Kind: captions
Language: en
By definition, the American government's
job is to protect the government of the
United States, not the people of the
United States. Government employees, by
and large, are not your sharpest,
smartest, most motivated, most dedicated
employee. Help. What do we do? We need a
hard reset. Factory reset the settings
to get back to something that we can
control. Do you mean rewrite the
Constitution? Every person sitting in
every seat that makes a decision that's
supposed to be a representation of the
American people, every person in every
seat needs to be reset. How not safe are
we? We are always 60 to 90 days away
from our next tragedy. Oh, always. We
just don't know what that's going to be.
Does the intelligence community ever
fabricate threats to influence elections
in the way that Tulsi Gabbard is saying
has happened with the Russia collusion
narrative? Intelligence agencies not
only have to manipulate the American
public to prevent them from knowing the
true significance of a threat that might
be imminent, but they also have to
manipulate the American public because
manipulating the American public also
manipulates foreign intelligence. If you
tell something to an American publicly,
you're telling it to every English
speaker in the world. And that goes both
ways. So if you omit a fact, then you're
omitting the fact from foreign
databases. Or if you tell an intentional
falsehood, you're giving misinformation
to foreign adversaries as well. Right?
That's the information warfare landscape
that we live in that we so often forget
we live in.
>> Right. Okay. So we're being spun
essentially at all times and we have to
be according to what you're saying. So
are they worried that we're going to
panic if there's an imminent threat?
>> Why why spin us?
>> Because uh so mass psychosis is very
real when what will happen in any given
group is you'll have the majority of the
group will simply react emotionally.
Fear, sadness, outrage. They'll have an
emotional response to an input, but they
won't land on a decision. They won't
land on an action step. A small subset
of the group will land on an action set
as well as an emotional set, but it's
very difficult to predict what action
the mass will not only adopt, but then
pursue. So, could it be peaceful
protests in a park that they land on, or
could it be violent protests in the
streets burning down businesses? The
same input can yield both outcomes, but
you don't really know which one it's
going to be because it kind of boils
down to the few people who have an
action that they take and then the
response of the masses to that action.
Do they support or do they do they work
against that action? And we've seen it
in history time upon time upon time.
Sometimes protests break out and
businesses burn. Other time protests
break out and nothing burns down. We've
seen people self-p police. We've seen
people hold each other hold each other
back. We've seen people push each other
forward into uh arms of troops or into
lines of fire. Like we've seen
incredible things. Human beings are for
all their pros and cons without a doubt
human beings are unpredictable. What
Tulsi Gabbard is putting forward is that
this was a coup. So um extremely high
stakes. So it does seem like the sense
that it was fabricated is going to be
important. So fabricated does not feel
accurate or it just feels semantically
off. So it is semantics with a heavy
dose of accuracy. I would say
fabrication by the def by definition
among intelligence agencies means that
it is invented
truth. There is no foundation in it. If
you think about it, you've basically got
three types of information.
Misinformation, which is mistaken or
inaccurate information. disinformation
which is intentionally falsified
information. But then you also have a
third cate category called malin
information or malicious information.
Malin information is real fact
maliciously presented
>> so that it can shape people's opinions
with the collusion accusations. What
she's basically saying to a professional
intelligence listener is that what was
presented by the Biden administration
was maliciously derived. Instead of
taking the full body of evidence, they
took a subcategory of that body of
evidence, reached an analytical
conclusion, and presented it to the
American people in a way that painted
Russian activity in the 2016 election at
the worst. So what she's doing is
essentially picking a different
subcategory of the same base of
information and then presenting it
forward. Also somewhat accused in a
malicious intent to spin a positive
story about Donald Trump. The truth is
in that body of evidence you're going to
have lots and lots of information. So
you a true analytical product should
look at all information and create a
probability a probability index as well
as a veracity index meaning what's the
value of each piece of information. So
you may only have one or two pieces of
highly valuable information meaning very
high accuracy very high um level of
truth and those two pieces of
information might be better than 50
pieces of conjecture.
>> We don't know. No one is talking about
that in the media. No one's saying
whether or not the report she's pulling
from XYZ is high fidelity or low
fidelity or whether the original an uh
analysis that was reached by CIA in 2018
was high fidelity or low fidelity. It's
it's mixed. There's a there's a muted
element to the value of the information.
The other thing that we have to keep in
mind is Tulsi Gabard the DNI is a is a
presidential appointed position. And why
does that matter? because she's there to
serve the president as is Radcliffe the
head of CIA as is the entire CIA. They
all serve under the executive branch. So
they have one customer and that one
customer is the president. So what the
president wants, the president gets
>> in this landscape.
How should we contextualize the fact
that these are presidential appointees
who theoretically
serve at the pleasure of the president?
Though this accusation is very
specifically that uh-oh, you had one
thing happen which was a bleed over from
Obama to Trump was actually used to
undermine the president.
>> The thing we need to understand is that
what we're seeing now isn't new. What
we're seeing now has extended all the
way back to 2003 with the creation of
the DNI and then even before that with
all positions that were political
appointee positions. The difference is
that social media and the 24-hour news
cycle and the modern era of contributo
24-hour news cycles and conjecture news
cycles and and pundits all over the
place, information is more available
than it's ever been. the fact that the
the president appoints people into
positions of power that will benefit the
president's ambitions and outcomes and
goals. That's always been the case.
That's that's always been the case as
long as we've had presidential
appointees.
>> We just see it more now than we ever saw
it before.
>> It used to take us two years, three
years before we realized, oh [ __ ] that
person's just there to to put their
stamp of appro of of approval on
anything the president says. It used to
take us years to see that. We see that
now in weeks or days or before it even
starts. That said, what Donald Trump has
done a a questionable job of is that
he's put people into office in his most
current administration that are clearly
not qualified for the job that are
clearly there because they had some sort
of pre-existing relationship with the
president before he was the current
president. That's something that at
least in the past presidents have tried
to obuscate a little bit. They tried to
pick someone who was a career diplomat
or they tried to pick someone who was in
some sort of career category that was
overlapping with the office that they
sit in, right? But you're you're from
RFK Jr. to HEGF each of their positions,
everybody on both sides of the aisle
look at that and say this person doesn't
have the qual this there's no way this
person is the most qualified person in
the country
>> to sit in that role. Should we be
uniquely suspicious of skeptical maybe a
better word? Should we be uniquely
skeptical of Trump's appointees? Yes.
Because when you look at recent history,
the last time we saw essentially cronies
that were not qualified for their
position being put into the office that
they were put into was Venezuela under
Chavez. I'm not comparing Donald Trump
to Chavez. I'm not saying we're destined
for the same future as Venezuela. But I
am saying we took a big step, a very big
step from the Biden, Camala, whatever
that disaster was to where we are now in
the fact that we've basically abandoned
previous protocols for how we identify
presidential appointees and moved into
this era of of pushing our appointees
through nominations because we
controlled the Congress. All right. You
were in CIA for seven years, but you
interacted with five different
directors, which by the math is slightly
unusual. So, normally the tenure of a
director is three years. This is looking
at history since I think 1947 when the
CIA was founded.
>> Uh you're you were dealing with either
1.4 1.8, I forget what the exact math
was. It was about half of what a normal
tenure is. And you, by the way, for
anybody listening, you were gone a year
before this whole scandal started taking
place for anybody who cares about that.
But when you look at that um what was
the protocol being used that created
such a high turnover because I don't
look at that and go oh we had a good
system before and now we have something
broken though you are helping me
understand this in a different light but
what was the methodology that was being
used whether it was by Biden Trump won
uh Obama like how did they select
>> the office of the director of CIA I
would categorize during my tenure here
at CIA. That office was being used as a
place to check a box on an upward swing
to other political utility. So part of
the reason that we had so many directors
in such a short period of time is
because when I when I first joined,
Director Hayden, who was a four-star Air
Force general, was the director of CIA.
That is blatantly against the rules at
the time. You're not supposed to be a
uniformed military officer and also be
in charge of a civilian government
intelligence agency. But they made they
had a carveout. They made an exception
for General Hayden. So we were already
kind of breaking the rules to put Hayden
in place.
>> And who was president at that time?
Bush.
>> Uh yes, it was Bush at that time. So and
Hayden had been there and Hayden had
been very successful by all accounts.
And Hayden was wellliked at CIA. So
Hayden was wellliked and Hayden was
replaced by Panetta. Panetta was purely
political, right? Leon Petta. After Leon
Petta left, he was replaced by Petraeus
as a civilian. General Petraeus, who had
led uh military forces in the Middle
East, came on as a civilian.
>> Once again, we have a weird thing or
because he had exited the military. No
beef.
>> It was no beef by policy, but it was
still kind of unique that he was a
career military general who then came in
to lead the intelligence.
>> Why do we look at that sideways? Why is
that? Why should that be weird? It
doesn't hit me as weird only because I
haven't thought about it. Because you
you have civilian agencies for a reason
and then you have military agent
military groups, military organizations
for a reason. The culture is totally
different. The mindset is supposed to be
different. The purpose is supposed to be
different. When it comes to the
military, they're there to follow orders
without objection.
>> So when you see a military guy in a
civilian organization, you should be
paranoid that they're just following
orders. Once again, that it's just so
baked into their DNA that good luck
avoiding it.
>> And why do you put a military person in
charge of an organization for the same
reason,
>> right? And then you also should also as
a leader understand that when you put a
military voice in charge of a civilian
organization, you're going to have a
break between the organization and the
leader because that leader is not used
to leading civilians. That leader is not
used to the kind of motivational
talents, the kind of uh uh holistic
leadership that's needed to lead people
who voluntarily serve.
>> You can't just tell them what to do.
>> You can't just bring them along. There's
no uh professional implication or no
professional ramifications if they don't
do what you tell them to do. It's not
like the military where you could go to
jail where you can go under UCMJ.
>> Very different. Yeah.
>> For saying no to an order, right?
>> Um and then the whole thing there's this
weird kind of back and forth with Mike
Morurell who's a career CIA officer who
was a sitting director before he was
pulled out of the sitting director seat
to then become a full director.
>> So what's starting to break down? Like I
remember when Trump came into office and
people were like he doesn't trust the
intelligence community and he's now
starting to use uh Peter Teal's company
which I'm Palanteer and people are like
this is so weird. It sounds like
something started breaking down much
earlier. There's so much division
between the left and the right that the
agencies are starting to be weaponized
against the other party to either keep
them out of office. Like is is that what
we see starting to happen? So these guys
have an intuitive like give me a general
give me somebody that just follows
orders. I'm going to tell them what to
do and they're going to do it. I don't
think it's the weaponization of the
intelligence services. It wasn't then.
It may be going in that direction now
for different reasons. But what I would
say happened is that prior to prior to
the the second term of Bush, the person
in charge of CIA, the people the people
put in charge of intelligence agencies
were there to serve the mission first
and that was it.
>> The mission protect America.
>> Protect America. Maximize intelligence
collection. Serve at the behest of the
president to serve. maximize
intelligence collection for any reason
other than to protect Americans?
>> No, they shouldn't have. They may have
only be only if it was a presidential
directive. And there's a whole carveout
in the intelligence world for when the
president finds something that matters
to them. It's called a presidential
finding. That finding can literally be
given to CIA and there's a blank check
to pursue whatever the president's pet
project is. Um, usually with covert
action. So there's a process for serving
the president's pet projects, but
generally speaking, by and large, you
you put someone in charge of an agency
so that you can fire and forget that
they're there, and they just keep the
engine running like a CEO. What happened
in the latter half of Bush and all the
way through the years of Mike Morurell,
which is 10 10 years of history, CIA
became a box checking activity for
people who wanted to ride the coattails
of other successful politicians,
especially with Obama. When Obama took
office, Obama was was there on the
promise of changing things.
>> Two years into his first four-year term,
he was realizing change isn't easy. So
then he just started using executive
orders and he started to force policy
through a Congress that he controlled.
He also was able to do that in the
intelligence services. Okay. So I want
to restate what I think you're saying so
you can either correct where I'm at or
we'll just have it on the table. Uh when
you say that they're riding the cattails
of a politician, it's really a loyalty
play. It's like, hey, you want to keep
going in this world, so do me a favor,
jump into intelligence, run the CIA, and
then there's going to be rewards for you
after that. And that's good for me as
the president because now I know that
the person doing the intelligence work
for me, I can just say, "Go do this
thing and they're going to do it."
>> But the loyalty was more to a party than
to a person.
>> That makes sense. So you're, hey, the de
the Democratic party has your back. Hey,
the Republican party has your back. All
you do is you take this role, serve in
it for 18 months to two years. It's
going to look great on your resume. it's
going to be perfect when you run for
president 8 years down the road, 12
years down the road, 16 years down the
road. So, it was a box checking act.
This is very common in the military.
When you know you're trying to build a
future twostar general, you start
building them when they're a lieutenant
colonel,
>> right? You start making sure they have
the right items on their agenda. They
sit in the right offices for the right
period of time, and you move them up as
quickly as possible. We have a term in
the Air Force, it's called somebody on
afterburners, right? The the Navy has
their own term. The Marine Corps has
their own term. Doing the same thing in
the intelligence sector. You can't. It's
gonna be much easier for the American
public to vote for you when you're when
you're running for president if on your
resume it says you were director of CIA.
Look at George HW Bush.
>> Right? So that's what we were seeing.
That's what happened. That's why Petta
took the job. That's why uh Petraeus
took the job. Mike Morurell was the
first one to not really have that kind
of political ambition. He had an
opportunity to do something that was
totally different, but it was still
politically party oriented.
What we're seeing now is a change to
more individual loyalty rather than
party loyalty. And a big part of that is
because the Republican party, let's not
forget, did not support Donald Trump
during his original run for president.
Given that we spent however many years
building up a
uh pipeline that was loyal to a party,
it does feel like the scene is set for a
party to go, "Okay, this guy's an
outsider. Everybody hates him." Because
for people forgetting this is not Trump
2.0. This is what happened when Trump
1.0 got elected. Uh it seems like the
table is set for cool, let's take him
down. Let's use the tools that we have
at our disposal to make sure that an
outsider does not come in and disrupt
what at least from the left and the
right we can both agree on, which is
that you need party loyal people. And so
they're playing the same game. Trump
comes along, he's playing a new game.
