Mike Baker - Company Rules: Everything I Know About Business I Learned From The CIA

Full transcript: Mike Baker on London Real

2:59 This is London Real. I am Brian Rose. My guest today is Mike Baker, the former CIA officer, security expert, and author. Your career began in the United States Marine Corps in 1979, where you served as an infantry officer. From there you joined the Central Intelligence Agency and spent over 15 years working predominantly in covert operations and counterterrorism.

3:20 You frequently appear on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC to discuss intelligence and security issues. While you’ve also served as a consultant and advisor to various government agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. You’re the host of the popular TV series Black Files Declassified, where you uncover the truth behind some of the world’s most intriguing secret government operations, and your latest book, Company Rules, or Everything I Know About Business I Learned From the CIA, outlines the nine principles you learned at the agency that can help any business to grow and prosper.

3:54 Mike, welcome to London Real. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, but now I gotta, I’ve got to make one quick correction to that. Uh, fantastic introduction. One is that, uh, I was, I was never in the Marine Corps.

4:07 Uh, I don’t think I was tough enough to be taken to this Marine Corps, frankly. So no military service. I went straight into the CIA, into the Operations Directorate, and, uh, spent, uh, the better part of two decades, uh, overseas with them. Uh, but God bless the US Marines. Yeah, that’s for sure.

4:24 Well, good, because I, I got a couple, uh, questions today about all of your experience with CIA. I loved, you know, your various episodes on Rogan, and you just, you kind of telling people, kind of, they get to see on the news what’s going on in the world, and you can always tell people what’s actually going on. And, um, you know, this week I was preparing for this show, Mike, and all of a sudden, uh, a headline flashed across my computer, and it was on the Wall Street Journal, and it showed something that was happening in the South China Sea, and I thought of you immediately, and I think it was this little reef area that in 2006 was literally just a bunch of rocks, and then when you look at pictures of it now, it’s been built up into this, what looks like a highly, uh, like well-made military base, complete with, like, a runway.

5:13 I don’t know how they filled it on there. It looks like they built up and created land from this reef, and now China’s got this outpost there, and they did that, I guess, under everyone’s nose, and I don’t know if you’ve seen these pictures we’re actually flashing a few on screen here, but I’m just wondering, like, when you see something like that, what does that tell us about U.S.-China relations, about what’s happening in that area, maybe even about this long-term mindset of the Chinese, and what were your thoughts on that? Yeah, well, I think you pointed to the most important thing, which is the long-term mindset of the Chinese.

5:47 So when you start talking about the Chinese regime under Xi, right? We’re not talking about the Chinese population or their fantastic history and culture and all the rest of it. Talking about the Chinese regime, and led by Xi, who is now their longest-serving leader, going back generations Uh, you have to understand that they view things differently than the West does, right? The U.S., the UK, the EU. Everybody’s got attention deficit disorders, so we all, you know, like, chasing the next, you know, shiny object, like a bunch of raccoons, and the Chinese look way down the road, right?

6:26 Their view is much, much longer than ours, and that’s the first thing you have to understand. The next point that you raise is, they have been doing this, literally, as you pointed out, literally creating, uh, small islands for military purposes in the South China Sea out of almost nothing, the barest of reefs, and then building those sites up. And why are they doing that? In part they’re doing it because for decades they’ve been frustrated, uh, that the U.S. has been essentially responsible for the open seas in South China Sea.

7:04 So in their mind, the US in particular and our allies have been playing in their neighborhood. They consider that their turf, and have for a long time, so they’ve been upset ever since, essentially, World War II, that, you know, we’ve had a presence there, and their goal is essentially to get to the top of the food chain. Uh, and they’re, you know, they’re very pragmatic about how they’re going to get there. For decades, they’ve, they’ve jump started their industry by just hoovering up economic intelligence, and, you know, basically espionage, stealing information, not just from the US and the UK and our allies, everyone.

