'The Regime Change Industry' - Liberty Report EXTRA With Guest Caleb Maupin
Caleb Maupin argues in The Regime Change Industry that the U.S. weaponizes "woke left" aesthetics to destabilize governments opposing Wall Street, tracing a strategy from the CIA's 1950s Congress for Cultural Freedom to modern color revolutions. He details how figures like Samantha Power shifted from opposing genocide to serving as UN ambassador, while Hillary Clinton and Silicon Valley orchestrated the Arab Spring in Libya and Syria to prevent Islamic republics. Maupin concludes that current opposition to Iran, utilizing groups like the Mujahideen Khalq, prioritizes Western dominance and profit over regional stability, revealing a continuous industry of manufactured chaos. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello and welcome to the first episode of Liberty Report Extra, where I have a series of conversations with people on topics that I find interesting that don't necessarily fit into the normal Liberty Report format.
We've got a few of these lined up to see how they go.
And kicking it off is someone I've known for a while.
We've seen each other in different places and I've admired his work.
And that is Caleb Malpin, who is a journalist.
He's a writer.
He's an author.
He's an activist.
And Caleb, I thought that I would start it off by having someone who's really not a very controversial figure, very mainstream.
You've got a new book out.
And it's a collection of a lot of things you've been writing over the period that I've been paying a lot of attention.
And the title just grabbed me because it's so interesting.
It's really something that I spent a good deal of my career thinking about, writing about, talking about.
And we'll put up a photo of it, but it's called The Regime Change Industry, The Woke Left, Samantha Power, and the Deep State.
And we'll add a link.
This can be purchased on Amazon.
And I admit I have not read the entire book, but I've read quite a bit of it, and I find it fascinating.
But I'm going to let you, Caleb, just go ahead and jump in and tell us about the book.
What motivated you to write it and what you're trying to convey with it.
Well, politics in our time doesn't seem to make any sense.
Left and right, and which way is forward, which way is backward, who stands for what.
It's all jumbled and confused.
And I've done a lot of reading over the years and I've seen around the world how it is the United States works to destabilize governments that they don't particularly like.
And that this doesn't make any sense unless you realize that what they call the aesthetic of the left has kind of become one of the primary mechanisms through which the overthrowing of governments that get in the way of the big corporations and monopolies and the deep state that runs the United States rules over countries.
They get targeted by the left aesthetic.
That is very clear.
And that values that were at the beginning of the Cold War considered to be subversive and perhaps communist have largely been hijacked and utilized as a mechanism for destabilizing countries.
And, you know, when you talk about George Soros and then you look at the career of Samantha Power and even just her personal psychology, what motivates her, this is a real kind of turning on its head of the psychology and sentiments that kind of defined left and right during the Cold War.
It's quite fascinating to see how the regime change industry operates and that really, you know, the Western countries are exporting global revolution.
I mean, Trump was just calling on the Iranians to revolt and overthrow their government.
And we see kind of a complete political discombobulation that has a lot to do with the CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom program, has a lot to do with George Soros.
And that's what the book really gets into.
Yeah, I mean, the Samantha Power thing is fascinating because I think that's sort of the beginning of the later phase of the regime change industry, as you so adeptly put it.
And I think the reason why she's a perfect figure for this is because, as many people know, she cut her teeth on Rwanda.
You know, she cut her teeth on opposing genocide.
So she almost became sort of Saint Samantha, baptized in holiness before she became another Samantha who was the regime change, as you say, for the big corporations for many other reasons.
So let's dive a little bit into Samantha Power.
Maybe some of our listeners and viewers don't know much about her.
Give us some more background about her and what she meant.
Well, you know, the word warmonger, right?
What does it literally mean?
It means war seller, like a fishmonger sells fish.
A warmonger sells war.
That's what Samantha Power did.
And throughout the 1990s, she was a professional warmonger.
And she promoted U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia.
She worked with mainstream media outlets to produce a narrative, you know, that responsibility to protect narrative that, you know, people are being killed and et cetera.