Let's take him out. Um, from a narrative
perspective, it's very easy to swallow,
but I'm also paranoid about fasile
narratives. So, do you think
>> that's what we're going to see play out
in these indictments, or will
indictments ever come? Grand jury, I
think, is active now. Uh, or is this all
just more spin on the behalf of Tulsi
Gabbard?
>> Uh, I don't think we're going to see
backlash. I don't think we're going to
see anything get uh moved through the
court system, especially not anything
fast going back to previous presidents.
What I do think we're seeing
>> because there's nothing there or because
the whole system is well the whole
system is not built for this.
>> We don't have so we don't first of all
we don't have an official judicial
system or we don't have an efficient
>> you mean within Okay. We don't have an
efficient
>> we don't have an official judicial
system what
>> we don't have an efficient judicial
system and then part of the reason that
we don't have an efficient system in any
of our three branches of government is
because our forefathers wanted us to
move slowly
>> because they wanted to build arguably
they wanted to build in space for for
people to pop off have emotional changes
changes in the in the uh geopolitical
landscape that wouldn't radically
transform our country. So they wanted to
build in that buffer space. The second
thing is that
we have to understand that Donald Trump
and the Donald Trump administration, the
reason they are consistently one step
ahead of the traditional bureaucracy of
government is because he moves at the
speed of business.
>> He understands how to move at the speed
of economy. He understands how people
think and how to market to the way that
people think. So whereas narratives used
to be created, no shits, narratives from
government used to be created by the
interns who worked for Congress people
who would sit around in a big room with
a coach at the front and they would all
shape their narrative and then they
would give those narratives to their
congressmen and their congressmen would
take that narrative to the floor.
>> Bro, that's wild. It's ridiculous. And
anybody who's ever worked on the Hill in
any kind of like civilian capacity has
literally watched they're supposed to
have a meeting with the senator or the
congressman from Idaho and instead they
have a meeting with four 24 year olds
who are two of which are interns, two of
which are staffers and they're talking
to these 26 year olds, 24 year olds
about whatever policy agenda is going to
get passed. And then those four kids are
basically like we got you dude and then
they go talk to the the congressman of
Idaho and then boom, it's done. That's
the way our government works.
>> Wow.
>> It's the part that freaks me out is not
the youth. What freaks me out is that
you've got a group of people basically
saying, "This is how we want people to
think about it,
>> put it together, come up with the words,
the angle, all of that. And then now
we're going to feed it through the
system by going and sitting down with
these Congress people." Especially now
in the age where you hear the media and
they'll repeat the same phrase over and
over and over like a mindless drone. It
is way unnerving. Uh, so hearing that,
which I was not aware of in terms of how
the message was shaped, that's not fun.
>> That's not fun. And that's that's been
how it's been for a long time. So by the
time you and I hear something official
from the federal government, it's been
shaped for weeks, if not months, by
coaches, Congress sta, congressional
staffers, and Congress people who agree
or disagree or further tune whatever
comes out of their staffers
recommendations.
>> Now we move at the speed of marketing.
So now Donald Trump says something and
it's out there and his staff has to
react to what he said on Twitter or what
he said on X, right? It's
>> or truth. How dare you?
>> His stock just dropped.
>> So there's all this different pacing.
That's very very difficult. What's What
does that mean? The the reason it's so
unnerving to me is because
it's it's more difficult than ever
before for Americans to know what is
really happening. Mhm.
>> What is somebody actually saying? Are
they actually saying what they intend to
do? Are they saying something that
they've been forced to say? Or are they
just trying to save their job? We don't
know. It's insane. And it's very, very
difficult for any of us to make
confident decisions in that landscape.
And that is going to be the landscape
for many, many years. I would argue for
a decade or more because the precedent
has been set. Mhm.
>> The precedent has been set and it is in
favor of the president. So, whoever's
going to come next and beat Donald Trump
or whoever is going to come after Donald
Trump no longer can be running for
office. Whoever comes next is going to
pull from this playbook because this
playbook works. This playbook benefits
the president, benefits presidential
ambition, benefits the constituent base
that votes the president into office.
We're not going to see it end anytime
soon. We'll be back to the show
momentarily, but let's talk about why
founders burn out before they ever
succeed. You started a business to be
great at one thing. Instead, you became
mediocre at everything. Designer,
copywriter, photographer, marketer,
inventory manager, customer service rep.
You're not an entrepreneur. You are a
one-man circus. Successful founders
focus on what they're great at and let
experts handle the rest. And now Shopify
gives you access to world-class
expertise without needing to hire a
team. Their AI writes compelling product
descriptions and headlines. Their
templates create beautiful stores that
convert. And their tools handle
inventory management, international
shipping, and returns automatically.
Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in
the US. From household names like Mattel
and Gym Shark to brands just getting
started. Stop wearing every hat and
start building your empire. Sign up for
your $1 per month trial and start
selling today at shopify.com/impact.
Now, let's get back to the show. Okay, I
want to keep drilling into the actual
facts of the case here. So, uh, looking
at what Tulsi Gabbert is claiming, it
seems to hinge on a small handful of
things. uh one that they knowingly
shaped the information that Obama
rejected an initial presentation that
yes, Russia was doing something but it's
really not having any impact. Uh it's uh
the next piece would be that Trump
actively was colluding that not only was
Russia doing this but Trump was in on
it. the steel dossier was used in the
creation of the intel which they then
said no no no that wasn't a big part of
it uh since that was paid for by Hillary
Clinton's um team. If all of those
things are true and Obama did know about
it that it was as you said malicious
information that they looked at a small
subset
and then presented it as if this were
the whole truth uh and nothing but the
truth. They left out obviously the part
that's come out in the Durham annex,
which is that uh Obama knew about it,
was briefed that they were using it as a
distraction against Hillary's emails. Do
you think that if those things are true,
it would qualify as a coup?
>> I don't think it would qualify as a
coup. And that's because in my world
view, coups are hyperorganized across
multiple branches of government. uh
military, police, intelligence,
uh internal revenue service, like
multiple branches are included when you
have a successful coup. Not just a
leadership coup or a soft coup. That
stuff happens in the third world sort of
only because it's every there's such a
strong man in the in office that once
one person tips, everybody just follows
suit. But not in the United States. So,
I would not qualify it as a coup. I will
say that it seems it seems reasonable
and logical to me that Obama would have
known about it because anything that's
happening in the executive branch would
have been told to the chief executive.
Whether or not he made a mental note of
it, whether or not it was on page 200 or
page two of his president's daily brief,
I don't know, but he would have known
that there was some element here of,
"Hey, Mr. President, we're seeing Russia
participate in this way in trying to
shape our elections or interfere with
our elections. it looks like this is
what we believe they want versus this
other thing, whatever else. We had the
same thing going into uh the 2024
elections with uh with Biden who then
turned into Camala and and Trump again
where people were were saying, "Hey, we
see information that suggests China
wants X, Russia wants Y, Iran wants this
other thing, North Korea wants this
third outcome." That's not that's not
unfamiliar territory to us. I think the
big difference was in 2016 it became
front page news.
Foreign governments have always tried to
participate, have always tried to
interfere with our elections. They've
always contributed. They've always
messed with us.
>> And presumably we do the same.
>> Exactly. Right. That's part of the
process. That's part of the game of
espionage. You never know how things are
going to turn out, but you know that you
want things to to be so chaotic that the
people in the target country don't
believe in their own system. The fact
that we're having this conversation, the
fact that we're seeing play what's
playing out right now in headlines is
just making Russia smile all the way to
the bank because
>> Russia, China,
>> everybody,
>> China,
>> anybody who's anybody who's not a
democracy is looking at the United
States right now and looking at what
we're what's going across our headlines
and saying that system doesn't work.
There are Americans looking at us right
now saying our system may not work.
>> Yeah,
>> that's the end goal. That's the whole
reason that we interfere with elections
at all. not to get a certain person
through the the finish line, but to make
everybody doubt the process. Okay? So,
I'm certainly doubting the process.
There's no doubt about that. If the
things are true, I still don't want
somebody to go to jail. I don't want I
am so worried about the um justice
system being weaponized against
political opponents that I I honestly
don't know what to do. I don't know what
the right play is. So, the horrible
answer that I've come up with is um do
obviously the investigation. You have to
find out what's true. There's no way
around that. So, you have to find out
what's true. And then it needs to be
about the dismemberment of their legacy
and their ability to interface with the
government moving forward. But I do not
want to see like let's just say that
Obama literally said we got to take this
guy down. Like this is crazy. Uh so
yeah, go back, find me something better,
right? Wink wink, nudge nudge. So you
get it. He's obviously not going to go
say make things up, but he's going to
make it clear that like I need a certain
answer. Uh, it's like I forget I think
it was Brennan that said something to
the effect of but doesn't it ring true
and it's like okay signal coming in loud
and clear about where you're headed with
this. So I assume it e even if it were
something like that and it was just like
we caught him on tape he's saying it.
It's obvious like there's nowhere to
hide. The grand jury hands down an
indictment. Everybody looks at it and
just like guaranteed thousand% he did
it. I still don't want him to go to
jail. But every time I say that out
loud, I'm like, "Oh god." Because you
can't have a system where people are
above the law, and at the same time, you
can't have a system where people
weaponize it and put their opponents in
jail. Uh because ascertaining the truth,
of course, is always going to be
exceedingly difficult. And so, you're
going to find yourself where the other
side is like, "Ah, close enough. Jail
them." And so, help. What do we do? The
only thing we really have the option to
do takes time. And nobody wants to hear
that. there's nothing we can do today.
There's no button we can press today.
This is the this is the same situation
that you're seeing across Europe as
well. Um in Portugal, in France, you saw
uh there was another place possibly
Belgium. I may I'm probably saying that
wrong. I'm pretty sure there were three
locations in the last two years where
the parliament had a no con a no
confidence vote
>> and reset the whole political system.
Every parliamentarian lost their office.
Whoa.
>> And had to be revoted back in.
Everything was dissolved and reset
again. And
>> how did I not know that? That's wild.
>> And that's happened three times in at
least three times in the last two years
across Europe. In the United States,
that's essentially what we're that's
what we need. We need a hard reset. We
need to turn the not just turn the
computer off, but like factory reset the
settings in many cases to get back to
something that we can control, something
that we care about. You say that, do you
mean rewrite the Constitution or do you
just mean the elected officials, they
need to stand for office again?
>> Every person sitting in every seat that
makes a decision that's supposed to be a
representation of the American people,
every person in every seat needs to be
reset. That would be my solution to how
we would do this. Let's all revisit who
is the 12th congressional district
leader for Witchah.
>> What about judges? It's a good question.
I mean, I'm I'm primarily thinking about
the people who write policy, not the
people who are in charge of enforcing
the law.
>> Well, those people
>> got a little policy there for a minute
until the recent Supreme Court decision.
It really did feel like
>> uh and I mean, look, this is what the
judiciary does is they interpret policy,
but it felt pretty activist.
>> I don't I don't disagree with you, but
the the problem is that that's not going
to happen. The problem is that in two
years during the midterm election, we're
still only going to see 30% voter
turnout. And everybody knows that's
what's going to happen. And that's what
makes fatalists fatalist. And that's
what makes optimist optimistic. And
that's what drives the the wheel of time
forward, man. Like things aren't going
to change unless a whole hell of a lot
of people start doing things that
they've never done before, including
researching who they vote for before
they vote for that person. showing up to
the polls to actually vote for the
person that they choose because of
things that they've researched, not
things they've seen on TV and
commercials, not things that their
parents and parents-in-law are sharing
with them around a kitchen table, but
because what they they're voting their
actual conscious, which means you have
to be an informed voter to do that.
>> Yeah.
>> And I and that is the that's the long
and short of it. And everybody above
that that uh that payub, the name that
appears above the government payub,
everybody whose name is being who's
being paid by the government knows that
the American voter is not going to do
that. So that's why they do whatever
they can to kind of preserve their job,
whether it's Tulsi Gabbard or whether
it's some GS5 working for the USPS. How
does this end up happening without
triggering the rank and file to um
whistleblow which we're starting to get
in this event but it's not like a
thousand people coming forward. So is it
that you just recruit well for people
that are loyal to the country? I don't I
don't know how you pull this off. Is it
you just like in the book Shadow Sell
Your New Book, which by the way amazing
and we will certainly be talking
specifically about that in a minute. But
uh you guys like really splintered off
into these really small groups so that
you couldn't sort of infect one another
if one person got caught. Um how are
they pulling if something like this
really did happen and we find out all
these facts? How do they do it without
triggering that whistleblower instinct?
>> So it's not conspiratorial. I don't want
anyone to think that there's some
massive government conspiracy. It's just
not it's not feasible. It's not
probable. And in my experience, it's
ludicrous to think that this many people
could be in on one thing because even
inside government, you've got people
motivated by different things.
>> So, it's not conspiratorial. It's very
much tied to behavior and the flaws
within the system itself. Government
employees
by and large are not your sharpest,
smartest, most motivated, most dedicated
employee. That's not what drives them to
work for the government. What drives
them to work for the government is a
steady paycheck, a pension, job
stability, and any number of other
factors in life that make those things
paramount to them. So, you're not
looking for they don't they're not
predisposed to making waves. They're not
predisposed to innovation. They're not
predisposed to disruption. They're
predisposed to to stability and a very
set work schedule. So that's who we
staff in government. By and large, the
people who are innovators, who are
movers and shakers, who are outliers to
that community usually end up getting
the [ __ ] out of government at the
earliest possible convenience because
they know that the that the check mark
on their resume that they came from NSA
or they came from CIA or they came from
uh IRS is going to benefit them in
whatever they do next.
>> So, is this a go along to get along kind
of thing like AB?
>> So, culturally that's exactly what it
is. Culturally, you get in and then
you're so happy that you got in and now
all you have to do is just sit there
with your nose to the grindstoneone for
20 years and you're going to have a
guaranteed pension. That is such a
motivating factor that when you layer on
top of that the culture of you don't get
promoted unless people like playing with
you, what we call the sandbox effect
inside CIA. If you don't play nice in
the sandbox, you don't get invited to
the bigger sandbox.