7:43 It doesn’t matter who. Hoover it all up, and then eventually, because they’ve got the resources and the motivation and that long view, they’d find whatever is going to benefit the regime. The pseudo-independent but they’re mostly state-owned companies, and that’s what they’ve been doing to accelerate their progress towards what they believe is their rightful place, eventually, at the top of the heap, right? All right, look, I want to talk more about that.

8:09 Let’s talk about the location first. So South China Sea, like you said, after World War II, you know, the U.S. Navy is pretty much owned controlled, and provided safety to all shipping routes in all the seas around the world, and I remember reading an article by some guys at a company that used to be called Stratfor, I think, out of Texas, where it basically said the Navy does it all for free. They give you this safety, which is this amazing commodity. Um, but in return for that, I guess we run the seas, and it’s this weird implicit agreement that all these countries had.

8:42 That, yeah, we patrol them, that we provide the safety, but China doesn’t like us controlling the seas, their backyard, and I’m guessing they also potentially don’t like Taiwan, which is right in the middle of those seas, and so why is that area ultra important, with, again, potentially all this semiconductor knowledge in Taiwan? Right, yeah, there’s a lot to unpack there, but essentially, if you imagine from their perspective that we essentially are in their sandbox, right? And we are, right, yeah, and that’s how they view it.

9:16 It’s there. It’s their turf, and that’s the same way they view Taiwan. So moving on to Taiwan, there is no separation. It’s not as if they look at Taiwan and say, it’s an independent nation, and you know, but one day we’d like to have it they look at it and think, you know, you’re, you’re an errant child, you know, who, you know, threw a fit and ran away, and now we’re bringing you back into the fold. And that timeline uh, I would argue has been accelerated by Xi.

9:44 I don’t think Xi has any intention of stepping down eventually, whenever he does leave office, without having brought Taiwan back into their control, into their fold, and so I, I think you can look, when you say, well, what’s the timeline for them taking action on Taiwan um, I, I think you can look at it more, uh, you know, immediate terms, and just say, well, what does Xi’s health look like? What is Xi’s tenure look like? Because I I just don’t see him fading off into the sunset without him accomplishing what he considers to be a primary goal.

10:21 Interesting. All right, so all of these are parts of them trying to reclaim that territory back, uh, potentially bring Taiwan back in the fray. How is their Navy, by the way? Uh, larger than the US Navy at this point, uh, just in sheer numbers, number of vessels, of ships, uh, and they’ve been, look, they’re, they’re aggressive in building out their military over the past decade longer, but particularly over the past decade has been impressive, right? They, um, and again, with a single-minded notion that, you know, it’s not as if they’re preparing for a hot war necessarily, but they, they are looking at the point where from their perspective the U.S. is a declining nation.

11:07 That’s kind of how Xi and his cronies imagine this, and view this, and so they want to be prepared for that day when, again, they take that last step on the ladder and get to the top of the, of the, uh, the food chain. So it’s, we we have never really dealt with China in a particularly pragmatic manner. We’ve always, from a business perspective, we’ve always imagined it to be this Holy Grail, right? Every company chases business in China, because, oh my God, I want that market.

11:34 And so a lot of those businesses are willing to look the other way when it comes to all the human rights abuses, and the fact that there’s no rule of law, uh, and so, you know, but from a foreign policy perspective, I I’d argue we’ve never really gotten it, you know, spot on when it comes to China, you know, and, and the current U.S. administration looks at them and thinks, well, they’re a competitor, but they’re not really. China views us as an adversary, and we should be doing the same thing, again, not because we want the missiles to fly, God forbid, we definitely don’t want that, but we have to understand how they think. We have to understand what their perception is, and why they do the things they do.