And she's a regime change activist who went from just being a journalist who produced war propaganda into being a political figure and serving in the Obama White House and then ultimately, you know, becoming the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
I remember, you know, I worked at the UN.
I worked in the UN building, you know, in the press corps.
And I remember being in her presence one day and she was standing in the center of the podium.
And on one side, she had like a young teenage boy who looked like he might be LGBT, had piercings and was, you know, had ripped jeans on.
On the other side of the podium, she had a Muslim young girl in hijab, right?
In just full hijab, the black, you know, covering everything but her face and all of that.
And as she made a remark, she had those two on either side of her.
And that was a political statement.
She was saying, this is who we're weaponizing around the world.
Fanatical Muslims and the LGBT, you know, middle-class kind of cosmopolitan element.
That's who we're weaponizing around the world to spread the interests of Wall Street.
It's very, very interesting that selling war is activism.
You can look at the whole thing.
You remember Kony 2012 and that whole thing.
I mean, this is who she is.
She is a war activist.
I mean, the regime change industry almost changed the regime in our own minds, as you say.
It wasn't just about these countries overseas.
It was about changing our perception.
And I think you pointed it out perfectly there, where you have these two figures here being advertised as, you know, this is how we're going to change.
I mean, the thing about power, she sort of reminds me of the singer Bono from the same era.
Weaponizing Perceptions00:15:56
They always had that pained look on their face.
They were always so concerned and obsessed with humanity.
Meanwhile, they were lighting fires everywhere that ended up getting millions of people killed.
And, you know, Caleb, I've talked about it before, but I spent the 1990s living in Central Europe.
And I had the unique opportunity to witness the early regime change operations.
And of course, Samantha Power was intimately involved in this.
She was, as you say, involved in breaking up Yugoslavia.
And as you well know, and I'm sure some of our viewers know at least, the tool they use.
And I spent time in Vukovar in the mid-90s, and I've been, you know, walked through the minefields, et cetera, not through them, but near them.
But the people that I talked to there, the Serbs, the Croats, the Bosnians, they all said the same thing.
We have been living next to each other virtually for decades, you know, longer than that.
We had never had the sense that this person was a Croat, this person was a Serb, and therefore I should hate them.
It never happened until somehow it was flamented from without.
And I think that's the work of the Samantha Power types who realized that you could have these fault lines, these fracture lines that you could manipulate to rip people apart, to rip communities apart.
And that's what they, I think, they did so successfully, even early on, even early in the Clinton administration.
Sure.
I mean, there's a process that you can really go over.
It starts in the 1950s with the Congress for Cultural Freedom.
That, you know, when the Soviet Union put on the Waldorf Peace Conference of 1949, at the height of McCarthyism, the Communist Party of the United States, the Soviet embassy, they put on this event with W.E.B. Du Bois and Albert Einstein, all these great, brilliant minds, and, you know, that basically are supporting the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
And that infuriates the CIA.
But there's a group of like Trotskyites that are protesting against it, led by, you know, those who had broken with Trotsky, followers of Max Schachman, Sidney Hook, and others.
And so they're protesting against this pro-Soviet conference.
They considered it to be a Stalinist conference or whatever.
And the CIA realizes that these kind of like leftists that are at odds with the Soviet Union are very useful in that they can kind of give left cover to moving against the Soviet Union.
And so the CIA starts funding leftist voices that are anti-Soviet.
And you get Partisan Review Magazine.
It's distributed on the college campuses, which is this kind of very leftist publication that criticizes McCarthyism, criticizes American militarism, but also wages kind of cancel culture hate campaigns against intellectuals that defend the Soviet Union, like Lillian Hellman or Albert Einstein and others.
And what started out, it started out as an attempt to kind of hijack leftist values and turn them against the Soviet Union.
That was like the first phase of it.
The second phase was in the 1960s and 70s, they realized that sending this wave of like liberal activists that are critical of the Soviet Union, critical of hardline traditional Marxism, but also critical of the United States, that are into art and culture, that kind of have this non-conformist vibe.
They consider fascism and communism to be the same thing and both expressions of populism, which is dangerous.