>> So everybody's promotion is not tied to
their productivity. It's not tied to
their effectiveness. It's tied to
whether or not the person above them
likes them. So then we start having this
grandfather or rabbi effect whereas one
person promotes and has success. They
bring with them their loyalists.
But those loyalists are different than
what we talk about in political systems.
What a loyalist really is inside of
government is just somebody who
understands you can kind of understand
what your intent is and what your
purpose is. What we call commander
intent so that you don't have to give
them express instructions every step of
the way. But that's how every office in
government works. It's not that the most
talented rise to the top. In oftentimes,
what happens is the most effective
people bail and then whatever's left
rises to the top. Exactly. The same way
in the military w if we're being
manipulated by our own government, uh,
for dealing with all the things you just
said, people that are likely to look
away from something that's inconvenient
to their career advancement, uh, how do
we, the American public, protect
ourselves from being manipulated like
that?
And actually can before you answer that,
can I ask an even more distressing
question? Do you think we should protect
ourselves or should we go along with the
narrative?
>> That is a red pill, blue pill matrix
question right there, my friend. So
>> if you want life to be easy,
go along with the narrative. If you want
life to be easy, pick your news your
news channel. Whether it's CNN or
whether it's Fox News, only watch your
news channel. Worry about the [ __ ] they
tell you to worry about. Take the
actions they tell you to take and then
just live your 9 to5 job. Just do it and
buy your bread and buy your your ego
waffles and, you know, drink your
favorite coffee and just go through life
until the day comes that for whatever
reason healthcare doesn't cover your
illness and you pass on to the next
life. That's the easiest way to go.
Don't try to understand the truth.
If you're looking for the easy life, if
you're looking for the truth, understand
that there is no way to get there
without a whole lot of work and a whole
lot of effort.
If you want the truth, you have to
inherently distrust your government. You
have to distrust that they are there to
support you because they are not there
to support you. They are there to
support the government, the continuence
of government.
By definition, the American government's
job is to protect the government of the
United States, not the people of the
United States. So, if you sit at your
table thinking, "Oh, my government is
there for me." They're not. You may get
to choose them, but their job is to
protect themselves and to protect the
the legacy of the American institution
because that's what really writes
history books, not the history of John
J. Smith. So, understand that they're
motivated by something very different
than what you're motivated by. So you
have to distrust them and you have to
try to anticipate what motivates them.
If you want to understand Donald Trump,
all you have to do is ask yourself, what
does Donald Trump want from this
decision? If you can land on that,
you're going to have a much higher
fidelity of being able to anticipate
what Donald Trump's next move is going
to be because he is very, very good at
doing what serves Donald Trump, Donald
Trump's campaign, Donald Trump's
administration, Donald Trump's name,
Donald Trump's net worth. He's very good
at that. Obama was the same way. Bush
was the same way. we just have more
insight into Donald Trump than we ever
had into Bush or Obama. So, you have to
distrust your federal government and
then you have to distrust the media
because the media only knows they only
feel comfortable reporting what they're
told by the federal government. A
trained PR person who's there to save
their job and there to to save the
federal government is telling the news
media what their official statements
are. Then you've got leaks and these
anonymous sources. you have no idea what
their motivation is. So, you have to
distrust what you read. That doesn't
mean that everyone's lying to you. It
just means you can't trust any of it.
You have to take it all as raw
information and then cross reference it
on your own. And I would recommend that
when you cross reference American media,
you cross reference it against the
opposing politicals media output and
foreign media that is both left and
right leaning. So, you're going to look
for something like Alazer. You're going
to look for something like French like
France 24. You're going to look for
something foreign to cross reference
against our own news sources. So that
means if you really want to know what's
happening, you're reading four news
stories about the same single thing to
come up with your own conclusion on
what's likely, what's probable, and
what's improbable. So give us some of
the for people that don't know you,
which I think at this point vanishingly
small, but the the whole idea of
everyday spy is, hey, listen guys, I was
trained by the best of the best to be an
espionage and I'm telling you a lot of
these tactics work in your everyday
life. So, give us some trade craft of
how we look at information. Figure out
because you're going to have to break
things down either by what's most
important, what's most likely to be
totally sus. Uh what does and maybe you
do this by the person like, okay, what
is it? What are Donald Trump's tells? Uh
I characterize Donald Trump as being a
narcissistic entrepreneur who thinks of
America like America Inc. whatever. like
what's the trade craft that we can apply
here so that we can sift through this
information, connect the dots with a
high degree of efficiency.
So you are you're exactly right.
Everyday Spy, the company that I started
is a company that focuses on bringing
spy education into everyday life so that
people can break barriers, whatever
those barriers are. For some people it's
a mindset barrier. For some people it's
a physical health barrier. For other
people it's a business barrier. But the
mission of the company is to bring spy
skills to the front. tradecraftraft to
the front that allows you to break
whatever barrier you're facing. One of
those barriers is information. On a
large scale, if I were to start kind of
from the top down, CIA looks at
everything through two lenses. First, a
macro lens and a micro lens. In order to
understand what you're seeing on the
micro lens, you have to first assess it
on the macro lens. We call this
assessment versus assumption. If you
assume something to be true, then you're
not looking at it through a lens of
objective fact, which is what leads to
assessment. So if you're looking at the
economy, the American economy, you have
to assess it on a macro level before you
look at it on a micro level. So you have
to look at is the economy healthy, how
much is it growing or shrinking? How
does it compare to last year? These are
all macro assessments before you look at
rare earth minerals, which is a micro
assessment. Before you look at AI or you
look at memory chips, right? can't do
micro. You have to look at macro first.
The same thing comes to assessing a
person. When you're trying to determine
what is Donald Trump's agenda, what is
Tulsi Gabbard's agenda? Is Pete Hexath
an idiot or not? You have to look at
macro first. Assess the person. Where do
they come from? What are their highest
achievements? What are their lowest
lows? Who are they married to? How many
times have they been married? Where do
they live? Blah blah blah blah blah.
What's their net worth? Right? all these
macro indicators before you dig into did
he actually share Houthy secrets on
signal.
>> You've got to look at them both. What
happens is we live in an era where
everything is very all the communication
is very micro because micro is what
gives us something that we can click on
and read daytoday. Even when you look at
a headline, you have to look at the
macro part of a headline. This is a
fantastic exercise for everybody because
a the macro part of a news story is the
headline itself. M
>> when you assess a headline, you should
be asking yourself, does this headline
make me feel strong emotions?
>> It is a classic
>> and that's just like a trigger to know
if you're being manipulated.
>> Bingo.
>> Okay. So, when you talk about macro, are
you saying because this is how I think
about the economy, you need to be
thinking from a cause and effect
perspective?
>> Uh, is that what you mean by macro?
>> Sort of. I mean, you have to look at the
past, present, and future. And you have
to understand that they they all have a
role in shaping the intent.
So when you look at a headline for
example, when you look at the economy or
when you look at when you look at the
headline as one example,
>> the headline is maybe 12 words. What is
the intent of those 12 words? Almost
guaranteed the intent is to get you to
read the first paragraph or at least the
first sentence of the article. So we
already know that's part of the
intention. But what's the larger
intention? If you read a headline that's
that's speculative or if you read a
headline that's alarmist, right? Uh fire
in Pacific Palisades tied directly to
Mexican cartels.
Like that that is a very alarmist
uh uh highly accusatory headline. The
intent of that headline is not for you
to read the story. is for you to say
that to parrot that headline to five or
12 other people to automatically share
it on Facebook to automatically share it
on X to get viral attention. Often times
when you see a headline like that and
you read the first paragraph, the first
paragraph will actually contradict the
headline itself.
>> Yeah.
>> But that's a that's a trick that's used
in media. That trick is well known in
espionage because it's the difference
the true difference between persuasion
and influence. That is a very persuasive
headline. meaning it gets you emotional
and it makes you believe in it in the
moment. But if you just take an extra
five or 15 seconds, you'll stop
believing in the headline because you'll
read that first paragraph. Influence is
the antithesis of persuasion.
Persuasion, you trust something in a
moment. Influence, you trust something
long term. So after you've watched Fox
News for 20 years, you Fox News has a
great deal of influence with you. So now
they can shape a narrative through you
because they already know that you're
believing most of what they share. So
even though they share some facts
sometimes, they also share some
conjecture other times, but they've
they're able to influence your political
outreach or your political uh decisions
and your political perspectives because
they've built that long-term trust with
you. Whether it's factual or not is
irrelevant if the trust is there. H
we'll get back to the show in a moment,
but first here is the brutal truth about
scaling. Most entrepreneurs don't
outright fail, they plateau. And if
you're stuck right now, you know how
true that is. It could be that your
revenue flatlines every time you step
away. Or maybe you're trapped in a
commodity market that's racing to the
bottom. Or maybe you're one of the lucky
people who is navigating a very complex
partner dynamic that turns every
decision into a battle. These problems
and a whole lot more can seem impossible
until you break them all down into first
principles. My partners and I used this
thinking to grow Quest Nutrition by
57,000%
in our first three years alone and scale
to a billion dollar exit. And now I'm
teaching this framework to a select
group of entrepreneurs who are ready to
scale. Now, I want to be clear. This is
not for everybody because I'm looking to
work with serious entrepreneurs that
already have an established business and
a proven track record of execution. If
that's you and you want to learn how to
break through your biggest business
bottlenecks using first principles
thinking, be sure to apply now. Just go
to impact theory.com/scale
or click the link in the show notes.
Again, that's impact theory.com/scale.
Now, back to the show. Okay. Uh, the
method that I use to steal my mind, and
I'd be very interested to see if you see
a better way to do it or if there's
tradecraftraft language that explains
what I'm doing, is I build a map of
cause and effect. And so, if um I will,
and listen, I know that the maps that I
have of cause and effect are often
they're wrong in some way, and I just
don't know which way they're wrong yet.
So, I don't want people to think that I
fool myself into thinking, oh, this is
perfect. Um, but when you're mapping
cause and effect, you'll find that the
output of the system has high predictive
validity. And so it's like, okay,
there's probably something wrong, but
this is giving me answers that end up
being true way more often than they're
not true. So, uh, the economy, for
instance, by building a map of the cause
and effect of inflation, which is my
favorite hobby horse, uh, it's made me
made investing decisions that have made
me millions of dollars. So it's like
good luck convincing me I don't
understand the rough swag for sure of
the cause and effect of the economy
because I have spent now years building
a cause and effect sense of the economy
testing it against decisions. If
somebody comes and tells me no no no
it's not really that way mom dami runs
in New York and is like let's make
grocery stores free. I'm like hold on
this map of cause and effect that I
built tells me that that's not going to
work. In fact, if you do that, I'm just
going to get richer because you're doing
something that's going to be so
inflationary, uh, it'll be destructive
to the economy. All I have to do is bet
against the economy. I'm going to make
more money. So, it's like, okay, that's
dumb because the people that you're
trying to help, they're not going to be
helped by that mechanistically. And so,
um, that is my protective mechanism.
Now, it's extremely time consuming to
build, but it's incredibly effective. Is
there uh like or for people that haven't
read the book in shadow cell like you
really get dude life and death decision-
making. So uh that's the ultimate test.
Uh so
how do you begin to rapidly understand
in an environment where you know some
people who are trying to disguise
themselves from you are lying to you
intentionally to crack through your
defenses and that if they're successful
they may kill imprison whatever. So how
are you parsing that information like at
the nitty-gritty level? I got the the
macro, the micro, but like what's the
like real nitty-gritty? We're here on
the ground. You're saying a thing. I'm
like, you're looking at my face, my body
l what are we doing?
>> So, what you're what you're talking
about when you talk about your cause and
effect map. The tradecraft term for that
is called an a an analysis of competing
hypotheses. That's your map. And what an
analysis of competing hypothesis is is
it's literally a list of all the
hypotheses that could be determining the
input that you're seeing. So the price
of milk just went up. It went up because
of A. It went up because of B. It went
up because of C. Or the value of my
dollar that bought the milk went down
because of A, because of C, because or
A, B, C.
>> So you create all these hypotheses and
then you compete the hypothesis against
each other. What's probable? What's less
probable? What's the evidence that I
have to support this? What's the
evidence that I have to support that? Is
the evidence higher fidelity or lower
fidelity? And then you come out with a
out with a highly probable highfidelity
hypothesis that you can then test to see
whether or not your process was right or
wrong. So AC is what you're using for
that process. And I I love that you're
doing it. I'm not surprised with
somebody as intelligent as you that
you've created something like that
homegrown on your own. When you're
making decisions in the moment, you're
doing something very similar. When
you're looking at body language, when
you're hearing verbal in tonality, when
you're considering how far behind you
somebody is walking or how slowly
somebody in front of you is driving,
you're doing the same thing. You're
creating a a real time a however you're
you're limiting the number of factors
that you're considering to compete
against each other. Rather than having a
wholesome list of 24 hypotheticals,
you're only looking at the top three.
The top three is something that you can
process quickly. The human brain
basically breaks everything into twos
and threes. Twos and threes. So
something is two until it is three, then
it's three. Once it's four, it's two
sets of two. Once it's five, it's one
set of two, one set of three. So the
brain just naturally moves in a way or
con um cognates in a way that
breaks things down into twos and threes.
So if you have to choose between making
two options or three options, always
make three options. So we try to have a
primary option, a positive option, a
negative option, and a neutral option.
So I think this is happening and it
benefits me and here's my hypothesis. I
think this is happening and it works
against me. Here's my hypothesis. I
think this is happening and it's not
going to affect me, but it will affect
the next thing that comes. That's a
neutral outcome. So whether it's
somebody squinting at you, somebody
high-fiving you, somebody yelling at
you, you've always got to have those
three hypotheses. Just as a quick
example, you see a mother in a parking
lot screaming bloody murder at her kid.
Most people look at that and they're
like, "That's a bad mom." Right? Maybe
that's one of three hypotheses. It could
also be that that mom is stressed out
and whatever's going on, she's trying to
protect her kid and that's your
positive. Her stress is what's
protecting the kid. And then there's
always a third option. The third option
is it has nothing to do with the kid. We
have no idea what's happening. Maybe
she's just got fired and she's just
reacting to being fired, but the kid's
the one taking the bullets for her
reacting. We don't know. But whatever
comes next is she's going to drive that
car. So, how does A, B, and C affect her
driving of the car? Well, in all three
cases, we know that there's going to be
a stressed out driver behind the wheel.