12:15 And so, just to cut to the chase, Mike, how does this play out in your mind in the next 50 years? Like, who wins, or what are the important decisions that need to be made? And then, if there is a victory, how does that change the world? Well, um, look, I know that, you know, the U.S. takes a lot of heat um, and I’m a dual citizen, U.S. and UK citizen. I know the U.S. takes a lot of heat um, for its actions around the world, but I spent the better part of my, well, my childhood and my adult life overseas in a lot of different environments, and while the U.S., under various administrations, at times makes mistakes, there is a self-correcting effort.

12:57 There’s an effort to try to do the right thing, and I know it sounds It sounds, you know, like I’m, I’m just making up or it’s through rose-colored glasses or whatever, but there is a sense that they want to do the right thing, whichever administration’s in place. Um, sometimes that doesn’t work out, but then there’s a correction. So I guess what I’m, I’m trying to say is, if you imagine that that’s not the U.S. or, uh, at the top trying to do the right thing, or trying to establish and maintain peace in various parts of the world, or, you know, pursue democracy.

13:31 Sometimes that doesn’t work out, uh, then it’s China, and if China gets to the top of the food chain, then I don’t think they’re going to be quite as, um, um, generous as a regime goes, and I don’t think that’s going to be their first concern, that she, the Xi regime in every Chinese regime acts instinctively and definitively in their own best interests all the time, right? They never look at this like it’s a community of nations. They always look at everything foreign policy, economic security, in their own best interests, right?

14:09 Every nation does to some degree. The U.S. certainly does, but the U.S. is always the one that apologizes for it anytime it seems, which is an odd thing anyway. I don’t want to disappear down that rabbit hole. Yeah, a lot of Cosby, say, a lot of people would look at U.S. foreign policy and everything since Bretton Woods and say, the petrodollar, in the U.S. would say, well, the US is looking out for themselves, but I think I know what you mean. Maybe there’s a slightly different spirit there.

14:33 Um, when you look at those things, let me ask you a few things I want to ask you about, the spy balloons. I want to ask you about the Belt and Road Initiative, because maybe not everyone knows what that is Um, and then, like you said, the espionage, the stuff with Huawei, and all these other things, maybe just bring everybody up to speed with some of the things that China is doing globally that maybe we should keep our eye on. Yeah, I think the, uh, the spy balloon situation was an interesting, uh, incident, but it’s a good example of kind of what they, how they view the world, right?

15:06 I mean, everything is of interest to them, uh, and it’s of interest to them, because it may benefit their economy, it may benefit their regime, and so when we talk about economic espionage, the number one perpetrator of that is China, and has been for generations, right? There’s just, that’s, you know, there’s just no argument there. I mean, you can say, well, every country does it, but uh, no, not every country does it to that degree, to the resources that they do, whether they’re taking information via just, uh, academic institutions, uh, whether they’re doing it through attendance at conferences, whether they’re straight up using humans and recruitment of sources overseas to steal information, whether it’s signals intercepts, or it’s capturing uh, you know, images, as with the spy balloon, they, they use every trick in the book, and they’ve been very aggressive and continue to be very aggressive in how they do this, and that’s important to understand, because we’re talking about, yeah, an almost unquantifiable amount in terms of losses to the UK, to the U.S., to the EU, to the West, in terms of lost opportunity, lost research and development, lost jobs, uh, over the years.

16:21 So, you know, I could spend all day banging on about, you know, the damage done by the Chinese regime, and again, not, I mean, people always say, right, okay, that’s, you know, no, I’m not talking about the population of the people, right? I’ve spent a lot of time over there, and I have a great deal of respect for the population, the culture, the history, uh, but it’s the regime, and nobody has locked down that country more than Xi over the recent past. What he’s done in terms of squashing democracy, abuse of the Uyghurs, and others um, the, uh, the kind of squashing the last remnants of a rule of law uh, it’s been pretty impressive, building up a secure internal security service, so it’s, it’s a, it’s an impressive effort that he’s been making.

