sued for telling the truth about Sandy Hook.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
I mean, I don't understand why having on any side, anybody can ask a question or have a question about an event or something that's visible or tangible to see.
What's wrong with the questions?
Nothing.
Yeah.
I think it's a proof they don't like.
Yeah.
Yeah, they have certain agendas that they feel they want it to be this way, and they don't, there is no other way.
Now, scientifically, that's kind of a closed-minded.
It's like you're a horse, you got blinders on, you know.
This is our path.
Yeah, we're going to stay on this path no matter what, right?
I mean, history is full of governments, of militaries, and so on who did exactly that.
They stayed on one path, and that it led to disaster for them.
So, I mean, you know, it's that you have to at least be able to consider that you might not be right, you know, you might be wrong, and you have to look at everything that's out there to make sure that you're still on what is the best path.
The point is following the best path based on the evidence that you can assemble.
That's all.
Yes, yes, yes, I do agree.
I've always been open to input from any source, you know.
Well, I think you have to be.
Otherwise, you know, it's otherwise you're not getting, you're not, you're not really going to be on the best path because you have to be that way to find out what's really going on.
Agree completely.
Like, in even in even in mathematics, I was giving talks at Cambridge in the mathematics department there.
Yes.
And the feedback I got from the people who invited me there to give a talk was on the ethics of mathematics.
On the ethics of mathematics?
Yeah.
I'm fascinated.
I got to hear this.
Okay.
Well, in there, I was talking about the programs, of course, that I built for NSA and how I had to stand up against them for what the way they were being used.
It was the only ethical thing for me to do.
After all, I created the monster.
I have the, I have, as its creator, I have the, I should have and stand, should stand up and expose it for being used in the wrong way.
Because that's really a monster at that case.
When you do it the wrong way, it's a monster.
Everything you do is like a double-edged sword.
It can be used for good or bad, you know?
But here's the feedback I got from the professors who asked me to give the talk there.
They said the hierarchy in the math department, all of them at the top, the deans and so on, say there is no math, no ethics in mathematics.
There is no ethics in mathematics.
I said, wait a minute, if you use mathematics to create something that becomes an evil beast, you have some obligation to stand up against it.
Yeah, he's talking about the pure mathematics and applied mathematics.
I know he is, but I mean, yeah.
And no matter what you do, ethics is a part of it, no matter what it is.
You know, I can't see where you can't have, you have to have ethics in all of it.
And I found that amazing.
Yeah.
There are these overarching moral principles.
And then as they apply to different domains, you got legal ethics, journalistic ethics, you know.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Government ethics, such as it may be.
Right.
That's right.
But I mean, it's still a part of everything we do, basically.
I mean, yeah, has to do with treating other persons with respect, really, with as of equal moral worth and never using them merely as means, as in robbery, rape, kidnapping.
You're using other people merely, you don't care about their interests or well-being, you're just using them for your own benefit, for your own gain.
Yeah, yeah, just as the Israelis are grossly immoral because they're just using the Palestinians or killing them, slaughtering them.
Their only concern is they're not killing them fast enough, Bill.
Yeah, that's the only person I think I saw who came out publicly and uh said the said the right thing was I think the former uh Saudi Arabian uh head of intelligence, their head of intelligence.
After he'd retired, he was retired.
Yeah, and he came out and he uh and he said he he condemns the Hamas for creating the the the for for initiating the attack and slaughtering people, innocent people.
And then he also condemns the Israelis for uh overreacting and coming back and and and and doing an equal act kind of slaughtering people.
I mean, that's really why I oppose war.
It's just it just slaughters people for no reason whatsoever.
It's just totally humane and humane.
But October 7th appears to have been contrived, you know.
Yeah, there's a lot of questions about that too.
Yeah, yeah.
And I think more on October 7th were killed by the Israelis, Israeli killing other Israelis and Jews and by Hamas.
You know, the hostages who've come out of Hamas were healthy, they were well-fed, they were appreciative.
Those coming back from Israel, emaciated, more dead than alive, often tortured, raped.
I mean, it totally that's, that's what.
Uh, that's why, you know, if you look down through history and and the way wars or conflicts start it, it starts with the first of all grouping of people into groups, the groups of different religions or different countries or different, you know, different ethnicities or whatever the.