So, now we can focus on that outcome no
matter what the input might be. Instead,
most people would just focus on now
gossiping about this woman who's yelling
at her kid, completely oblivious to the
fact that once you get behind your
[ __ ] wheel in the same parking lot as
that [ __ ] lady, she could run into
the back of your car and now put you and
your kids at risk. So, a and that
process of considering positive,
negative, and neutral is a big part to
how you get into the nitty-gritty of of
any real time operational implication.
>> That's really useful. The idea of okay
could be one of these forcing yourself
to take different framing very smart but
the and this is what's going to happen
next I think is the really useful
insight Scott Bessant the treasury the
secretary of treasury
>> um talks a lot about that with how um
Soros made his unbelievable fortune when
they broke the bank of England. So he
said, "Okay, everybody talks about how
brilliant that was, uh, but nobody looks
at we doubled our money the next day
because before we went in and broke the
back of the Bank of England, we knew
we're going to get this windfall and
this is what we're going to do with it."
And he was like, "So we made a billion
on the first trade and then we made like
another billion on the second trade."
And so he's like, "Nobody ever talks
about the second trade." And he was
like, "The real thing is that like
knowing that next move." I always
thought that was really smart. And
you're right. Uh most people a don't
force themselves to come up with a
different framing. So they have the
initial reaction. The emotion makes the
thing feel true, which I am desperate to
get people to stop doing. Everybody
trusts themselves way too much.
>> Uh emotions make dots feel like they
connect that don't actually connect. So
they see bad mom, they think bad mom,
and that's sort of the end of it. They
end up feeling superior. That feels
good. Uh, and then they get smashed into
by the driver because they're not paying
attention. Uh, so yeah, that's really
fascinating, but to pull yourself out of
that uh is is really important. Okay, so
bring
>> I want to throw that out there too,
>> please.
>> I I appre one of the reasons I like you
so much is because you want people to
stop thinking that way.
>> Here's the depressing truth is 80% of
the people listening to this
conversation right now are not going to
change the way they think.
>> That is overly generous. I clock it and
I'm not kidding at 98%.
>> So, so between 80 and 98% of people
hearing this conversation will not
change.
All that that's depressing if you look
at it through a lens of humanity. I we
have this conversation off camera. You
like people, you just don't spend a lot
of time with them. I actually don't like
people and I spend way too [ __ ] much
time with them.
>> Amazing.
>> Right. So,
>> it's hilarious. Why don't you like
people?
>> Because people are like this. Because
98% of people, if you're being accurate,
80% of people, if you're being generous,
are emotionally driven, completely
unpredictable. They want nothing more
than just to feel the lie that they're
safe dayto-day. And that is not what I
that's not how I want to spend my time.
>> That's not how you have a deep,
meaningful conversation with somebody.
That's not how you find the person that
you trust with your kids. That's not the
person who gives you a whiskey
recommendation that you actually want to
drink. That's that's an [ __ ] And the
world is full of [ __ ] just trying to
survive, right? just trying to make it
to the next sniff of their own [ __ ]
And I don't have any interest in that.
I'm looking for that 2% of people who
are like, you know what, I'm on a
trajectory to improve no matter how much
it hurts, no matter how hard the work
is, no matter how difficult the path is.
Because if I'm a little bit better
tomorrow than I am today, I have hope
for the future. Not hope that I'm being
sold on the end of a ballot, but hope
that actually resides in my brain and my
body and my fitness level, etc. Mhm.
>> So the vast majority of people are never
going to change. That makes it all the
more valuable to the few that do change
because you now have not just like you
were saying the first trade and the
second trade and the real money comes in
the second trade. If you improve
yourself today, not only do you get a
little bit better today,
>> you get a whole hell of a lot better
than your competition every single day.
So you've got the benefit, the growth of
your point A to point B, plus the growth
of your point B against everybody else's
stagnation from previous days. That
doubles the amount of growth and doubles
the amount of opportunity advantage that
you have. That's a big lesson CIA
teaches us. They tell us right out of
the gates, we're going to tell you
something that's published in psychology
books, that's out there in business
books. We're going to teach you how to
do this in a systematic way. And even
they know that only two out of the 10
people in the room are actually going to
succeed at doing it in the field. And
that's fine. With all of their
application, with all of their all of
their hiring rigidity, they still know
not everybody's going to apply it.
They'll learn it and never do it.
>> Yeah. It's what I call the only belief
that matters. If you believe that
putting time and energy into something
will make you better, then you'll
actually put the time and energy into
it. Some people just the vast vast vast
majority of people never move forward. I
assume because they're paralyzed by
thinking, "Well, I'm not good at this
and I don't want to be embarrassed and
so I stop." All right, that's uh enough
of that mindsety [ __ ] Uh I want to
get back to the lie. You've said that
twice now. So the lie that you're safe,
how not safe are we?
>> I there's a a saying that I learned in
business from a somebody that I trust.
It may not be accurate, but it keeps my
ass feet to the fire that every company
is basically one quarter away from not
making payroll
>> because any company that's longer than
one quarter away from not making payroll
isn't trying to grow fast enough. And
any company that's basically one month
away from payroll, missing payroll, is a
company that's that's too overzealous.
Which basically makes it so everybody
who has a job who's like, "Oh, I' I've
got a job and I'm safe." Actually,
you're one quarter away from not getting
paid. just depends on the decisions that
your CEO makes. That same wisdom in
business rang true for me immediately
because that's how it works in
espionage. We are always 60 to 90 days
away from our next strategy tragedy. No,
>> always. We just don't know what that's
going to be. There's always some
terrorist group that's planning to drop
a bomb. There's always some drug deal
that's trying to ship 10 tons of some
sort of drug. There's always some
weapons dealer who's trying to smuggle a
nuclear weapon across a border. Always.
And it's a 60 to 90day window between
whether or not they'll be successful or
not. That's that's how we view constant
threats. So we can't just shut down.
That's why during a government shutdown,
your intelligence services don't shut
down,
>> right? They don't even fall back to
critical needs. They fall back.
Everybody in the intelligence
infrastructure is considered to be a
critical asset because we know 60 to 90
days is too much to lose a window into
something.
>> No joke.
>> We get scared if we lose access for
seven days. If we don't get new
information from a target location in
seven days, if if maz fails, immint
fails, uh osent fails, everything fails
for seven days, we start to really wig
out because what's happening in those
seven days? And if we're losing this gap
right now, then we have to question the
previous seven days before the gap. Was
it shaped information? So, have we
really been 14 days out of out of the
no? So Americans feel safe because they
don't realize we're only 60 to 90 days
away from the next tragedy.
>> Have you seen a few good men?
>> I have.
>> All right. There's a really phenomenal
speech that makes its way on social
media all the time as a meme, but it's
like uh you wake up and sleep under the
umbrella of protection that I provide
you and I resent you asking me or
criticizing the method in which that I
keep you safe. Um so there's that side.
I tend to get really gassed up every
time I hear that speech. Like it speaks
to me.
>> Uh but then there's Eric Weinstein, who
I respect tremendously, who's like, "We
have to really be concerned about what
he calls the Jessification
of America where we're all just like,
"Yeah, go do whatever you need to do.
Just keep me safe." Um where do you fall
on that spectrum? Is this a whatever the
[ __ ] it takes or
>> I I certainly fall on the you need me on
that wall, you want me on that wall side
of the argument because the other side
of the argument isn't really arguing the
same point. There's a a tool that we use
in manipulation called switch tracking.
And switch tracking is when you when you
see that an argument is happening and
the argument is about a and you want the
argument to be about something else
because you can't win the argument about
A. Like let's say the argument is about
your emails, but you don't want it to be
about your emails.
>> You don't want it to be about your
emails. So then you have to argue about
something else. So your wife is yelling
at you because you're checking email at
the dinner table
>> about HRC and her uh using a private
email server.
>> So Hillary Rodm Clinton has a private
email server and that's what the
argument is about. Well, they know they
can't win that argument. So they have to
make it about something else. So how do
they make it about something else? Well,
they talk about the the lack of security
around the previous email server that
they were using.
Well, now all of a sudden the response
to that argument becomes about the other
email server,
>> not the private email server. And now
you can have a whole you can completely
switch the track of an argument by
talking about something different.
Right? Husbands and wives forget
Valentine's Day all the time. So a
husband forgets Valentine's Day. A wife
gets angry about the husband forgetting
Valentine's Day. Hey, you you never reme
you never remember Valentine's Day. Why
don't you ever remember Valentine's Day?
So the husband says, "Well, my love, I
buy you something nice every year for
your birthday, and you never seem to
appreciate the thing I buy you for your
birthday." Well, then what's the wife
going to respond to? What's the last
thing you bought me nice for my
birthday? Well, I bought you that
necklace. Well, I love that necklace.
Well, I didn't know you love that
necklace. And the whole conversation
about Valentine's Day is over. That is a
massive tool in the manipulation world,
especially with train manipulators,
advertisers, negotiators, intelligence
because all you have to do is just put
one one uh diverting comment into an
argument and you're arguing about
something altogether different.
>> So you need me on that wall, you want me
on that wall, the conversation is about
you need a wall.
>> Well, then the other person is like,
well, we can't let every we can't just
do whatever it takes to keep us safe.
That is a switch track. That is a whole
different argument because doing
whatever it takes to keep you safe is no
longer about a wall. Now it can be about
rockets, chemical weapons, nuclear
weapons, you know, children spies. It
can be about anything. Whereas you need
me on that wall, you want me on that
wall is about a wall. It's very
interesting. Um
how far do we as Americans need to go to
protect that wall? like is it um are the
dangers so high that children spies uh
Jeffrey Epstein if he was an
intelligence asset sex like the craziest
most PDF file uh type [ __ ] like there is
no thing we shouldn't be willing to do
for the greater good or um do we draw a
line somewhere
>> the switch track question I would say is
really how much do you want to remain
America's largest superpower if If you
want to remain the world's largest
superpower. If you want to remain the
world's largest superpower, you're going
to have to accept the dirt that comes
with being the biggest bully on the
playground. You're going to have to deal
with the fact that we have some
corruption. You're going to have to deal
with the fact that we cheat our closest
allies. You're going to have to deal
with the fact that we hide and cover up
things at the highest levels of
leadership because the myth of the
country has to be so powerful that
others fear us. General Petraeus became
the director of CIA. We were talking
about that earlier. I had the privilege
of being one of his like workout
buddies.
>> Everybody who was Petraeus's workout
buddy was really just a big kicking dog
because the dude only did one workout
every day and he had been doing the same
workout for like 30 years. So, he could
kick your ass on eagle push-ups or eagle
sit-ups any day of the week. They're
just insane. But what was cool is you
got this time with the general whenever
you worked out with him. He would never
work out with the same person five days
in a row. It would be like you're his
every other Monday person, somebody else
is his Tuesday person, whatever else it
might be. So, I had this time with the
general. He gave me this speech one day
while he was kicking my ass in push-ups.
And he was talking about how powerful
the mythos was to him being an effective
general in the army.
>> And he was like, I do the same workout
every day. He's like, you work out with
me enough to know that this is my
workout. So, of course, I'm better than
you. But the I He's like, I'm not trying
I'm not doing this for you. I'm not even
doing this for me. I'm doing this for
every new recruit who joins the army who
finds out that their general kicks
everyone's ass. That's why I do this.
Because that new recruit isn't going to
stop to ask themselves the question,
"Well, maybe that general just does the
same five exercises every day." Instead,
that recruit's like, "Fuck yeah, my
general kicks everybody's ass and he's
60 years old. I could be like that. I
could be the general. That's America. We
kick everybody's ass." He's like, "I
need to motivate that person because
that person joins at a rate of 25,000
new people a year."
>> It's like, I don't have to worry about
the lieutenant colonel who knows my
secret because lieutenant colonels
retire at a rate of 200 every year.
>> So, where's the focus? the focus is on
making sure the mythos motivates the
masses. And that was such a powerful
message to me because I was like, "Holy
smokes." Here's a guy who lives his
personal life around shaping the myth
about his personal capabilities to
motivate others. So this feels like the
very question that we are going to have
to contend with, which is social media
has killed the mythology. Everything is
so in our face. You can read a book,
watch a podcast, whatever about all the
behind-the-scenes stuff. Like there's
this book by James Burnham, which I talk
about endlessly called the Mchavellians,
Defenders of Freedom, which people do
not pay attention to that second part
and they just hear Mchaveli and they
think, you know, all bad things all the
time. And he's just saying, look, the
world works a certain way. And if you're
not being honest about how the world
works, you're going to be constantly
surprised. And so the book is about this
is how the world works. And it's really
gross and it's really ugly and it's
horrifying. Uh, but it's very much the
reason that you will always have a group
of elites is like you said, people
aren't going to show up to vote. But
it's also because there are people that
are um they're smart enough and they are
um
morally gray enough that they want
control of the narrative and then they
want to give you the pre-masticated
narrative that for a very long time,
depending on what country you're in
anyway, it really was better. And just
like you said, blue pill just, hey, let
me do this thing. I'm gonna be Jess up
on the wall. I'm gonna make sure you're
safe and then I'm gonna lie to you about
what America is in this case, but
everybody's going to be doing it in
their own country. Uh I'm reading
endlessly about Xi Jinping in China. And
bro just says obviously in private
conversations, but he's like, "Listen,
propaganda is real.
>> We have to be very careful about the
story that we tell about China and that
China is basically mandated by heaven to
rule the world. He doesn't say rule the
world, but lead." And it's like I'm
like, "Yeah." And the big problem that
we're going to have in the coming decade
is if America tries to out China, we
will lose.
We are not in a place right now because
of the populist moment to lean into
freedom. Certainly not as one giant
collective. there is a a huge
contingency clamoring for all the
controlly elements of uh I mean EU I'm
looking at you baby and China like that
whole like scan every DM all of that
stuff which is absolute insanity but we
are going to collide with a power that
is unflinchingly saying I'm going to
manipulate you top to bottom we're going
to talk about it openly in in the
pull-up bureau but within that we're
going to talk about this openly this is
what we have to do everybody you got to
repeat this ad nauseium and then in
America and I think rightly so, but
we're going to have to figure out how to
make this work to our advantage. We're
like, "No, if you say some [ __ ] I'm
going to say that's [ __ ] I'm going
to call it out. We're going to talk
about everything openly. We're really
going to look under the hood and we're
going to get to what's really going on."