17:06 Um, in part to secure, you know, the Communist Party’s power for the long-term foreseeable future. Anyway, all right, just on Xi real quick. Are you surprised he’s gone that way, because you know they’ve had so much success opening themselves up in a, in a quasi-capitalistic way? I mean, you could argue that’s why it grew so much. Maybe you go back to Mao for that, or his predecessor, but, you know, when you see him turning, when I see a lot of this, I’m wondering, is he making the right decision, or was this the inevitable conclusion of consolidating power, kind of Putin style, that any, that any regime would do?

17:41 Yeah, it’s a really interesting point. I think there’s a lot to be said for that, that latter point that you just made. It may be sort of the inevitable, uh, path that is always taken by that type of government, um, but I think in part it was also driven by some concern. Look, she’s no different than Putin, in the sense that the one thing that they worry about is losing control of the population, right? And in China, you know, there was this sense, I, I believe, growing within the regime, that you know, maybe their population had hit that ceiling.

18:14 There was no more advancement, right? There was no more place for them to go. This illusion that they had created, about, you know, oh, look at this, everyone’s becoming middle class and upper class and, yeah, it’s not going to happen, right? You’ve got massive ghost towns made up of just spoof construction projects, right? Just to keep people busy, right?

18:32 With no occupation, nothing in them. And so I think there was concern growing which then means, okay, we’ve got to deal with the public in a different way, maybe that means we’ve got to drop the hammer and tighten the screws a little bit on, well, I’m just mixing my metaphors. Um, on the population. So I think there was that element as well. Uh, so it’s not, so it’s not surprising.

18:57 Um, you know, she is a very smart, very smart, uh individual, and he so far has done a remarkable job of maintaining a very tight control over the Communist Party, the military, the intel services, uh, and the population. Yeah, let me ask you something, Mike. Uh, you know, the technology at the state it is today. I’m just getting one in your opinion. Like, you know, they’ve got the 5G, they’ve got the face recognition, obviously.

19:27 They lock down the WeChat and the monetary system there. We’ve heard about their CBDC, they’ve rolled out to 80,100 million people. And from what I’ve heard of people that are pretty deep in the CBDC game, is that it’s uh, you know, it’s pretty advanced and pretty oppressive. Just curious, from your point of view, could she have done this, you know, in 2000, or does it require this force-multiplying technology to be able to do what he’s doing, or maybe even the threat that that technology could exist to the population to do it, or am I totally off?

20:00 No, I think you’re, I think you’re spot on. I think, because, look, there’s a, obviously it’s, uh, you know, just to keep throwing out, uh, tired phrases, it’s a double-edged sword. Uh, there’s an upside and a downside to technology when you’re talking about security, right? Um, the ability for the population to move information or to acquire information right, is increased, but the ability to monitor, to surveil, right? Uh, the population has exponentially increased, right?

20:30 So the ability to gather information on people. I mean, if, if the average person out there, whether it’s in London or Washington DC, or in, you know, Melbourne, or wherever it may be, if they knew how much data was available, right? And I’m not just talking about governments, right? The corporations are much more efficient at this, right? They’re much better at this.

20:50 So governments, for the most part, you know, can organize panic in a doomed submarine, so I think the it’s the companies that you tend to have to worry about, in terms of the collection, but if people knew just how much of their information was accessible, you know, they’d be shocked. I saw some reports recently talking about how, yeah, law enforcement and government can get specific intel on a specific person in a specific phone number, and, you know, that’s fairly easy to get, and has been done. I don’t know if it was some stuff that came out about the FBI about that.

21:21 Um, facial recognition technology, is the public pretty, are we oblivious to how far that’s really advanced? And I, I know, in China at least, I’ve heard, in China, that it’s, you know, everybody is being tracked by facial recognition in pretty much everywhere, and it’s all woven into, you know, the social score, the CBDCs, which really controls the population. Um, yeah, what can you tell us about that? Yeah. Yeah, it is, it’s really advanced, uh, over the past even half dozen years.