Sending them around the world to kind of make friends in the communist countries and court the next generation of very privileged people in the communist bloc, the children of the party elite, have art galleries and fund their work.
That is very key in setting the stage for the color revolutions that you witnessed, where it was the wealthiest and most popular and the people at the center of the Soviet-aligned countries that were the ones that brought down the Eastern Bloc.
They were the ones marching demanding they wanted open capitalism.
And a lot of them were convinced they could keep their guaranteed job and guaranteed health care.
They would just be able to shop at Walmart and listen to Beatles' music and wear blue jeans.
And the color revolution industry was kind of step two.
And then step three is with the Obama presidency, you start to see the color revolution apparatus come back to the United States.
And what we call wokeism now is very much that.
And I was part of Occupy Wall Street, and people were very open about who they are.
In the early stages of Occupy Wall Street, there were a lot of people that had been involved in Ott Poor, the CIA-backed movement to bring down Milosevic in Serbia, that were there on the ground giving people directions and all that.
And that color revolution apparatus that had been sent around the world was kind of brought home to play a partisan role in American politics.
And we saw the rise of Black Lives Matter and everything that's gone on since then.
And this is kind of a three-stage process to where we get now, where we have a left that seems to be pretty thoroughly on board with U.S. foreign policy on everything but Israel.
They are critical of Israel, which is very interesting.
But other than that, it is this kind of woke left that seems to like Islamic extremism to some degree or other, and at the same time is obsessed with the LGBT question and wants to destabilize and bring down governments.
It's all very, very interesting.
And it's kind of, you know, leftism stripped of any economics.
And it's really just kind of that vibe of rebellion, that vibe of revolution, that permanent revolution spirit, you know, you can get from Trotsky or whatever, just kind of weaponized to serve the Western system and to serve targeting governments that Wall Street and London don't like.
And at the same time, getting lots of funding, right?
Lots of foundation money to pay for their efforts.
Endless money.
And going back a little bit to the 90s, and I think this is, it actually happened in the 80s when the CIA started to get active in the dissident movement in the former Eastern Bloc.
And you point out very importantly, and I think this is often overlooked by people, how Western governments, particularly the U.S., the CIA, fomented the nomenklatura, created the nomenklatura, as you say, the offspring of high-ranking officials in the Communist Party in the 50s and 60s and 70s, children that had been raised in enormous privilege due to the positions of their parents in the party, but as you said,
began to be affectionate toward blue jeans and rock music, etc.
And they would be the safe way.
Tell me if you agree with this, the safe way for essentially continuity, because you had the problem of transferring the obedience, the obsequiousness of the nomenklatura that was once aimed toward the Soviet Union, and that's where you got all of your lifestyle.
You were part of the elite.
So being able to transfer that loyalty to the West, I think it was the children of the Nomenklatura who were the tools, because on the one hand, as you say, they could criticize the old guard while still looking new, but never, never going against this emerging neoliberalism in the West that was taking the place, that was sort of emerging after this sort of end of time, this sort of, you know,
the Sfukiyama-esque view that we are at the end, we are at the pinnacle of civilization.
So it seemed to me very important.
My frame of reference is mostly Hungary because that's where I lived.
I spent the 1990s there, and I could see all of the children of the Nomenklatura were showered with favors, were showered with covert mimeograph machines to produce their dissident materials, where, especially in Hungary, the re-emergence of nationalist parties, of populism in the first wave, the Hungarian Democratic Forum, for example, was a huge threat.
So the children of the Nomenklatura could attack all of these, this re-emerging nationalism as anti-Semites, evil, bad people wanting to go back to the days of Horti, et cetera, et cetera.
And they could keep them at bay.
And ironically with Hungary, Fides was part of that previous group, the children of the nomenklatura, the children of privilege.
And I happened to work with him at the time.
They started out as very liberal.
And then they moved, of course, toward the middle of the 90s.
There was a huge move toward populism and then toward conservatism, conservative populism.
And then they did a 180 to where they are now.