You have a principle grouping people and you have separate groups and they, they start and tend to get into conflict over, you know, over wealth uh uh territory, whatever.
Yeah, but in order to get the common people I mean men mostly and to to be able to go into war and kill other people, which is not, you know most, most men like, wouldn't want to do that to begin with.
But you have to.
What you have to do and what all countries do, is they demonize the enemy, they demonize them to to make them less like Hitler.
What did he call the?
Uh, the Soviets?
He called them animals.
Or he did the same with the Jews, with any, any opposition.
And when I went through basic training in 1965, they were telling us, you know these are, these are animals.
You know they should kill them.
You know, when you get them, I mean, make it easier remorse.
No yeah, that's and that's just uh, and that just leads to just slaughtering people with no, you know yeah, that kind of talking and that kind of conditioning is not.
I mean, that's why people have such a hard time recovering from all that, because it is, you know uh uh, an evil thing to do to can mess with people's minds, get them to do that kind of stuff.
Yes yes indeed, absolutely 100 yeah.
Well, I think your case really is so illuminating about the profundity of the corruption of our government.
And they tell you to your face, we're not going to do that because it would imply they would expose us as criminals ourselves.
Yep.
And you may have the rope.
We're not going to let you hang us when actually they were saying, we're not going to hang ourselves and let you do that.
You know, that's the key.
Yeah, I agree.
It's just crazy.
But anyway, there's so many different, I mean, I have never, in government, I've never really experienced anything except anytime I had an idea, I wanted to do something, I would start proposing it.
And I would get all kinds of opposition from all sides.
So I basically formulated the way I was going to proceed based on that.
And I said, well, I'm not going to tell anybody what I'm going to do until I do it.
And then when it's done, I'll tell them here it is.
So I'm not going to ask for permission.
I'll only ask for forgiveness only if it's necessary.
Yes.
Yeah.
And I said, you know, once you solve the problem, it's not a problem anymore.
That's right.
Excellent.
You know, so I thought they should enjoy the fact that you have a solved problem.
I love it.
Any expansion you want on this eve of Thanksgiving for the benefit of the American people, Bill, what they need to understand about their own government would be most welcome.
Most welcome.
Because you've been my coach and personal.
You have looked the enemy in the face and it is us.
Yeah.
Unfortunately, that's true.
That's unfortunately the case.
I mean, I, you know, every time I try to do positive things and you think they're positive anyway, you think, gee, I would improve things, make things better and everything.
It gets smashed, you know?
Yes.
Get shot at from different things.
What they don't understand, though, is after a while, having, you know, being shot at by so many people from different, from so many different angles, you get so many dents in your armor that another dent doesn't matter, you know?
So then you become almost impervious to that attacks.
You know, you just expect it and you just keep going no matter what.
And you don't pay any attention to them.
And then it gets really bad when you solve something and you didn't tell them and then you pop it out for the world to see.
And then they really get embarrassed.
Yes.
That's happened to me several times.
You know, I had some programs that they said, you'll never be able to do this.
People have tried it.
You know, they put so much money into it and failed multiple times.
And that happened with one program that eventually replaced, I think, about a thousand people in a job.
So, but I did that anyway and didn't tell them.
And said, and then they convinced me to say, we want to join you in doing this.
And let's transfer it over to us and we'll carry the ball from here and you can assist us in the program.
I said, okay.
So I did that.
This was the first time I was going through one of these programs.
And then they started doing a different thing.
And I kept saying, you need to do it this way because, you know, you're missing this aspect of the problem.
And if you don't pay attention to it, you're going to have a pitfall down the road, you know?
But they kept going.
So it told me, I said, I have to pick it up and do it again by myself.
Yeah.
So that's what I did, you know, and we had other people, you know, It's just some in some ways, it's just so sick about how government works these days.
Yes, it is, it's just sick.
I mean, if they talk about, I mean, they're talking about judging things now on merit, not DEI or whatever you want to call it.
Woke crap.
That's a novel idea.
Yeah, right.
Merit, yeah, right.
Gee, I think we all used to do that that way.
I'm, as I remember, everything used to be based on merit.
Yeah, when I got into Pelosi, I was drawing because I thought it was all meritocracy.
Then I discovered there were politics there, too.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Oh, man.
Yeah, then think of the science, the conflict about Aristotle and all, and down through the centuries, right?