But the problem is elites are still a
real thing. Meaning, there's only so
many people that are intelligent enough
and interested enough in premasticating
the narrative and feeding it to people.
And then the vast majority of people
just want to fall in love, have some
sex, eat great food, raise our kids,
like make some money. And so you get
into this weird dynamic that we're in
right now. Uh where we have to decide
like we have to consciously say, I know
this is mythology, but I'm still going
to lean into it. And if America cannot
stop telling itself the moronic
mythology of we're like these evil slave
traders, then we're going to implode.
Like whatever we do, it's going to be
mythology. I am well aware of that. But
we've got to wideeyed say, I get it's
mythology and yet we're still going to
decide to lean into this. Otherwise,
we're going to get our asses handed to
us by people that have a positive vision
of who they are as a people, regardless
of all of their foibless.
>> I often call this the adolescence of the
United States. That's where we are. If
you if anybody who's ever been through
adolescence knows how uncomfortable that
is. There's the belief that you're still
a child
>> and the crashing reality that you have
responsibility. And the worst part about
adolescence is that, you know, it's
going to get worse.
>> It doesn't get better. adolescence. Many
of us would kill to go back to
adolescence to be like, "Oh, are you
kidding me? All I do is smell bad and
have pimples on my face, but somebody
else still pays rent. That'd be great,
>> right?
>> We never go back to that ever." So, in
the journey of the United States, we
forget we're not that old. We're less
than 300 years old. We are at a place
right now where we're kind of in our
adolescence. China's 5,000 years old
plus. Russia's 3,000 years old plus.
These are countries that they went
through adolescence a long time ago.
It's like putting a 13-year-old with a
13-year-old up against a 40-year-old.
Does a 30-year does a 13-year-old have
advantages? Yes. So does a 40-year-old,
right? I remember when I was in college,
we used to joke about old man strength.
Being a 40-year-old guy who's got a pot
belly, but is somehow still strong.
Yeah, he's got 40 years of body mass
that he's grown. He may have a pot
belly, too, but he still has one good
fight left in him. You know what I mean?
So, we have to figure that out as a
country. Are we going to understand that
the childhood dream, the myth of being a
child forever is over? And now we have
to make some big boy decisions, some big
girl decisions. We have to put on our
big kid pants and move forward. And by
the way, it's not going to fix itself
overnight. You're going to have pimples
for a long time, right? We're going to
have boners and sweatpants for a long
time until we figure out how to deal
with this. That's just the way it's
going to work. I don't believe that
China and Russia have done it right. I
believe that they have done it for a
long time. I don't think that they've
done it right because at the end of the
day when you put a a volunteer
professional soldier against a
conscripted uneducated
ruffian who has been barely been trained
there. It's not an equal fight, right?
And that's how the United States has
always worked. We've always worked off
of our war fighter killing 10 of their
war fighters, our tank killing 10 of
their tanks, our aircraft downing their
aircraft carrier, right? That's how
we've always calculated and that's how
we've been successful. It's how we were
successful in the American Revolution.
It's how we were successful in World War
II. It's where we had success in Vietnam
and Afghanistan. It's where we were able
to leverage that advantage. Where we
didn't have success is where we were not
able to leverage that advantage. So as
we look to the future, we have to be
asking ourselves, what do we want as a
country? Do we want to be a country that
collectively stays ahead of everyone
else? And then if we want to
collectively, and that's a question,
there are plenty of people who don't
think that we should be a superpower
anymore. There are people who think the
world will be a better place if there
are three or five or seven countries
that are all equally wealthy, equally
sophisticated, equally innovative. I am
not of that ilk. But there are plenty of
people who are still asking themselves,
do we want to be equal? And then whether
you do or don't want to be equal, how do
you get there? How do you keep that? You
can do it by swallowing the narrative.
That's how other countries have proven
that they can do it. You can also do it
through revolution and through constant
fighting. You just have to decide if
that's how you want to do it. Do you
want a revolutionary
change or do you want a more controlled
productive change that takes longer?
>> Yeah. Uh the bad news is history tells
you if you choose a revolutionary angle,
you are going to have a strong man come
to power. America is basically the only
example of where a guy was like, "Yeah,
no, I just want to retire. So, I'll do
this one round as uh president. I know I
could be king, but I'm just not
interested in that. Uh and I'm going to
peace out back to my farm now."
>> Uh once
>> we had we had him one time.
>> Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So, uh, Trump would
run again if you let him. So, th those
days feel like they're gone.
>> Um, okay. So, you want America to remain
a superpower. At least that's what I
inferred from what you were saying.
Okay. So, I see us as we're on a
thusidities trap collision course with
China in no uncertain terms. China's
aware of it.
>> I'm reading a book called On Xiinping
right now. And it just he has his
cabinet has used the term Thusidities
trap before. They understand what's
happening. Um,
Xiinping is becoming more dismissive,
literally as a policy, more dismissive
of America. Um, because he believes that
we're the declining power and that
they're on the rise. It is merely a
matter of time. This is me stepping
inside his shoes. It's merely a matter
of time before America just cannot
defend its position anymore. He doesn't
believe that we collectively have the
will to try to maintain that position
anymore. Uh to your point, I'm not sure
that he's wrong, unfortunately. But if
you had uh hey, a moment on a mic where
you could like make a pitch, what would
that look like in the face of the
reality of if China, if we will let it,
China will become the global bully, the
biggest bully on the playground. They're
not going to be like, "Let's just do
this together, bro." Uh that's not how
history says this will play out. So,
what would be your pitch?
>> I would have two pitches. I would have
the fatalist pitch and the hopeful
pitch. I am of the hopeful pitch. And my
hopeful pitch is
China's already doing this. They already
believe we're going to crack. They
already believe we're going to break.
They already believe that we're on the
decline and that that decline is not
going to get writed. That's what they
already believe, which means we know
what they believe. But they don't know
what's really going to happen. We can
change it at any given time. And if we
change it, they have to react to our
change, which means we have the
advantage in first mover, first mover
advantage in business, in military,
everything else. So we have every
opportunity and every advantage to
change the trajectory that we're on.
If we don't, we just do what they
already say we're going to do. And
that's like the most embarrassing thing
in the world is to literally walk into
the trap that somebody else placed in
your path and know that you're walking
into that trap and do it anyways.
>> Yeah.
>> That's my hopeful pitch. My fatalist
pitch is start learning Mandarin
Chinese. The second most spoken language
in the world is Mandarin Chinese. Not by
a little bit, but by a lot. The primary
difference between the group of people
who speak English and the group of
people who speak Mandarin is that only
25% of all people who speak English
speak it as their first language.
>> 75% of all English speakers speak it as
a language they learned after their
native language.
>> Mandarin is the other way around. 75% of
Mandarin speakers, it's their native
language. Only 25% of speakers learned
it as a second language. So you can see
this the two populations are almost
almost the same. The big difference is
how much had to learn the language to
succeed versus how many were born with
the language. If you want your children
to succeed on the current path that the
United States has, you need your
children learning Mandarin Chinese.
>> That's wild. uh how do you think we
should be using AI in this fight? I
know. So my whole thing is AI presents
uh significant risks, but when you look
at it, game theory tells you China's
going to keep developing it because
it'll be the most powerful weapon that's
ever been developed. It will dwarf
nuclear.
>> Uh so it is going to be developed and
the only question is are we going to
join the arms race or we just going to
let it happen to us? Um, but you've also
got the UK government saying, uh, and
the EU, we're gonna scan all your DMs.
We're going to be all up in your
business. So, are you like, yes, that's
what we need to do, or is there some
other way that we should be thinking
about AI?
>> I'm I've always been all for AI. I've
also all been been all in on
transparency. Un even if you are
cheating on your spouse, lying about
your taxes, and carrying a second phone
so you can talk to your girlfriend.
>> Let it all be known. Let it let it all
be known to the government. To the
government. Got it. Because
>> somewhere out there there's somebody
using a second phone for something
different. And somebody out somewhere
out there there's somebody using banks
and monetary systems actually for
nefarious purposes. And when the
government sees that you're cheating on
your wife and cheating on your taxes,
they don't really care. They'll let you
keep your $2,000 that you sto that you
embezzled from your tax refund because
it's not worth it to them to pursue you
when there's some ultra wealthy person
who's embezzling $100 million. So,
they're going to choose the other
person, but they need to have access to
everything in order to find the other
person. If you choose privacy to protect
your little
lies, other people are using the same
privacy that you're protecting to
protect their big lies.
>> How do you reconcile that with what you
said earlier, though, which is the
government's not here to protect you.
They're here to protect themselves and
they will weaponize that against you the
second you give them a reason to. And if
that reason is simply you're speaking
against them and you're causing them
problems, uh, oopsie, you're having an
affair suddenly comes out. Oopsie. Your
$2,000 thing like, "Yeah, it wasn't a
big deal when you weren't bothering me,
but you're bothering me now, and I am
going to bring the full weight of a
tyrannical government down on you."
>> So, I never I I absolutely said the
government's there to protect itself. I
never said it's its intent is to
weaponize the government. That is
something that I understand people are
concerned about. It is a valid concern.
The the trick is to maintain the balance
between being transparent and never
being the target. Because here's the
thing, even if you are hiding your
affair, even if you are hiding your your
tax embezzlement, if you become a
target, there is no resource that people
won't use to to destroy their target,
especially if it's the federal
government or whether it's a law
enforcement agency or if it's a foreign
intelligence service. So whether you're
transparent or not, once you become a
target, you're [ __ ] So the goal is to
never become a target. That's the number
one thing you have to do. If you want to
speak out,
>> then put that put that target on your
chest and let yourself be brave and be
the martyr and hopefully you you achieve
the change that you want to make. I
would argue that there's more efficient
ways to get what you want without making
yourself a target. That's what espionage
is all about, affecting the outcome that
benefits you without ever being seen in
the process. I'm a huge believer in the
fact that we all have that potential and
that capacity. I believe it so much. I
have a business that teaches people how
to do that, right? Don't be the threat.
Be the person that everybody overlooks,
but still be as transparent as possible
because the only way that they're going
to find the distraction instead of you
is if they have full access to
everything.
>> That's interesting. I hate that answer,
but I'm going to have to sit with it to
see I mean, listen, I don't have an easy
answer to that one. So, um, yeah, okay,
I'll spend time with that, but I I just
don't trust the government. And I assume
that they're going to be as tyrannical
as the day is long and that they will go
after people randomly, not randomly, but
they'll go after people like CO 19 was
just such a wakeup call in terms of the
government gets some ridiculous idea.
>> Uh, and they will go ham. And because
the government is made up of real people
and there's some huge percentage of
Americans that are they want to like the
DSA, Democratic Socialists of America or
Association, I don't know which. Anyway,
the DSA uh they want to abolish the
family.
>> They actively say you should seek a
totalitarian government, that the DSA
should be in in every aspect of your
life. Like, it's just wild. So, I'm
like, uh, this all sounds horrible. I
want none of this. Uh, this is like to
use your we're in our adolescence. This
is like a child wielding the weapon of
an adult. At least China's like,
"Listen, we know how this game is
played. You guys just won't shut the
[ __ ] up. So, we are going to have to
kill a few of you, but only a few." And
then it's all just with this in mind.
These guys are just nut jobs who somehow
think that this is all going to work
out. That was not an advertisement for
China. PS. I think they are both
horrifying. Uh, okay. So having said all
that,
>> well the thing to keep in mind too is a
tyrannical I agree we're heading down a
path of a more it's a more
authoritarian, more tyrannical, less
justice-based government. I think that's
the direction that we're going. If you
take the temperature today,
>> temperature can change tomorrow. It can
change in a week. It can change at the
midterms. But that's the temperature we
have. We're looking like we have a
fever. That's what it looks like right
now, right? I need more cowbell.
>> But
we don't only have two options. Our
options are not revolution or shut up in
color. We also have an option to leave.
We're Americans. We have one of the most
powerful passports in the world. You can
always leave. And one of the few
arguments that I I I
loathe more than any is when people say,
"Oh, I can't leave. I can't leave
because I have too much responsibility.
I can't leave because I have too much
debt. I can't leave because of whatever.
I don't make enough money." I've been
hearing this argument from people
forever. people who don't like living in
Florida but refuse to move to Georgia,
whatever. If you care enough, change
only happens when the pain that you feel
is greater than the pain of the change
itself.
>> Yeah.
>> So, if you want to sit and [ __ ] and you
don't want to leave, then you don't feel
enough pain yet.
>> Yeah. Oh, you will.
>> Okay. I want to talk about shadow cell.
I want to bring in your wife, Gihei.
What is it that is the secret to being
able to profile somebody well such that
you can get from them ultimately what
you need?
>> Well, so the way it works so targeting
is the is the career field and it began
with the military during uh the war on
terror and their targeting was more
capture kill but the CIA started
utilizing it for more traditional
targets and the key is really just
understanding human beings. So
understanding their pattern of life,
understanding their loved ones and their
inner circle, uh understanding the
things that they are interested in where
somebody else a case officer can connect
with them on a personal level.
>> Okay. And when you say understand it,
like what are you looking for? So you
say pattern of life.
>> Uh is that like the rhythms, the things
that we pursue? Like what hooks are you
looking for? So, so part of it is the
nuts and bolts of how do I get somebody
in front of them? So, when I say pattern
of life, what coffee shop do they go to?
What time do they leave for work every
day?
>> So, the logistics of your life.
>> Yes, the logistics of your life where
somebody can just casually bump into you
and, you know, comment on your earrings.
I mean, obviously not your earrings, but
>> mine are gorgeous. What are you saying,
Ji?
>> Say, you know, oh, I love your shirt.
Have you been to Japan before? um and
start straight a couple up a
conversation.
>> By the way, boys and girls at home, I
mentioned earlier that I was into Japan.
Okay, I'm being clocked. All right, fair
enough.