But it was fascinating to watch this progression of the use of the children of the nomenklatura to make sure that the bad guys didn't get back in.
Yeah, well, you read Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote this book in about like 1970 called Between Two Ages, America Enter the Technotronic Era.
And you read that book, and basically what he argues, this is Brzezinski who ended up being a top Cold War strategist.
He argues that the 1960s cultural revolution, right?
The sex, drugs, rock and roll, the shift in the West.
He says it wasn't a threat of communist revolution.
It was that people's relationship with authority and tradition was changing because of information technology, that having television available, the new widely accessible information was just changing how people thought about religion, about how they related to their governments, et cetera.
And that Brzezinski argues there's no threat of communist revolution from the hippies, from the new left, but rather these changes brought about by information technology can be weaponized against what he calls institutional Marxism, which is the Soviet government, the mainstream communist parties that are aligned with it, etc.
And he argues in that book, and this is, you know, this is very ahead of its time, this is long before the computer revolution, that by putting America at the center of information technology and the information revolution, the world can be, quote, Americanized by the United States being at the center of the access of information.
And if the United States and the Western countries can dominate information, they can change the way people relate to power and authority, and they can weaponize these same changes that had resulted in the 1960s counterculture.
They can weaponize them against the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc.
And he puts forward that strategy, and that seems to be very, very well what the United States did.
And Brzezinski, he was the director of the International Studies Department program at Columbia University.
That's who Obama studied under.
Brzezinski personally advised Obama during his presidential campaign in 2008.
And, you know, I mean, we know who Mika Brzezinski is.
She's on Morning Joe.
And that Brzezinski was a very, very influential thinker.
And he's basically saying that don't fight the hippies, don't fight the counterculture.
Utilize this against the Eastern Bloc.
And that's what they did.
And that's largely what happened.
And that, you know, the other thing that has to be pointed out is that Silicon Valley wasn't the result of just the free market creating computers, right?
That Silicon Valley, this was a strategic decision by American intelligence.
I mean, the NSA, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Defense Department, they created Microsoft and IBM, and they created Silicon Valley because they knew that putting the United States at the center of the information revolution would be a way that they could weaponize it and bring down governments they don't like.
I mean, you remember Al Gore got kind of mocked for saying, I invented the internet or we invented the internet.
But what was true was that he had been part of the strategic elements in the deep state that had wanted to put the United States at the center of the computer revolution to weaponize it against countries that the United States didn't like.
And when Obama came into office, you remember it was this strategy amped up like you'd never believe.
Twitter had just come out.
It was new.
And Facebook, and then the Arab Spring happened, right?
And the Arab Spring was all about this new social media that was basically being weaponized to foment dissent.
I mean, it came out of nowhere.
First, Tunisia and then Egypt and all over the Middle East, you have Al Jazeera as well as Facebook and Twitter just urging people to go out into the streets and riot.
And this was that strategy.
And Jared Andrew Cohen was functioning as the liaison between Silicon Valley and the tech monopolies and the Hillary Clinton State Department.
And he even told Twitter to not have an outage because he wanted them to aid the protests that were happening in Iran against President Ahmadinejad after he'd been re-elected.
And you had Jared Andrew Cohen go to Twitter and say, you know, don't have your outage because we need destabilization.
He does this without asking Barack Obama's permission.
Barack Obama is furious.
He wants to get him fired for this.
And Hillary Clinton protects him.
And that was revealed by the New Yorker.
And that Hillary Clinton and the Hillary Clinton State Department and Silicon Valley, they kind of had their own agenda that even Obama wasn't fully aware of.
They believed in fomenting global revolution and chaos.
And Samantha Power was in the White House along with her husband, Cass Sunstein.
And they had an agenda.
They want global revolution and chaos to bring down governments that get in their way.
And Anne-Marie Slaughter, who's a big advisor to Hillary Clinton during these years, a big strategist, Anne-Marie Slaughter writes this essay as Obama is leaving office, as we're getting ready for the Trump administration.
She writes this essay that almost, I mean, it reads like a radical leftist manifesto, that populist regimes are the main target.