Yeah, all the philosophies that were challenged down through the centuries in that way.
So, well, I mean, it's true with any field.
I mean, you have to learn.
The field has to develop and evolve.
So, I guess that's the way every field came into.
You know, there was conflict by people who wanted things going their way, or, you know, they wanted somebody else wanted to go this way.
No, we have to go our way.
But in terms of our government right now, the way they do it now is they try to collect and concentrate all the money onto one program and one path so that they don't expose any other potential opportunities that might be better.
Everything has to be my success on my path.
If I want to, I'll change the path.
And if that works, I still get credit for it.
You see?
Yeah.
You know what I mean?
So I get credit for the solution no matter what, as long as I can control the money and the resources to do something.
But if somebody else gets something like, I think I'm the only person at NSA that was ever given money by Congress by name.
It came in with two and a half million bucks.
I said, here, this is your money to do wild and crazy things.
What?
By name.
So I said, great.
I said, and I started doing wild and crazy things.
And they tried to take the money away from me.
Bad move because it was plus-up money, meant above and beyond the requested budget.
So you don't mess with plutch-up money because that's directed money by Congress, right?
So it costs them twice as much the next budget cycle.
They got the money got refunded, returned, and they got chopped twice that much.
That was a bad thing to do.
What they were doing was trying to stop me from doing something that would make them look like crap.
Yeah.
Which, unfortunately, with our government is not that hard to do.
You got that.
It's just more than error today more than ever.
Yeah.
Unfortunately, that's true.
I know.
We got an FBI director who's a joke.
We got an attorney general who is charming but brainless.
I mean, it's Bill, we're in dire straits.
We got a Secretary of State who used to be a gay hustler as a kid.
I mean, good gravy.
Well, you know, I haven't.
To me, it's really strange as to why we don't have more.
All they had to do was set up a grand jury, set the grand jury in place and say, okay, I'm going to start feeding you all this stuff and just start feeding it to them.
What do we want to prosecute?
And the grand jury makes the decision to prosecute or not.
They had so much evidence on so many people.
Yes, I mean, I don't understand what the problem was of just feeding what you already know.
And if you gain more through Tulsi Gabbard's work, right, finding stuff and making it public or sending it to the DOJ or whatever, then you add that on.
Yes.
It's a matter of that.
Why are we waiting so long?
I mean, for example, people who were, and this was part of my story, well, our story, the guys that left from NSA, Ed Loomis, Kirk Weeby, and me.
We started a small consulting company afterward.
But, you know, because they had outsourced all the concepts to two guys that formed Google, right?
They wanted Google to have all the data.
Like, no, I think it's Palantir.
They're giving all the data to Palantir.
But the point was they wanted a commercial environment, a commercial company, to have all the data so that there's any blame to hold for holding data about U.S. citizens.
It's on the company, not my governmental organization, you know.
But I have access to all that.
So, so because I funded them to get started, and I pay them so much to give me data and support and stuff like that.
So, all that's a part of the budget.
And that's they make a lot of money doing that.
So, so, uh, but the point is that when I came out, I wanted to do, like, for example, I approached Google to do a better query in 2003, where you would get just the data you're asking for, not a whole bunch of other stuff that is irrelevant, but makes money for Google because they advertise anytime they push an advertisement out, they get paid by the company who they're advertising for.
So, the more they pass out, the more money they make.
That's so they didn't want the see.
I looked at their query, and it came in: if you put it, if you put something into quotes, even you want this special, this statement exactly as it is, you'll get it, but you'll also get all the things when they break, they'll break it apart and give you returns on each term in the within the quotes so that you get a so much more, um, so much more data to look at.
That means they get paid more because they're pushing their advertisements out, you know.
So, so they told us back in 2003, no, thank you, we don't need a better query, we're doing just fine with the business plan we have.
Thank you very much, and they made a lot of money with it.
So, but that's the way they wanted to go.
But you can't go that way with intelligence because you have right now, it's still dependent on people to come up with an answer.
And when you do that kind of crap, you pull out so much data, just dump it on these people to try to figure it out.
Well, that's why, that's why, you know, Edward Snowden had all the copies of internal memos from analysts in NSA, GCHQ, MI5, you know, where they were saying we can't see the threat coming because we're buried in too much data.
Or they put title their memo overworked by overload or you know, something like that.