>> Yeah. And then picking up so through the
various uh data streams that we can
collect at the CIA, which are all
classified, but there's a variety of
information that become that can be
collected on individuals. And using what
information you have on a person, you
can gather what their interests are. You
can gather what their relationships are
like, what their pe with their family,
are they devoted to a spouse? Are they
do they cheat on their spouse? Do they
have children, but you know, do they
have a lot of children and they love
them? Do they have no children but they
want children? There are these little
things.
>> What's the way to get people to start
bringing that stuff out? Do you try to
remain like no matter what this person
says, are you neutral or is it no matter
what they say, you're positive? Like how
do you ingratiate yourself into that
world?
>> So the targeter works all behind a desk.
So everything I'm looking at is data
that comes in. So it's like looking at
somebody just building a profile.
>> Just building a profile. But I mean
people put so much on the internet and
then there's all these other data
sources. So there's all these open
sources that people are very open about
their lives and then there's all these
other data sources that are proprietary
and classified that give you a a broader
picture of a human being. And then you
just start thinking about culturally how
do those things apply to that person?
>> How important is culture?
>> Culture is hugely important. Hugely
important.
>> So I have a hypothesis that everybody
can be understood based on three things.
Their biology So just we are chemical
processing plants but also male female
going to make a huge difference.
>> Uh their values and their beliefs. Their
values and their beliefs are for me
basically the way of being specific
about culture and how it manifests.
>> Does that pick it all up? Is there
something else?
>> So I think so I 100 Andy and I have
talked about this before. I 100% agree
on biology and I don't think I think
people have to be careful not to think
of biology as um the cultural norm that
we've been taught because biology is not
you know men are better at this and
women are better at this biology is you
know there are functions that drive
there are chemicals that drive us to do
certain things so I definitely think
that um I think um the other two also
but then the other thing I would add is
that as human beings we have basic needs
needs. So, one of those is the need for
connection, right? One of those is the
need for for security. All of us as
human beings, no matter what culture
you're from, we require the sensation of
being connected to other human beings
and feeling secure in our lives. Um, and
so that those things definitely play
into how can I create an approach for
another for a case officer to bump into
somebody and make that human connection
with them despite cultural differences,
despite possible language barriers. Um,
and those those are really the things
that you have to focus on when you're
thinking about how do I bump this person
and make friends. One of the things that
hasn't come up is that targeters also
direct the actions of case officers in
many ways.
>> Are targeters more frequently female?
>> Uh, no. But I would say they are more
frequently introverted.
>> Interesting. Okay.
>> We're nerds
>> to put it in the word. But uh but they
can direct because if they've scrubbed
everything. They've scrubbed classified
databases. They've scrubbed social
media. They've scrubbed academic
databases. They've scrubbed historical
records. They know everything there is
to know. And that also means they know
what they don't know.
>> So then they can tell a case officer,
hey, on the next meeting with that
person, dig into family, dig into how
they liked college, dig into favorite uh
alcoholic drink if they drink
>> because they want a more well-rounded
profile
>> because they want more in their profile.
And they can direct the activity that
drives the collection of intelligence
because every one of those elements is a
new way into whatever secret information
you're also trying to get.
>> Okay. So, in Shadow Cell, you guys do a
really good job of walking people
through the journey of what it was
actually like to be there on the ground,
which makes it an incredible read. PS,
>> however, you're having to create a layer
of um [ __ ] lies. Like, you're not
I'm assuming your name wasn't actually
Alex Hernandez. Like, that's a code name
for what it was. Obviously, though, I
worked with multiple AIs to try to
figure out what Falcon really was. uh it
it comes up with an answer. By the way,
I don't know if it's true or not, but uh
it has a strong hypothesis. Uh so when
you're doing all of that stuff and
you're trying to build the sense of who
this person is, how does that translate
into something that's like really
grounded? What are you what was an
example from the actual thing that you
guys live through where it was like,
okay, get me this piece of information
because when I know that then I'm going
to be able to advise you to do and like
how did that actually work? Because to
skip to the chase for people, you guys
end up being very successful, end up
helping to define a totally new way of
doing espionage that's still being used.
>> Uh so obviously we learn something in
these interactions. So
>> with as I know it'll be abstracted, but
as specific as you can be something that
you said, okay, I need this piece of
information and it became a very
specific action.
>> Right. So uh so an example from the book
which we is a a person that we were
pursuing through tech tech means. So we
were listening in on conversations. So
we never uh by the end of the book we
had met that person but gathering the
information we were having all these
conversations and so but we couldn't we
couldn't figure out what they were
talking about exactly until another
source brought us a piece of information
about medication that the person had
been um per had been acquiring under the
table. The target's codeen name is
>> Zephr.
>> Zephr
>> from the book. And just like G, he's
saying Zephr was a priority target
>> that we couldn't get close to. We
couldn't physically get close to him
because he had protected his pattern of
life.
>> So he had drivers to take him from point
to point. He knew how to protect his
information. So we never knew when to
expect him to go from point A to point
B. He would leave for work at a
different time in a different car with a
different driver on a different day. So
there was all this
>> uh
>> cuz he knew he was a target.
>> He knew he was a target. So he protected
himself and just like Ji is saying it
took multiple different types of
information, tech information,
interpretative information, surveillance
information before we put it all
together. And even then the the kind of
coup d'etata was another asset.
>> Mhm.
>> Who didn't even know we were looking at
Zephr, who gave us information about the
person who was codenamed Zephr. And that
made it all click.
>> Yeah. And then suddenly we knew that um
he was you know at first we thought well
maybe he's a drug addict and that's a
vulnerability and then we learned later
on that oh no his child's sick which is
unfortunate but also a huge
vulnerability. So that that really
connected a lot of really important dots
for us so that one day when we did meet
him we had this piece of information in
the back of our minds that we could work
towards helping him with.
>> How do you not play that card too fast?
>> So that's really the beauty of what a
case officer does. The case officers,
you know, they are trained to build
these relationships in a way where over
time they create a genuine friendship.
They create genuine trust so that when
they uncover
>> Are you using the word genuine the way
that I think about it?
>> Yeah.
>> Like it's a real relationship. Correct.
>> A real relationship.
>> Do you have to do that as a way to like
So I I don't have to remember what lie
told basically. I'm just actually going
to build a friendship with this person.
Yes and no. I would say that first of
all, it's kind of a uniquely American
quasi uniquely Western strategy. The
genuine relationship piece and part of
that is because Americans,
>> we culturally like to have real friends.
We don't culturally like to have a bunch
of fake relationships. It's very
exhausting to have fake relationships.
So, we try to build real relationships,
but we build those real relationships
inside the confines of our cover
persona.
>> How the [ __ ] does this not get blurry?
It does get blurry and that's a big part
of why there's so much mental health
support, psychological support. That's
also why assignments last as long as
they do. Have you guys been studied?
There's got to be something here about
the integrity of like selfidentification
that like as it begins to break down,
this is problematic. And so like what
are they helping you do?
>> CIA has an entire office of medical
services, MS. Inside MS, not only are
there nurses and doctors for your
physical body, but also for your mental
health and everything about us is
recorded and documented and retained by
>> what do you have to be most worried
about? What's the like most common
mental injury?
>> Uh I guess it would be a a full like a a
mental break like mental
>> because you're losing sight of who you
really are
>> and everything collapses around you.
Mhm.
>> When does that mean
>> um your personal relationships with your
family, your marriage, your relationship
with your children, your sense of
personal values, all of those things
start to crumble
>> when you've lived so many different
roles or when you've done things that
violate your values and beliefs as an
individual in pursuit of a larger
mission and then you look back at that
through age,
>> it's it's a difficult thing like you
sacrifice more and more.
>> So at the time maybe it didn't bother
you.
>> Correct. Right.
>> But it's an exponential sacrifice.
>> That's You just gave me the chills.
Okay. So, you talk about in the book
like the moral gray is a thing that has
to be dealt with in real time like we
got to figure this out.
>> Uh given that you guys get married
reasonably early on in your journey
together, how do you deal with that?
Like are you is Alex Hernandez married
and so it's easy for you to stay true to
that? Or do you are you sitting there
like literally advising him on how to
get close to women and using flirtation
might actually be one of the tools and
so you guys as a married couple are like
all right this is how you cozy up to
this lady like is are are we there or
were we just saying it's icky to use a
guy's kid being sick as a way to get
information. So I mean there's there are
so many areas where you can be working
in the gray and one of those is I mean
we are trained in and well aware of
honeypotss where sex is used you know to
basically either blackmail somebody for
information or sex is used to you know
develop that sexual relationship and
then get information out of them. Um, so
and andy likes women quite a bit. So we
always had the conversation where I was
like, you know, like outside of our
marriage just for the mission, like just
be careful. Be careful not to get
trapped by a beautiful woman because
it's stressful out there. You're by
yourself. You're under a lot of stress.
Maybe you have a really bad day and some
beautiful woman comes and offers you a
massage and then maybe the massage
starts to become more and you're like in
a vulnerable position. And so we're well
aware of our own vulnerabilities because
our job was to tap into other people's
vulnerabilities.
>> The That's wild.
>> Yeah. The Alex Hernandez alias was built
like all professional aliases, which is
not that far from truth,
>> right? We talk about having uh having
whatever is your truth is kind of like
your due north. And then you want a good
alias to be about 10 degrees off of
truth. So Alex Hernandez wasn't married,
but he was engaged. and Alex Hernandez
is a name that looks like a brown guy
with black hair, whatever else it might
be. Right? So, there's there's a lot of
elements of truth. Alex Hernandez uh
studied the same thing I studied, but
from a different school, and Alex
Hernandez was only 5 years older,
younger than me in real life, and we
could make all of the documentation
align with the physical person because
that's how true undercover operations
are executed. Mhm.
>> So, GI, he didn't have to worry about me
being too different than my real self,
but I also didn't have to worry about me
being too different from my real self. I
could still be a Star Trek nerd. I could
still, you know, have traveled
throughout the Far East. I could still
have uh familiarity with Japanese
language and Thai language without being
too weird. Like, I had all these
elements that were still very much me
even though they were under this other
person.
>> Okay. So, going back to the gray area,
um, as a married couple, how do you guys
deal with that? Is it that by nature
you're just like not jealous, or is it
that, okay, I'll take that as a misread
on my part. Uh, so if you're having to
draw too stark of a line, is it just
okay, we like let's just say that you're
like,
>> yo, like sex obviously I you're you
don't have to worry about the the
Kestrel government or the Falcon
government, you got to worry about me.
Uh, so like clear, but like I don't even
want you to like uh be alone in a car
with a woman. Like do you then just have
to adopt that in the persona of Alex
Hernandez? And so it just becomes easy
from that perspective
>> to a certain extent. Yes, Ji is a very
jealous person, but she's also very
specifically jealous.
>> Okay,
>> she's very specifically jealous of
skinny [ __ ]
>> I love it. So if I had to like flirt
with a fat chick, she was not absurd. If
I had to flirt with a [ __ ] she was
not concerned. If anything, she kind of
cheered me on for all those missions
where I had to go like
>> respect the house.
>> I had to go uh
>> America thanks you
>> pander to some dude's weird sexual
obsession with whatever you know
dominatrixes or something else. She's
like go have fun, take pictures, tell me
about it when you come back because
that's not something we're ever going to
do together.
>> Okay. Respect.
>> Yeah. And I think when you're setting I
think when you're setting when you're
working in the gray and you're setting
kind of uh like lines in this, you know,
writing lines in the sand for your
partner, they still have to be fairly
generalized. And so the way our
>> still in sand,
>> right? And the the way exactly the way
our marriage works is that I trust Andy
more than I trust anybody else. I keep
saying I trust Andy 100% and then
everybody's like, "You definitely don't
trust him 100%." That's probably true.
But I trust him more than I trust
anybody else. And
>> even though he's a a former CIA spy.
>> Yes. And what I
>> it doesn't enter your thinking or you're
like, "Listen, I know what that's like
from the inside. You guys get a
headline. You think one thing, but when
you're in it, it's like
>> So there's the what I really trust is
two things. I trust him to make the best
decision in the moment that he can.
That's the first thing. The second thing
is I trust him to tell me what's
happened. So if the best decision in the
moment is, babe, I was going to get the
keys to the kingdom and all I had to do
was go down on this beautiful woman. I'd
be like, okay, because you told me,
right? It's for the mission and you told
me.
>> Sorry. Where do you sign up for this? I
never got that medal. I never got that
medal.
>> Yeah, that never actually happened. But
>> but I mean those are the when I say
trust, that's what I mean. I trust him
to make the best decision at the time
that he can. And I trust him to always
tell me. So there is no 10 years later
being remember on that mission. Well,
>> you know, this thing happened and I'm
sorry to tell you. Like no, she also
>> come home and you tell me.
>> She also trusts her own ability to set
all the traps in place to catch you.
>> Yes.
>> But she's not going to volunteer that.
So there's traps all over our house.
There's traps all over my computer.
There's traps all over my phone. Like I
know
>> to tell me
I know that I'm being verified a lot.
That is amazing. Okay, I want to go back
to something uh very distressing. So,
honeypotss,
>> uh we're recording this in the middle of
the Epstein scandal is just still going.
And the thing that freaks me out is it
always seems to be about young girls.
>> Um is it just known in the CIA that
first of all, men are easy to trap? I
assume I I make the base assumption,
please tell me and the listening
audience if this isn't true, that it's
like a honeypot is basically 98% for men
and that you're probably not going to
trap women with sex. Maybe relations,
but not sex.
>> Uh, and is it true that some distressing
percentage of men are going to be
trapped like with a very unnervingly
young woman? M
>> so I think I think men I think it's a
disproportionate amount of men and I and
I think part of that is historically
they have been the breadwinners and then
the high stress positions and it's just
when people are under stress they're
vulnerable and what do you want when
you're under a lot of stress as a man
you want somebody to make you feel good
to take care of you
>> it's a 60/40 split among men
>> between homosexual and heterosexual
>> what
>> yeah so
>> what so The vast majority of
>> 6040
what is happening right now?
>> The majority of honeypot operations are
targeting menhu
>> with homosexual activity
>> because that is the vulnerability.
>> Okay. I'm read I'm reading this in some
way that maybe I shouldn't. I'm hearing
that out of a hundred men, 60 are
straight and 40 are gay.
>> No, what I'm saying is out of a 100
honeypot operations against men.
>> Okay. So basically
>> 60% are
>> of the guys that are ultra sexually
motivated and are going to be easy to
trap, 40% are gay.