We need to, you know, foment unrest for create the open international system of free information and free trade and that we need to target populist regimes.
I mean, it's very, very blatant what they want.
Yeah, absolutely.
And, you know, look at how many people, even people, probably both of us respect who are hoodwinked by the Arab Spring.
They thought it was genuine.
Because of course, unfortunately, a lot of people proceed according to the fallacy that the rest of the entire world just can't wait to be exactly like us if they only had the opportunity.
It's sort of a Hollywood movie version of history.
And all you have to do is topple the tyrant, and everyone will be in the streets celebrating their Americanness.
It is sort of a form of cultural imperialism, or at least fomented in the mind.
But the reality, and I think you pointed it out just now, the reality of the Arab Spring was that this was not a spontaneous uprising by any stretch of the imagination.
This was something that I think you rightly put, you rightly attribute to Hillary Clinton more than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton's crowd who put this together.
And it began, of course, from the very beginning.
And I wonder if you agree with me, but I would assert that it began with extremely violent protests, particularly in places like Syria, because there's this fallacy that what started as peaceful, legitimate protests, simply people wanting freedom were hijacked by others.
Whereas if you look at the early protests in Syria, they were extremely violent from the very beginning.
And it seemed to me like the intent was to radically disrupt, radically and quickly disrupt societies so that you could get this machine moving quickly.
Totally.
And what's interesting about that is, I mean, this is a very Freudian thing.
This is Oedipal, right?
You cut off the king.
The king is like the father.
This is the, you know, the son killing the father, right?
The Oedipus complex, right?
This is the Oedipal impulse that people have, kind of weaponized.
And it serves a psychological purpose.
And the Arab Spring, it was like you could almost call it a controlled demolition, right?
There is so much unemployment in the Middle East.
Weaponizing Instability00:10:20
There was a big drought.
So people from the countryside were piling into the cities.
And it looks like the U.S. and its allies said, we need to have the revolution that happens happen on our terms, right?
Rather than letting the building just fall down, we're going to have a controlled demolition.
And they made sure that we had a president who was named Barack Hussein Obama, right?
Who had gone to a school in Indonesia.
And, you know, the right wing is always accusing him of being a Muslim, wink-wink.
And then they made it happen on their terms.
They made sure.
And the fear was that if the upsurge that did happen had happened naturally, there might be six more Islamic republics of Iran.
But instead, we just got rid of Libya and Syria to independent governments that were not obeying Washington.
And there's been a lot of chaos and instability.
And largely, the United States was able to kind of weaponize the revolt and maneuver it to their own liking.
And I compare Barack Obama to Napoleon.
You know, when Napoleon conquered or tried to conquer Egypt and Syria and, you know, push out the British, he put up posters everywhere claiming that he was a Muslim, right?
You know, I've come to restore your rights.
I believe in the prophet.
And he was lying.
Napoleon was lying.
It was just a propaganda tactic.
And I think that's what Obama largely was, that Bush had alienated the Muslim world by calling the war on terror a crusade and by aligning himself with the evangelical Christian right that had a lot of anti-Islamic rhetoric and was very, very aligned with Israel.
So Obama was there to kind of give a wink and a nod to the Muslim world and try to reestablish relations while then planning to weaponize the Arab Spring and weaponize the unrest that was brewing in the region to serve the United States rather than to serve geopolitical rivals of the United States.
Yeah, and the chaos that ensued was not a bug, but a feature.
That was the intention.
I mean, the intention was not to restore, was not to bring democracy to Libya, but was to destroy Libya, to turn it into complete chaos.
Because as you very well know, it was an extremely prosperous country that did not follow the Western paradigm.
Even unfortunately, as many times as Gaddafi tried to play the game by the rules being set down from Washington, ultimately that was his undoing.
But that was the example that was not to be allowed to be successful.
You had to crush it and destroy it rather than provide a democracy.
Yeah, I mean, Libya was the most prosperous country on the African continent at that point because you had these record high oil prices as a result of Bush's invasion of Iraq.
I mean, oil was very high, and they were an oil-producing country.