Yeah, words to that effect.
The point was you're just dumping the whole problem on us and expecting us to figure it out and making it impossible for us to succeed.
Well, that's that's why I did the thin thread program back in the 1990s, you know, focusing in on deductive, inductive, and abductive approach to logic to pull out data that's relevant.
Yes, you get a rich environment for your analysts to actually succeed, not dumping the entire planet on them so they can't figure anything out.
Yes, Yes.
Yeah.
Anyhow, in order to do that, though, it cost them a lot of money.
But in the process, you see, NSA and all of them, they deliberately went around making sure that we didn't get any contracts.
And then when we did get contracts, they make sure that we got terminated.
You're an efficiency expert in solving problems, Bill, and that means less money for them.
I mean, they're looking at it the other way around.
They favor inefficiency.
Yes, because it costs a lot of money.
For the taxpayer, it goes into their pockets.
Right.
And it also is a never-ending problem because inefficiency is still inefficient all along.
It doesn't change.
Yes.
Yes.
Like the one thing that guys, the guy, one guy who said about the Trailblazer program, it's one major contractor.
He says we can milk this program for 15 years.
There you go.
See?
Now they love that.
They love that.
Yes.
That makes it perfectly clear.
We're in it for the money in the long term.
They put in a closet and lock the door.
Yeah.
But I mean, you know, I mean, the one problem when I was in it, I was asked to sign off on one problem for the Navy.
It turned out they had spent almost 100 million bucks trying to get two systems to talk to one another, you know, just to get them to interface and work together.
$100 million.
Yes.
And the next ad was for another $150 million to throw at it because they didn't have it working yet.
Okay.
And I said, you spent $100 million on trying to get two programs to work together.
I worked with another guy on getting two systems to interface and we did it in a week, just the two of us.
Yeah.
Just looking at the lines coming down and making sure that they can mesh, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I said, I think I need an audit before I can sign this.
Are you capable of doing this?
You know, because five years and 100 million, you haven't done it yet.
And you want another 150 million?
Give me a break.
Just absurd.
I couldn't sign it.
So they went around and got some other, some other staffer to sign it.
They didn't get me, though.
Sure.
Sure.
By the way, I was never asked to sign off on any other contracts because they knew they would be examined closely.
I mean, it's crazy, I'll tell you.
The way they operate, I mean, it's just insane.
Merit has nothing to do with the way they operate.
And Bill, it's typical.
Yeah, yeah, it's the problem.
I mean, this is SOP.
Yeah, like when I went to CBP and said, here's how you can figure out who's smuggling what and where and go and examine the different containers and boxes in it and find all the contraband.
And I said, it'll probably only give you about 40,000 targets in the first run of the program.
And they said, well, based on my estimate of what I could find from samples.
And they said, well, we only have two ounces here, so we can't handle, we're not going to do that.
I said, wait a minute, you've got thousands of inspectors out there at all the ports of entry.
They're the guys who are going to do it.
And you're telling them this program will tell them where to look.
We're not going to do that.
We don't have enough analysts to handle it.
So they didn't do it.
And they still have the ability to do that.
They're still there.
I mean, you want to find out where all the dope's coming?
Not coming on these little boats here, some of I mean sure, there's some of it there, but the vast bulk is coming in through other transports, you know, and airplanes uh trucks yeah, and and international shipping and stuff like that, you know, and there's, this is a way to do it or get a good chunk of it.
Yeah, they were lying to your face, I mean, obviously they were on the take.
There's any yeah, and it just takes me back to uh, to the Iran-Contra deal when CIA was importing cocaine from South America, on programs Amateus, Pegasus, and Watchtower.
Yeah.
And I think the FBI was involved in that also because they were helping, they were permitting distribution within the United States once the CIA got it here.
And all that money went into black programs, you know, programs they don't even tell Congress about.
Yeah.
Same about foxes and chickens here.
Yeah, that's right.
That's for sure.
I mean, I think, I mean, if the FBI is supposed to be the internal watchdog, I mean, it's just absurd because it's a clown show.
I mean, do you know, after Las Vegas, the FBI's role, they had all these innocent spectators.
I mean, there are like 500 crisis actors, but there are these innocent spectators turning in their cameras and their laptops as evidence of what happened.
The FBI's role, wiping them clean.