>> Other way around,
>> but
>> 60% are gay.
>> Yes. 60% are being targeted by sexual
activity from another man.
>> Gay men are easier to trap than straight
men
>> with sex.
>> And they're not necessarily
>> interesting. What do you mean? What?
>> Well, there's a spectrum. There's a
sexual spectrum, right?
>> This is so interesting. Say more words.
heterosexual on one end, homosexual on
one end
>> and a lot of space in between.
>> But most of us
>> I would say for probably somewhere in
between.
>> Interesting. Uh color in the space in
between. What does that look like for
you two as CIA spies? It's so cool. You
guys are C former but former CIA spies
that are married. This is utterly
fascinating. Okay, so uh yeah, walk me
through the gray area.
>> So you would have uh you'd have an
operation. Mhm.
>> Or it's it's rare that the US engages in
sexual exploitation operations because
it's just
>> I feel like I'm being spun right now.
>> It's too sticky.
>> It's too expensive. It's too high risk.
>> We actually do follow laws. We have a a
giant office of attorneys that we have
to run operations through
>> really.
>> Now, those attorneys have layers and
>> so there's always a way around
something, but
>> okay,
>> but the first level is has to be legal.
There's a huge percentage of humanity
that believes that Epstein was an
intelligence agent
>> that uh most people just go asset asset
sorry uh most people immediately go to
MSAD some go to CIA some are like who
knows but are you saying that the US
would not do honeypotss involving
children?
>> Yes, that's the most exa that is exactly
what we're saying. If that were to have
if that were to have made it Yeah. If
that were to have made it through where
some US signature from an attorney said
we condone this operation, you're
talking about a fraction of a percent of
all operations. I It's never been even
remotely feasible in our mind that
Epstein was a secured US asset
participating in honey trout operations
with children.
>> H
>> not for the US.
>> Not for the US.
>> Interesting.
>> Yeah. Uh, so you guys assume it's
France?
>> I got I got beef with the French right
now.
>> I've always had beef with the French, so
I get it.
>> Okay. Uh,
>> but MSAD MSAD makes sense. Yeah.
>> So do a lot of the
>> because MSAD just unhinged no matter
what.
>> Well, it's it's because they their
calculus is defense of the Jewish state.
>> That is their
>> and they're like there's no laws.
>> There's nothing that that is worth
risking the loss of the Jewish state. So
everybody else is disposable. Yo, that's
direct.
>> I like it. Let's go. Spade a spade.
Okay, so uh back to the gray area.
>> When we're thinking about honeypotss,
just to get everybody back when we're
thinking about honeypotss, mostly men.
>> Uh 6040.
It's uh men that you're targeting with
men,
>> but we hesitate to say that they're gay
men, right?
>> Because But why? So, if they're in the
gray,
>> why does 60% of the time we're like,
"Ah, this will be easier with a guy."
>> It's not that the 60% of the time it's
easier. It's that when we do the the
dossier work, what we find is that the
vulnerability is tied in some way to a
desire for sexual activity with another
man
>> because they're hiding it.
>> They could be hiding. It's just a little
more elicit. It could be a curiosity.
>> If we can get them to do it here, then
it's like, I can use it against them. In
a way, I wouldn't be able to use a woman
against them. Everything about espionage
is about getting people to take actions
that they're trying to hide.
>> Because because if they do an action
that they're trying to hide and they
hide it, well, guess what that means? It
means when you tell them to do a dead
drop two years from now or when you tell
them to fly under a fake alias 2 years
from now, they'll do it better because
they're naturally good at keeping
secrets. Whereas if you hooks if
somebody has sex with a prostitute who's
a male and then runs home and calls
their preacher and talks to their wife
and calls their mom, you're like, "This
person is never going to be equipped to
carry real secrets in the future."
>> Okay. So, if I am recruiting for the
CIA, am I preferentially going after
people that are in the gray that are uh
not necessarily straight or gay, but a
little more flexible? Like, is that
valuable? Do you get bonus points for
that? I wouldn't say they're bonus
points, but the gray is what you're
looking for. What you're
>> Because I'm assuming like if if I'm
stepping into a honeypot and I don't
maybe I'm just too suspicious, but if
I'm stepping into a honeypot and
somebody's like, "Do a bump of cocaine."
I'm like, "You first." Right? If
somebody's taking me and there's like a
guy involved, I'd be like, "You jerk
them off first." Like what the [ __ ] are
you talking about? Like I'm not going to
do anything that's going to be used
against I need to see you do some [ __ ]
Like but if that guy's like, "Ah, I
can't either." then like clearly it
feels like it would dead end there.
>> So you're you're very right and that's
where the pre-work comes in. Be you
don't meet somebody the first time and
then take them to a location where you
do a bump of cocaine. You meet someone
five, seven, 12 times and then over the
course of that you explore what's the
right setting, what's the right time,
what's the right um
uh compromise
>> to introduce to them first
>> and then it's like a domino set after
that. If you get them to do a small
compromise
>> and then another one after that, another
one after that, they just start to build
momentum. And here's the thing, you've
you have probably had a friend in your
life
>> who kept all your secrets for you.
>> And you knew if you had a bad idea, that
was the friend you were going to talk to
first. We all have a friend like that.
CIA's job is to train us to be that
friend for foreigners.
>> Wild. Wild. Okay. Uh, Shadow Cell,
>> it's very dangerous. reading the book,
you're like, "Yo,
uh, like there was a time where
certainly when you went to Kestrel, you
had to be having a stroke at home." Um,
walk me through that moment from your
perspective.
>> Is it you know what he's going to do? Do
you guys know at the time, oh, this is
going to be way more dangerous than
normal or cuz you end up getting picked
up.
>> Yeah.
>> Interrogated. Scary. Scary. But when
you're at home, are you like, "Oh, I
don't realize this is the one that
escalated to that."
>> Correct. Yeah. I um
>> So you're like that every mission.
You're like, "Oh god, I hope
>> every mission." Yes. Every mission is I
hope it goes well because once he's on
the ground, I don't hear from him
either. I mean, usually he only he'll
only because he has to keep his cover.
So it's not like he can call me and we
can, you know, catch up on the day. So
every single mission I am like please
God, let him be okay and come home. So
that that particular mission um that
went badly, he called me and that was
the first time I was like he called me
just to be like I'm coming home early
which sounds very innocuous but for me I
was like holy [ __ ]
>> cuz that's code.
>> Yeah. I was like this is bad. And then
the rest of the time between that that
and him coming home I was just a wreck
because I didn't know what was going to
happen. I just knew something bad was
going on and I wouldn't know. So we had
our own como plan, our communication
plan, our own personal communication
plan where I knew that he would give me
signs of life and we still do this to,
you know, give me a sign of life every
several hours. Wow. So I knew that was
in place and that was enough for me to
kind of hold off because there's nothing
you can do in the meantime. So I just
worked a lot and Andy and I talk about
this as well. I mean I was I loved being
a professional. I loved being an
intelligence professional. So, I just
threw myself into work, which you know
really benefits a CA.
>> What is it about the game that you like?
>> I love So, I personally love knowing
things that people other people don't
know. I love secrets. Um, I felt like I
was really good at targeting. I love
detective novels and puzzles. And to me,
that's what it that work felt like. And
it was that work with secrets. And um
and then the the other thing was the
people. We worked with really really
amazing people in the agency and I just
I've never worked with another group of
people like that.
>> It's incredible. Okay, so uh walk me
through what it's like to be pulled off
the street, interrogated. Um how is your
heart not beating out of your chest?
>> It is. It's a terrifying feeling. Um,
and do they just expect you to be
scared? Because it's like, well, whether
this guy's guilty or not, he's going to
be freaked out. This is weird.
>> There's a recipe for a really good
interrogation and we learn the recipe
when we're at the agency because we're
supposed to use it against our targets.
>> So, you know what's coming.
>> Correct. So, what ends up happening or
what ends up happening in my case in
Shadow Cell is because they have a
different recipe, right? Kestrel follows
a different recipe when I'm in Falcon
than what we follow here in the United
States. So right away when I see the the
disparity between what we do and what
they do, I'm starting to understand that
they're losing advantages that they
could have. As an example, it's very
common
>> because they're doing it worse.
>> They're doing it differently, but
they're doing it wrong in my opinion.
Right? When you
>> So inside you're like, "Bitch, please."
>> Kind of. For real though, for real,
because there's an there's an element,
as a basic example, when you snatch
somebody off the street, you need to
assume where they're physiologically
going to be. heart racing, body
temperature increasing, uh, sweats,
right? Their their perspiration is going
up, they're burning calories, their
glucose is dropping. You got all these
things that you can you can assume right
away. Well, what's the best way to
maximize the impact? It's to then put
them in a room and leave them alone for
a long period of time. Let that
adrenaline dump happen. Let the sweat
turn into cold on their skin. Let them
get nervous. Observe them the whole
time. Change the temperature in the
room. there's all sorts of [ __ ] you can
do before you ever say a word.
>> That's not what they did.
>> So, right away, I was I was seeing the
difference between what they were doing
and what we were trained to do, which
gave me confidence that I could fall
back on my training to resist or counter
the interrogation. So, control my
breathing, control my energy burn,
>> regain my mental clarity, and then
before I knew it, the the interrogation
was starting. And then as the
interrogation progressed, I could even
see in their questioning, in their
relationship with the two interrogators,
you could see these gaps. Every time you
see a gap in an interrogation, it really
is like like a scoreboard in a soccer
game where it's like a point for me, not
for them, a point for me, not for them.
And that's really how you survive any
kind of long extended
captivity is you're constantly keeping
score. Where did I win? Where did they
win? And who's winning the game overall?
Okay. How long were you interrogated
for?
>> It was about two two and a half hours.
>> Wow. Okay. And they um just suspected
that you were spying, like you were
doing suspicious behavior. Like what was
it that triggered them?
>> We actually don't know. We've we've done
all of our counter intelligence reviews
with the agency and within our own cell.
We suspect that what happened is that my
my identity my identity document was
flagged
>> and then because of when my flagged
document tried to cross a border, they
pulled in whatever team was available at
the moment. Part of that was our
intention. We're we're taught that when
you try to escape across a border, you
want to do it at a time that's a low
period so that the best players in the
game aren't on the field, right? So, you
try to get in early, you try to get out,
you try to get out late, but you don't
try to do something at 1:00 in the
afternoon. So, I was trying to evac
early and I got the B team or possibly
the D team that was available on site to
interrogate me and then it just it
worked out for the best. So, the theory
behind the process of tradecraft worked
in our case.
>> Okay. I mean, this has got to be very
stressful. Uh, it ends up for you guys
being the punch line. Okay. We're going
to tap out. What was it, Jihei, that
made you want to eject? Okay, we've
we've done our time. We've served the
country and now we're done.
>> Andy wanted to leave.
>> Would would you have stayed?
>> I would have stayed.
>> Now, why didn't you stay? So, he has
obviously he's more at physical risk.
>> Yeah.
>> Is there a reason you didn't say, "Hey,
cool. Totally get it. Go do your thing.
I'm going to stay here."
>> So, for me, it really came I when I'm
making a big decision, I make this pros
and cons list. Um, and it really just
came down to we had a baby and we wanted
another one and we were by that time
working in DC again and I just saw, you
know, Andy was making more than I was at
the time and DC is an expensive place to
live. So I, you know, daycare was really
expensive and I thought if we have a
second one, one of us will have to stay
home. We can't on our government
salaries afford two in daycare. So not
only would one of us have to stay home,
but we'd have to move further away than
we were from the agency. We used to live
a 20-minute commute and so we'd have to
move an hour out. One of us wouldn't be
working. Most likely it would be me
because Andy had a higher salary and I
was the one who wanted to work.
>> So, um,
>> very pedestrian reasons, right? But
that's what it comes down to. CIA
officers are still just
>> everyday people, right?
>> And so Andy said, "Let's let's move, you
know, to Florida and be by your parents
and they can help us with the kids." And
I was like, after a lot of convincing, I
was like, "All right." I was I was like
I moved away from home. Like I have made
it, you know, like this is exactly where
I should be right now. But he convinced
me in the end that it would be best for
our family and that's what really
matters the most to us.
>> All right. Parents are about threat
detection. It's one of the like the core
parts of the job. You guys have a very
unique insight into the level of risk
that we are at as a nation.
>> Uh as a mom, how do you parse through
all of that knowing what you know? Do
you want to feed your kids the narrative
so that they feel comfortable? Um, or do
you want them to be like, "Hey, listen.
All these other kids think the world is
one thing, but it's not that."
>> And are you going to filter your answer
right now? That's that's what I'm going
to be paying attention.
>> Let's go, man.
>> I like to filter. Um, so so far my our
kids are 12 and eight, and up until this
year, I felt like they were just too
young to really understand. M.
>> But now that my son's 12, I'm starting
to talk to him more about what's on the
news and I'm starting to
find ways to talk to my daughter. My
daughter, she's very girly and she likes
makeup and she wears these very
fashionable clothes. And in my mind, I'm
like, "Oh my gosh, like you could you
are in danger. Like you could be
molested by somebody. Like you you know
there's there's so many things in your
future that I have to protect you from.
So, I am now starting to I think they're
developmentally ready for me to start
introducing the dangers of the world
because I think we have to I don't want
my kids to feel that the world is a
dangerous place. But I also feel like
it's my job to protect them.
>> I think we also don't want them to feel
like the world is a safe place.
>> Yeah.
>> The world is just the world. It's a
place. It's got dangerous people. It's
got helpful people. Um but people are
just people. And the only person the
place where it all starts where your
defense really starts is with yourself.
We've been teaching our son self-
>> rescue
>> since he was probably six or seven years
old.
>> What's self- rescue?
>> You are your own first line of rescue.
So we will compliment him sometimes and
say, "Hey, good job self-rescuing,
>> right?" Whether that's falling off the
edge of a pool into the water with your
shoes and clothes on, whether that's not
going down a dirt path that has, you
know, snakes in it or something. Like
when they make a good decision that
enhances their personal safety,
>> we will call that a a good job at self-
rescue. When they identify that they're
out of their own water, like their water
bottle's empty,
>> that sort of thing that shows that their
awareness for their own
self-preservation, that's what we're
trying to encourage.