They had nationalized the oil and was using oil revenue to rebuild it.
And they had built the world's largest irrigation system, the Great Man-Made River.
They had, you know, I mean, they were providing amazing services.
Basically, everyone who got married got like a marriage bonus of $20,000 just for getting married.
I mean, and Africans from all over the continent were going to Libya because Gaddafi had a program that if you came to Libya, you were guaranteed employment.
Any African.
If you were from Africa and you came to Libya, he would give you a job.
And so Africans were piling into Libya to get jobs because there was all that oil money and he was talking about building an independent African bank that would have its own currency.
I mean, Libya was a very prosperous country.
And then what happened?
Well, they got friendlier with the United States.
The Lockerbie bomber was released and returned with a hero's parade.
And Gaddafi was calling Obama my little African son.
And the whole time that American businesses are going into Libya and all that, what's going on is that the NGOs are setting up and slipping their fingers in there and American intelligence is slipping their fingers in there.
And they were all just getting ready for what would ultimately happen with the Arab Spring.
It was all planned, right?
And that it was a setup.
And I mean, that's what happened.
And now Libya is in utter chaos.
I mean, and it's been in utter chaos since.
I mean, this was once the most prosperous country in Africa, and look what it is now.
Yeah, I think you use the perfect word.
It was a complete setup.
And I think that's obviously what we're seeing with Iran today.
You know, bringing us toward a close.
I think we could probably go on for much longer.
And I appreciate your insights, especially because they match a lot of my views.
But as we know, the discussions, obviously, between the U.S. and Iran have been a complete setup.
The war was decided on before Witkoff was not working for the American people, but for Benjamin Netanyahu.
But before we close it out with that idea of where we are now, let's get us from there, from the Arab Spring, to where we are now.
We know the role of the NGOs.
This whole system that was put together, this regime change system that came to fruition in the 90s.
I would argue the 2.0 phase was the extreme violence of Maidan.
The application of extreme violence was the second phase of it to where we are now.
Guide us just quickly through that and bring us to the point where we are now.
Well, we're at the point that the world saw the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the rise in refugees, the rise in terrorist groups, the instability.
And there was a lot of folks in the Pentagon.
I think Tulsi Gabbard kind of spoke for those folks who didn't want an Arab Spring to happen again.
And that Trump, especially in his first term, was trying to kind of reassure a lot of people in the security apparatus and the intelligence agencies that there wouldn't be more instability.
There wouldn't be another Arab Spring.
But at the end of the day, Donald Trump was aligned with Netanyahu and is aligned with weapons manufacturers largely.
And they need that chaos.
Netanyahu needs it for political reasons.
He needs Iran as an enemy.
He needs instability throughout the region.
And the weapons manufacturers are excited to have big wars and blow things up and sell lots of weapons.
And that at the end of the day, I think that to some degree or other, you know, this is largely, there was a clear disagreement over the Iran nuclear deal.
That was one thing.
Obama's strategy for Iran was to do Iran like Libya, right?
Have Iran get closer to the United States, you know, have American business go in there, you know, sink the NGO apparatus in there, kind of wait a little bit as, you know, Iran is at a pivotal generation.
Most of the people in Iran were born after the revolution, kind of wait and, you know, get a reformist faction in there that would be in power and have the young people be Americanized and dazzled by Twitter and Facebook and have them go out and gradually transition Iran into being into the camp of the West.
I think that was the strategy of Obama.
But at the same time, Netanyahu and Trump and the weapons manufacturers, they just wanted, they wanted immediate results, right?
They need to fight Iran now.
They need Iran to be their enemy.
They don't want to gradually improve relations with Iran so they can gradually overturn it.
They want to oppose Iran and have the Iranian threat be something that they can politically gain from, in Netanyahu's case, especially.
They want to make lots of money from weapons manufacturers.
And so now we're seeing Trump, who came into office, you know, there was all this talk of he was going to be a dealmaker.
And now the United States is proving that, I mean, you don't want to make a deal with the United States.
How can any country ever negotiate with America again, right?
You know, after what's happened?