They just wiped them clean well to get rid of all the evidence because it was a stage phony fake event.
And if they had too much evidence, it wouldn't have been so obvious.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
Well, the point is: when Reagan said, you know, that Russian term trust but verify, he said, we have to do that.
And I say, we have to do it with our country more than anybody else.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
That's right.
And I'm selling it.
The only way to really verify it is using these network logs and automated processing of all the massive amounts of data and making sure to make sure that the people are doing the right thing.
You can't do it with humans.
There's just too much going on.
There's just not enough there.
Yeah, what's fascinating is that technology makes it possible to do it.
That's right.
It does.
It had heretofore been an insuperable problem, but you solved it because of the technology they refuse to use because it's going to lead back to them.
Yeah, I think I mentioned this one little program I did when I first got a laptop or a PC on my desk in NSA.
Yeah.
It was a 64K RAM two disk drive PC.
All right.
And I got it there and I had to, so I had this, I had this one problem, you know, and I figured out a mathematical solution to it.
And it could handle any possibility that could ever hit it, right?
Anyone.
And I went to a friend of mine who was the best C language programmer there in NSA and I asked him if he could program this logic on that small 64K RAM PC.
And I went through logic with him and he says, sure, I can do that.
I said, okay, let's do it.
So he did that.
And here I had this small PC standalone that could answer, get a correct answer for any of the things that the mainframe databases could not get an answer for.
And that's Eight banks of computers, eight banks, I don't know, six acres of computers, you know, acres of them.
It's almost a whole basement and other buildings, too.
It was crazy.
I mean, but I had this little PC.
Expense, by the way.
Sorry?
At staggering expense.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
We did this in about two weeks.
Two weeks and a, you know, half of his time, maybe at most.
And I was just making sure everything was functioning properly as we went along.
That's all.
So I was only maybe using a quarter of my time at most.
So that's really, say, half a person for two weeks.
Yeah.
That's the cost.
Yeah.
And it beat the entire computer system of NSA.
I love it.
I love it.
That's a great, great story.
And of course, that's the way they're doing it.
They don't like your little laptop.
They don't like elegant solutions to complex problems that are money makers, money men.
That's really the way to analyze what's going on in government.
Where is the money going?
That's right.
And the programs I was doing had no limit in terms of the number of things that could process.
They have no limit.
And so you could file, you could follow every financial transaction, even if it was five cents.
You could follow it simply by account numbers and banks and account numbers and stuff like that.
Love.
Five cents.
Are you well?
Some people are skimming them at that rate.
You know, for every transaction, they'll take a penny or two off.
That's a skimming routine.
You could pick that up.
Yep.
Millions of pennies head up.
Yeah.
Especially if you're at a big bank like Chase, where they have, you know, hundreds of millions of transactions.
Yeah.
This is an aside, but what do you think about discontinuing making pennies?
I think it's a calamity.
I think it's terrible.
Your thoughts?
Well, I, you know, a penny is like the basic unit.
Yeah.
And you're so you're sort of throwing away the basic unit.
Yeah.
Which means you're rounding off all of the all of the pricing and rounding off all of the nickels a new penny.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, it's a tradition.
Galore.
I just see it as catastrophic.
Yeah, I don't know how we're going to handle that one.
Probably it's always going to be rounding up, so you're always going to be paying more for stuff.
Yeah.
And in the long run, you know, however many things you buy, that's going to be how much more you're going to be paying.
That's for damn sure.
That's right.
Yeah.
I don't know where this guy gets his ideas about abolishing the penny.
When I was a kid, of course, I collected pennies, but the point is you are, it's economic.
I remember it used to have those folders, folders where you pull them out, put all the pennies in for the dates.
I was fun.
Hold on here.
I'm running low on my battery, it says.
Sure, Bill.
Let me get my battery plugged in here.
No problemo.
I think that's it.
No, that's not it.
Oops.
Oops.
I need a charger for it.
I'm going to have to go get a charger.
Let me put it on pause.
Hang on a sec.
Okay.
Bye.
Glad to have you recharged, my friend.
Yeah, yeah.
I had the wrong power strip here.
Not a problem.
Not a problem.
Anyway, we certainly do have our problems with our government, and it's been that way for quite some time.
Yes.
And it's only gotten worse over time.
Yeah.