>> What do you tell them about the gray?
>> Our daughter lives in the gray already.
She's naturally predisposed
>> because like, yeah, that's that's our
kid.
>> We're very proud of it. And it's also
hugely inconvenient. Yeah, our son is
very black and white. He is very
uncomfortable with gray areas. He is
very uncomfortable with untruths. Uh so
I think he requires more work to
understand that
>> you can't necessarily live black and
white. You can't always you can't always
be the one telling the truth because
sometimes you need to refrain. And then
our our daughter I think has just just
like Andy said, I think our daughter has
it down already. She she
>> she got an intuitive understanding for
that one. She does.
>> That's very interesting. Okay. Uh I
would clock that as women use a
different strategy in life. They don't
approach things front on. So woman the
likelihood that she gets into a fist
fight is very low, but the likelihood
that she uses a reputational form of
violence is very high.
>> Do you guys clock it that way? That
didn't seem to line up earlier when I
that's why I was asking about targeting
if that was more a female ccentric
thing, which doesn't seem to be. Um, but
does that read seem given that you
psychologically profile people, does
that seem to fit or No,
>> I would actually I'm curious what your
answer is here because for me it it's
not broken down on gender lines.
>> It's broken down on on personality
>> and it's broken down on um uh like
natural energetic tendencies, what they
can and can't read about another person,
what they do and do not like to do
themselves. Like everybody has the
capacity to manipulate, but how do they
manipulate? Even our son, who's very
black and white, will manipulate with
feelings.
>> He'll he'll come up when he wants
something really badly, he'll come up
and just assume he can't get it, and
he'll demonstrate sadness, and he'll be
like, "I know you're going to say no,
but I'm just wondering if" and that's
that is a manipulative approach.
>> He may not see it that way himself as a
12-year-old. He may see it as just,
>> you know, sharing his true feelings, but
because he's sharing his feelings before
the actual decision, it is manipulative.
So, I'm curious what your answer is. I
don't see it as a gender thing at all.
>> Yeah. I'm I'm very careful not to split
things by gender unless it's uh
something that's culturally affected. So
>> cultural gender roles um you know I
think those are very those are very
valid in the way that people um behave.
But I think, you know, things like, you
know, do are they straightforward or are
they, you know, do they are they, you
know, come at you from the side. I don't
I don't see that as gender based.
>> Interesting.
>> Yeah, I do see that as personality
based, energy based. There are so many
other factors that go into the way a
person is than gender. Although I do
think that I I think that the cultural
um
like manipulations of how genders are
supposed to be, you know, you can look
at that, but it's not the whole picture.
>> You you even talk about biology, values,
and beliefs, right? The biology element
is legit.
>> I don't think that the penis or vagina
is the biology that matters as much as
the beliefs
>> about what it means that you have a
penis or a vagina. Those beliefs kind of
dictate how you carry out your behaviors
and how others interpret your behaviors
more so than the biology itself.
>> Interesting. Uh I have a hypothesis that
algorithms know with a
>> more than 90% accuracy whether
somebody's male or female literally just
by what they linger on, what they like.
>> Um do you guys think that's crazy?
>> I don't think that's crazy.
>> So there is we are leaking our gender in
some way.
>> Our gender identity at least.
>> Our gender identity.
>> Interesting. What do you think is a
stronger driver?
The biology or I mean I guess you've
already answered this. The biology or
the the sense of identity? I would say
biology a thousand times.
>> I would say identity more than biology.
>> Yeah.
>> Because what's interesting is when
>> in our experience when you're targeting
a source of information, you literally
can't approach the same person the same
way if time has passed. Because the 12
year old, the 22 year old person is very
different when they're 42. Their biology
is only aged. Otherwise, it's still the
same. Same genetic code, same maybe they
have more constipation. Who knows? But
they haven't changed genetically,
biologically very much. But everything
else about values, beliefs,
perspectives, opinions, all of that has
been changed over 20 years of history
and experience.
>> So you you have to adapt to how you
approach them. That's a a core element
in espionage is understanding that
whoever you meet today, if you meet
someone today who doesn't have access to
any secrets, but is very good at keeping
a secret.
30 years from now, that person might be
CEO of a government contracted company
and you already know they can keep a
secret. So now they have access they
didn't have when they were 20 and you
know that they're good at keeping
secrets. So now all of a sudden they're
infinitely more valuable. But you can't
approach them the same way 30 years
later. You have to approach them
differently. You might they might have
known you when they were 22, but now
that they're 52, they have different
motivational levers that you can pull
on.
>> Right.
>> Do you guys think that being spies has
influenced how you engage with each
other as husband and wife?
>> Absolutely.
>> How
>> I don't lie to her because she
>> she's too good at detecting.
>> She's just too good at seeing it. She's
she's too good at seeing it. If she sees
it, I won't know that she saw it, right?
So, she's going to have leverage over
me. So, it's way better to tell her the
truth because then she has to react to
the truth. And I know she's CIA has
taught me how to observe her. So, I can
see that she's slower at processing the
truth. And that slower processing gives
me more space to kind of win points
back, if you will, for whatever I do
wrong, whether it's yelling at the kids
or not buying the right type of bread or
whatever it might be in our everyday
life. So, there's all sorts of benefits
there. Plus, we communicate about
mundane things and high impact things
with a whole different vocabulary. A
vocabulary that we learned at the agency
about everything from personality types
to uh cognitive distortions to strategic
elements and planning. When she talks
about a como plan, I know exactly what
she means. I know exactly what steps
would be involved. So, when she says to
me before I travel to Africa, "Well,
what's the combo plan?" I already know
what she's talking about. It's a it's
it's a whole different language.
Yeah, and I would agree. I think the the
shared vocabulary is something that I
think we have that possibly other
couples don't have. And part of that
shared vocabulary is just
what we feel I was I want to say
comfortable, but what we are willing to
talk about. So hard conversations we
know is a requirement. I think most
couples avoid hard conversations, but we
know we have to have them and we have a
vocabulary that we can use to get
ourselves through those hard
conversations. It's not, it doesn't mean
that those look great. I mean, that
might be 3 days of Andy getting no sex
and me being really furious and, you
know, like um but at the end of it,
we've made it through, right? And we
have the vocabulary to close that out
and move on and be better.
>> It doesn't mean we don't have
misunderstandings. We We're still a
married couple. Just as a quick story,
we were at the Grove in LA just a few
days ago.
>> Great place.
>> Great place. And uh we were we had just
purchased dessert for the kids. They had
a good lunch. It was a big day, so we
got them something sweet. One got ice
cream, one got boba tea.
>> Well, Ji looks at me in the middle of
the [ __ ] grove with these kids
running around and all this chaos
happening. And she's like, "Do you want
anything sweet?" And of course, I
respond, "No, I'm fine." And then we
leave 15 minutes later and she's angry.
And I'm like, "Why are you angry?" She's
like, "Well, I wanted something sweet."
>> I was like, "I don't remember you asking
for anything sweet." And she's like, "I
said, do you want anything sweet?"
And to me, I was like, "That you asked
me if I wanted something sweet." And I
said, "No, because you're on a diet."
>> Cuz you're always on a diet because you
got to compete with the skinny [ __ ]
So, I feel it.
>> So, there's always miscommunication that
still happens as married couples. The
vocabulary doesn't replace the lack of
communication, but at least we're able
to talk about it where I'm like, "Why
won't you say what you mean?" And then
she can come back and she can just say,
"I feel uncomfortable." That's that
>> that is a conversation that many married
couples don't get to have.
>> Oh, they don't even know how to have it.
Lisa and I talk about that a lot. We try
to talk in insecurities.
>> So, it's like once you can do that, then
it's like, "Oh, okay, cool. I get where
we're at. Totally understand.
>> But if you don't and it just stays in
that emotional place, it gets bad fast."
>> Yeah.
>> It's wild. You guys are fascinating
individually together though. This is
dope. What can we expect from you guys
in the future? Are we gonna write a spy
novel, a thriller? Uh where where are we
headed?
>> Uh so Shadow Cell hits bookshelves on
September 9th.
>> Phenomenal. Get your copy
>> worldwide. We're very excited about
that. It's already breaking records in
audiobook sales pre pre before it's even
published. Uh, we've got just a very
happy, very happy publisher, very happy
agent, very happy world so far. Um,
we've also already sold film rights to
Legendary Pictures.
>> Let's go.
>> So, that's incredible.
>> After we talk to you, we're actually
going to talk to a screenwriter.
>> Oh my god, that's
>> we've been connected with. So, we'll see
whether or not it ever makes it to the
big screen or the streaming screen or
anything else, but we're super excited
about that.
>> You should be.
>> We have a second book that's already
with CIA for clearance that talks about
how we used our common spy experiences.
uh and spy tradecraft to build a
business and that book will come out
exactly a year after Shadow Cell comes
out.
>> It's incredible.
>> And then on the far horizon, I just want
to do more and more creating. What I've
discovered in this process personally,
and I'll let you speak to what you've
discovered in the process, is two
things. First, it's it's
therapeutic to go back through what
happened at CIA.
>> And processing through that is a kind of
self-reflection that is both empowering
and humbling at the same time. And it's
really powerful to look at where we are
now as digital personalities, as
business owners, as parents, as a
married couple, and see where we
started. It's kind It's incredible. It's
very similar to I was talking to Lisa
earlier today. We were standing on your
balcony, and you guys live overlooking
where your first date was.
>> Yeah. It's wild.
>> So, you can actually go back to where
your first date was and look up at where
you are now. It's an it's an amazing
thing to be able to see where you came
from, but then also go back and stand in
those shoes and see where you are.
>> So, it's been really empowering and
enriching for me to go through that
process. But the other thing I learned
is that nobody believes in you as much
as you believe in yourself. And CIA told
us that we believed that then. But after
coming in building a business and going
through executives that tried to kill
our business from just not knowing what
they were doing to, you know, people who
who say they believe in your story but
then want to change your story. I'm
realizing that creative control is a
very important thing. So you'll see more
creative elements, more creative content
from us that we will control.
>> Yeah,
>> that makes sense.
>> Yeah. And I come from a very creative
family. And when I met Andy, he had gone
from Air Force to federal government.
And I just thought he was just an
average guy. Now I'm finding out he's so
creative and he really is the happiest
when he's creating. We have a very
creative household. And so, you know,
I'm hoping that Andy will do a lot more
writing because he's just amazing at it
and he has all these amazing ideas that,
you know, I get because we're in the
same household, but I would love for him
to be able to share them with everybody
else as well. What did you learn from
the process of writing this book?
Because you don't you don't talk about
that very often.
>> Uh it's really hard to write a book. No,
you know what? The the book writing
process was was great. We did it
together. It was a trip down memory
lane. We got to remember all of all of
our friends and these great experiences
we had. Um which came at a really timely
uh it was really timely for me because I
was really struggling in my personal
life about like what am I doing with
myself? Um, and so that was wonderful.
Pushing it through CIA was so so
difficult.
>> Um, but I'm I'm glad we went through it
once because if we ever have to do it
again, now I know not to have so many
fights with Andy.
>> We will get through it.
>> We fought a lot because CIA what we what
I wanted to create was the most
comprehensive, compelling, and
contemporary spy story ever published.
>> And that was kind of the bar I set from
the beginning. Mhm.
>> I was like, I don't want to I don't want
to write about missions 30 years old. I
want to write about missions that are
happening right now. Trade craft that's
happening right now. And I want to I
want to share things that CIA has never
publicly shared before, but that aren't
considered quote unquote classified. We
talk a lot about how the government
shapes what information it shares.
>> There's a lot of information it shapes
that it's that isn't classified. So, I
was like, let's tell some truth behind
all the the malin information. So our
book talks about a mole that CIA has
never publicly disclo disclosed until
this book.
They didn't want to do that. And JI
being the penultimate government
employee when CIA looked at our
manuscript and said this entire
manuscript is now classified and it will
never be published.
>> Whoa. That's what they said to us.
>> GI was like well we tried and I was like
[ __ ] that. like we we hit on a nerve,
but we were so meticulous in how we
wrote that manuscript. We knew nothing
in that manuscript is going to give a
foreign adversary an advantage.
>> So, I wanted to go headto-head with CIA.
She wanted to cower right away and not
not kick that hornets's nest. And for
two and a half years, we fought about
that. We fought back and forth with
every edit and every back and forth
email with CIA. I mean, we scheduled
meetings over in person. We scheduled uh
meetings over the phone
>> and it was this just painful multi-year
clearance process until Jihei was
finally like, "Fuck it. I'm tired of
fighting."
>> And she went line by line through the
whole manuscript and referenced every
single thing to some sort of open-
source point.
>> Wow.
>> And then turned it into CIA and they
came back and they were like, "Thank you
for your reference. It's still
classified." And that was enough to
trigger
>> that was waking the beast cuz after that
they were done. And six months later, we
had a cleared book because she
threatened them with a First Amendment
lawsuit.
>> Yeah. Our our general life is involves
Andy persevering and dragging me along.
And then at the very end once he's kind
of like, you know, teetering on the edge
there, I'll be like, "What? We're going
to do this?"
>> It's kind of like every every Dungeons
and Dragons game you've ever played,
>> you're dragging along the healer for
what reason?
>> Yeah.
>> The final [ __ ] battle. And then the
healer pays dividends. Yeah.
>> Exactly. That is amazing. All right,
where can people follow along with you
guys?
>> You'll find us at everydaypy.com. Uh
you'll find Shadowsell on bookshelves
everywhere. If you want to find it
online, you can go to shadowsellbook.com
and that will take you to Amazon,
Goodreads, Walmart, every place where
the book is being sold. You can also
find us on social media, EverydaySpy,
and of course our YouTube channel,
Andrew Gustamante.
>> I love it. Thank you guys so much for
being here.
>> Thanks.
>> All right, everybody. If you haven't
already, be sure to subscribe and until
next time, my friends, be legendary.
Take care. Peace. If you like this
conversation, check out this episode to
learn more.
>> America needs to do a better job selling
America and expecting you to love
America. Yes. Expecting you to be proud
to be an American. Are we going to keep
walking on egg shows and being afraid of
this kind of stuff? You don't like being
an American? Let me tell Great Russia
is. Guess what?