I mean, Iran negotiated with the United States and got bombed.
And now Iran was negotiating with the United States again, and they got attacked again.
And that, you know, a message has been sent to every government that gets in the way of Washington at this point, which is you better get in a nuclear bomb.
Don't negotiate with America because North Korea has a nuclear bomb and they're safe.
But, you know, Iran didn't and they tried to negotiate and look what happened.
And Libya gave up their weapons program and look what happened.
And Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction and look what happened.
No country is ever going to negotiate with America again.
Our credibility at the negotiating table is shot.
I mean, you know, Trump said he would change, he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours.
It hasn't ended.
And like, how is Russia supposed to trust the United States at the negotiating table?
Look, Iran was negotiating with America and look what happened, right?
And so I look at all of this and I think this is disastrous, but there are forces that want chaos, right?
And those forces were in the Obama administration with Samantha Power and we're using the weaponization of the color revolution and the left aesthetic.
But it looks like those forces are also in the Trump administration and, you know, are focused on and what is going to be the result, right?
We already see Kurdish forces, Kurdish ethnic separatists that are attacking Iran now at the behest of the United States.
You know, we have the old Pahlavist monarchy trying to say that they were the rightful rulers, but the Trump administration not really jumping on board with that.
And, you know, if the Islamic Republic were to fall, the result is not going to be just a new stable government.
It's going to be a lot of different factions battling for power, a lot of instability, a lot of refugees, a lot of suffering.
Yeah.
I mean, it's going to be Mujahideen Kalk, another group, right?
And an Islamo-Marxist organization, by the way.
Isn't it amusing that, you know, that Rudy Giuliani and Tom Ridge and all these neocons love an Islamo-Marxist sect?
That's kind of amusing.
But I guess they work, they're aligned with Israel right now, and they assassinated peaceful nuclear scientists for Israel.
So who cares if they're Islamo-Marxists or whatever their ideology is, right?
Yeah, and this is a terrorist group that used to kill people for Saddam Hussein, right?
But now they work for the United States.
They're aligned with Israel against Iran.
So they're happy to work with them.
And yeah, I mean, if the Islamic Republic were to fall, we would get chaos, just like we got chaos in Libya, just like we got chaos in Syria, just like there was chaos in Afghanistan for 20 years while the USA was occupying and, you know, the drug gang set up shop and various terrorist groups.
I mean, the goal here is not stability.
Goal is chaos to maintain the dominance of the West.
Yeah, well, even Lindsey Graham said, My job is not to fix stuff, it's to break stuff.
That's what they want to do, essentially, is what he said.
I will say, as a footnote, I met with a lot of people on my decade plus working for Dr. Paul on Capitol Hill.
The only group that came in of all the disparate and strange groups that I left that left and I felt extremely unsettled was when the MBK came and had a meeting with me.
Footnote of Unsettling Meetings00:01:27
I actually was sort of looking for a way to call the capital cost because these were really, really scary people.
So, anyway, that's just a footnote.
I do want to let you let people know how they can follow your work.
Now, we do have the regime change industry, the woke less, Samantha, power, and the deep state is your book.
It came out last year.
There you go.
There you go.
Great cover as well.
And for me, I mean, I love it because you and I are both really, I'm sure, Caleb, we're both obsessed now with what the latest events.
It's so easy to get caught up, especially in the age of X. You're refreshing the latest, the latest.
Sometimes it's helpful to step back, take a deep breath, and look at the antecedents.
And that's what your book does.
And I think that's the value of your book: to look back to see how did we get here.
Now, you go back to the 2000s, which was great, but you go back to the Congress of Cultural Freedom and the left-wing anti-Sovietism that was sort of the birthplace of this.
So I recommend the book, but let our viewers know where else they can find your work.
Is called the Center for Political Innovation, cpiusa.org.
I've also got a website with all my work on it, CalebMoppinbooks.net.
I'm on Twitter.
I stream regularly on YouTube.
I'm always doing stuff.
So thank you.
All right.
Well, thanks so much for joining this first episode of Liberty Report Extra.