Especially when they when they throw money at them and hold nobody accountable for how they spend the money.
I think post-World War II, things have got dramatically worse.
Yeah, yeah.
It certainly has.
I tell you, I just see in NSA, what they had was they used to have all the skills in one place.
Engineers, you know, programmers and analysts were all in the same area.
So that we were all working on the same problem.
Much like when John Taggart, Dr. Taggart, and I put together the SIGINT Automation Research Center at NSA, we put all of our, all the skills were right there.
We were just, and we, every, every, whenever needed or every, at least once a week, we would have little get-togethers of all the skills that were working on the problems, and we'd all just sit around and talk about where we were and how we were progressing and where the problems were and how to focus on them and fix them.
Yes.
But it gave everybody that perspective of knowing what the objective was for the overall program and who was doing what and what their problems were and how they could interface between each other and work together to solve the problems.
And it made things go so much faster.
And it's a place where everybody knew what was going on and could associate it and try to get their minds around the problems that were involved.
You know, so it's like having an informed working group as opposed to one that's independently rambling along trying to figure out where they're supposed to go.
You created a condition for true collaborative effort.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Multiple minds working on the same problem with the same resources and each making their individual contribution.
Yeah.
And if they had a problem, they said, now, if you over here, if you're in your section, you're doing, if you do this, that'll help me get my problem solved.
Yeah.
That works out a lot better.
Yeah.
So, but I mean, of course, analysis was driving the whole thing, not engineering or not programming.
The analysis part was the driver.
Well, we're talking about reinforces from a different perspective.
Reagan's observation is the government's not the solution.
Government's the problem.
Yeah.
But I think administration's problem solving the government is a problem.
Yeah.
It creates its own internal inefficiencies so that it's more difficult, time consuming, and overwhelmingly more expensive to solve problems.
Yes, but I would say that government can be the solution to the problem, but they have to wise up.
Yeah.
They can't do it the way they're doing it.
Absolutely.
Government should be.
But then we're ideal.
And it can be.
It can be.
That's the problem.
That's the point.
It can be.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know, I should, but it can be.
But Really, it's engineered inefficiency.
I mean, it's all deliberate.
It's by design.
Yeah, yeah.
More resources and make more profits.
I mean, isn't that true, too?
I mean, government, you know, you think of being a non-profit entity, right?
Some think, and I think wrongly, like that the post is losing money, so they want to privatize it.
No, that's a function of government.
It should be funded by the public.
It should perform for the public.
It doesn't matter if it lose money.
It's a public benefit.
Yeah.
And I think there's too much preoccupation with budgets and making money.
And the government isn't there to make money.
The government is there to solve problems.
Yep.
To ensure the national security and protection of the public.
Take health and welfare.
What a calamity.
Yeah.
COVID being the most stunning example in our history.
Yeah, that I mean, when they first started with that COVID crap, the first thing I said, well, they're now violating the long-standing practice for handling infectious diseases.
Yes.
Yes.
Right up front.
That's not a scientific approach.
And there's Fauci out there saying there's a scientist.
What?
Come on.
What are you talking about?
Yeah.
You a scientist?
No scientist would say that.
You know?
And you're thinking specifically of, sorry?
And you're thinking specifically of the non-standard way of handling an infectious disease being mass inoculation or the distancing, social distancing or the mask wearing.
None of that was effective.
And of course, the disease was actually non-existent.
It was a fabrication.
They wanted a problem to solve with a vax.
And the vaccine.
The VAC caused the problems.
Yes.
Yes.
But I mean, the standard way was to isolate the people who were infected and to isolate people who were in their close proximity.
Yes.
That was the standard developed over hundreds of years, I would say, you know, by many, many, many scientists and medical people.
Yes.
And yet, Fauci comes along and pushes this other crap on us.
And he muscles his own people in the NIH to make sure they back him up with money, by the way.
Yes.
And then they were paying the hospitals to classify patients as COVID.
And if they died, claim they died from COVID.
Big box, Bill.
Billions of dollars.
Billions.
Yeah.
I should tell you what happened to me.
You'll get a kick out of this one.
I went in because I was having a stomach, some intestinal problem.
I thought it was some kind of infection or something.
And they said, well, you have to have this COVID test.
So I had to have a COVID test.
So I took the COVID test and they said, well, it came back positive.
So we can set you up with a shot.
I said, no, thank you.
I said, I have an intestinal problem, not a respiratory problem.
And so I'll just continue with my pepto-bismol.
Yes.
And what happened?
Another week or so, my problem went away.
So the next time I go in to see my doctor, I go in and I say, no, you must tell the people in CDC and so on that Pepto-Bismol cures COVID.
I love it.
I love it.
There was no way I was going to take a shot for that crap.
Yeah, thank goodness.
First of all, because I mean, you know, if you know anything about microbiology or any of that stuff, these things evolve so quickly.
Yes.
You know, if a new virus kicks off, you know, in a couple of months, it's a different virus.
Right.
Any shot is for a virus that no longer exists.
Yeah.
And so you end up getting something for something that's already gone.
Yeah.
And so it's pointless.
And all it does is cause some people get reactions.
I mean, some of the stuff that's some of the reactions in the heart and respiratory system are really bad because of that.
You can't believe the horrors that are in those mRNA.
Yeah, yeah.
And who would want to introduce something like that into their into the structures of their cells?
Right.
Right.
And yet it's forced upon food workers, healthcare workers across the nation.
Yeah.
People in education, the school children, they were all forced to take it.
We're only beginning to see the consequences, which are going to be vast.
It's long term.
It's long term.
Over when I estimate 2 billion deaths worldwide will emerge, but it's the evolutionary long term.
They are changing DNA by means of this injection.
Yeah.
How far that'll go is a question.
I think they're estimated at over 32 million deaths because of it.
It's a science fiction horror story.
Yeah, it is.
Again, it's basic.
When you start violating basic discipline, this is the kind of crap that happens.
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
And it all gets back to merit-based stuff, too.
Yeah.
There's no merit to doing it that way.
Yes, but it was profitable.
And if you want to bring about nasty population, highly effective.
Yes, it can.
Yeah.
Yep.
They're really kill shots.
I've heard some estimates that everyone who got the shot is going to die from it, that the reduction in average lifespan because of the shots is already manifested.
That the average lifespan in America has dropped about five years because of the shot wheel already.
I wouldn't doubt that because it, well, they forced what, 60% of the people, at least 60% of the people got the shot.
Yeah, yeah.
And then there's this shedding phenomenon, you know, of whether you are affected by those who took the shot, even if you yourself did not, if you're in close proximity.
Yeah, yeah.
But again, that was the old, the old thing about, you know, quarantining the people who had it and the people who are in close proximity to them to kind of limit the contact of anybody who likely had it or had it, whatever the disease was.
I mean, that's the way they limited the spreading of infectious diseases for hundreds of years.
Yes.
Yes.
And you're absolutely right.
When they weren't doing the right things in the beginning, and there are practically no, they artificially contrived.
In 2019, there were 30 million cases of the flu.
In 20, there were only 3,000.
Why?
Because they reclassified 29,997,000 cases of the fluis COVID.
So they had an instant manufactured pandemic.
Yep.
Grotesque.
Simple semantic gamesmanship to promote a product we didn't need, didn't want, didn't need.
And they had to demonize ivermectin and HCQ in the process because they couldn't have it on emergency use, which didn't require them to list the ingredients.
Well, I mean, when ivermectin first came out, it was called a miracle drug.
Yes.
Yes.
I mean, it used for humans, not animals.
Yes.
And yet they lied about that, too.
Yes.
Absolutely.
Talk about ethics.
Yeah.
Yeah.
This is about as immoral as it gets.
Yeah.
And a lot of people, I mean, for example, Comey in the New York area, when he pushed all that COVID people who had COVID into the elderly homes.
Yeah, Cuomo, Cuomo.
Cuomo, yeah.
And then basically said, you know, you had the barriers they couldn't visit, couldn't visit their relatives as they were dying.
I know.
It was awful, awful, awful.
Inhumane, vicious, political, sadistic, criminal.
And the bottom line is it was all done fundamentally for money.
Yes.
Well, it depopulates.
That's a big agenda.
The great reset, the depopulation program.
They do want half a billion, Bill.
Can you believe Earth with only half a billion?
I don't understand why they want to do that since the virtually all except I think for Africa are all under the are now under the replacement number of children.
You know, they're all down below the replacement level necessary to replace the population they already have.
Right.
So the populations are shrinking already.
Right.
Just by not having more children.
So what's the point of killing everybody?
Can you imagine the idea of replacing all the workers with robots, with automation?
They think this is genius.
If you got rid of all the workers, suppose you got rid of all the population, you had the elite and the robots.
I say that's a failed program.
It cannot endure maybe 50, 100 years maximum, because it's not going to be any way to maintain the robots.
You're not going to have new sources of ideas.
You're not going to have all the human resources necessary to sustain a population.
They think it's their nirvana.
It's going to be their doom, their destiny, their failure, their future.
But they have the money and the resources to bring it about, Bill.
I think they're going to seal their own fate.
Yeah, I put together all of the, you know, the DOD flow charts for all of the logic for building programs for this automation process.
Yeah.
Throughout the whole thing, I mean, I have a flow, logic flow diagram that says, here's all the boxes and things you have to do and how it needs to go from one process to another and so on until you get an answer.
But all the way through that, every step is checked by a human.
Everyone.
Yes.
And that's because you have to, if you, if you start out with a program that creates its own macros to do things, you know, and then well, you have to say, well, is this macro good or bad?
Did it work or didn't it?
You know, and you have to test it and validate it.
Right.
Trust but verify, right?
Right.
Well, it's true what they call AI.
I don't call it AI.
It's because it's a, I call it a capture of human thought and putting it into code, putting the logic into code and executing electronically.
So you do it a lot faster.
But as long as the logic is right, you know?
Yeah.
That's the point.
You have to verify every program that's developed.
So if you have a process running, I mean, the probability of error and of diversion from reality or getting false positives and bad outcomes grows exponentially as these macros are created.
The more there are, the greater the risk.
So what's going on is they've discovered they cannot turn inanimate machines into thinking things.
So they're working the opposite way around, trying to turn human beings into something more like an inanimate machine.
You know, that's why the brain-computer interface.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, there are multi-dimensions to it.
This is another subject for us to explore.
Yeah.
Well, I'm just that's a really bad one because in the end, what you what you as a human being become is just another thing on the network of things.
Yeah, ironically, I've done a huge amount of research in this area.
I founded and edited an international journal called Minds and Machines for 10 years.
And it's still thriving.
But ironically, most of the contributors to the journal favored the computational paradigm that the mind works the same as a computer.
Whereas I was a critic and was explaining why it doesn't.
No, yeah, it doesn't.
Yeah, why it's impossible actually to convert.
Well, the computer goes down this step by step by step.
Here's what it does.
Yeah, yeah.
I want us to explore this in great detail.
And I'm just overjoyed on the evil.
But we could do that with Catherine because she has a lot of thoughts on that too.
So wonderful.
Wonderful.
And I just wonder if you want to say anything to the American public on this eve of Thanksgiving 2025 as we conclude our conversation.
Well, I mean, just that there are in many ways, the current administration is doing the right things.
But in some ways, they're being, I think, not, let's say, not properly advised or not informed.
And there seem to be other agendas running that are influencing what's being advised to the current administration to do.
And I think that they need things and help in the technical area.
Also, I think in the policy area, they probably should have some more advice in terms of international relations, you know, because, well, treating people like there are other human beings of equal value and you consider and debate if you want their ideas or what they're thinking or what they're proposing.
But taking it and using it like the things, the 28 points should be nothing more than talking points.
Yeah.
These are talking points that decide once and we'll have the talking points from the other side and we'll have the talking points from the Euros and we'll have our own talking points.
Everybody has their talking points.
And you throw them all on the table and you start, at least start talking to them.
At least that's a process where people hopefully, ultimately, could stop the killing.
Yes.
Hopefully that could happen.
And on Thanksgiving Eve, devoutly to be wished.
Everyone, as a host of Real Deal Special, having these conversations with Bill Benny and Catherine Horton, I just want you all to know we're dealing here with perhaps the finest combination of intelligence and integrity ever to serve in the American government right here, this man.
So I want to express my profound appreciation to him and wish each and every one of you a wonderful Thanksgiving.
Don't waste a moment.
You can spend with those you love and care about.
We do not know how much time we have left.
Use it wisely.
And even though I'm an agnostic, I've now grown to say, God willing.
We'll be back next week with Bill and Catherine.
We'll do it all over again.
Will see you then.
All right.
▲
Export Selection