21:51 Um, its capabilities are are remarkable. I mean, here in the US it’s used, uh, for security purposes, uh, at, you know, picking up a major event like, uh, the Super Bowl or inauguration uh, and the ability, uh, compared to, I mean, I remember when the technology was just developing, right? And it was, you know, you’d look at it and you go, okay, that’s nice, but I’m not sure I see the application for it, and now, uh, from a surveillance perspective, uh, from a crowd control perspective, um, from counterterrorism, um, it, it, it’s astounding, without going into, you know, gruesome sources and methods and, you know, operational details.

22:38 It is, uh, it’s remarkable what can be done, and in the wrong hands, meaning in a despotic regime that doesn’t care at all about civil liberties or human rights. Um, it is, you know, from their perspective, a marvelously effective tool. Can they track facial recognition with masks on? I heard they can do that, and I heard that there was even gait recognition, like they were doing that in China, like How you walked. Yeah, yeah, everyone’s got a certain, I mean, it’s, you know, it’s not quite as singularly unique as its fingerprints, but people have, you know, certain movement.

23:13 You used to, in the old days, in the old days, one of my Wilford Brimley. In the old days, uh, of surveillance, you’d be on the street, right, and you know, you would, you know, you’re looking for things, right? When you’re, when you’re looking to follow a target, and you’ve got a lot of assets out on the street, right? You’ve got multiple surveillance teams, and you know, you’re doing this in perhaps a denied area, or you’re just trying to, you know, ensure that you know, the target doesn’t, you know, tweak to your presence.

23:42 You’re looking for a variety of things, and gait was always one of those, right, or sort of the way the cadence of a person’s movement down a street uh, and then lots of other things. Shoes, right? Why? Because people can change the jacket or their hat, but they’re not going to typically change their shoes during the course of a, of a meander, if they’re looking to spot surveillance. But anyway, I, I digress.

24:05 Um, but yes, with, uh, even wearing a mask, and this was advanced, uniquely, during the pandemic, when that became, you know, obviously more of an issue. Um, but because of the number of points of, uh, of, uh, of uh, recognition, because of the data set that they use when they’re collecting on an individual’s face, uh, even with a mask, you know, uh, and now a full overhead mask, that’s a different story, but I’m talking about you know, just your standard face mask, when, the old pandemic days, then yes, you can, you can still, uh, maintain, uh, contact with the target. That’s scary.

24:42 So it’s eyes, it’s kind of like, all eyes recognition and distances and that type of thing Well, that, and I mean, there’s, you know, ears, and, you know, there’s a lot of things going on, uh, because it collects an astounding number of points of, uh, of identification, uh that combine to make a unique, uh, target profile. So it’s, it’s interesting. It’s, I mean, it, but it is, it’s in I would argue again, just like with the use of information on individuals, um, in the, in the wrong hands, you know, there’s a, there’s a reason for it from a security perspective, at times.

25:19 Um, I realize that people are always leery of any government, doesn’t matter whether it’s the US, the UK, anywhere, right? People are always leery of government, and rightly so, right? You should be somewhat cynical. Um, but, you know, from Xi’s perspective, or from Putin’s perspective, they don’t have anywhere near the capability that the Chinese uh, regime does, but it’s a, it, again, it’s a very powerful tool. I read this article a couple weeks ago Um, that a bunch of lawyers were denied access to Madison Square Garden, and the reason they were denied access was because they were members of a law firm that was suing the Garden, and apparently some guy that owns the Garden, I don’t know, he’s some kind of mogul, dude, and he was just pissed off for their various lawsuits against the Garden, and they were literally stopped, like, with their kids going to see, like, Annie or some, you know, whatever show, and like Paw Patrol.

26:12 Yeah, exactly. And they wouldn’t let him in, and they’re like, what are you talking about? And they took their pictures from their law firm bios, and they wouldn’t let them in, and I was like, I had no idea that private sector had access to that, and that it could actually take action, and they could track people that quickly, in real time, to literally stop them at the gate. But they were doing it. Yeah, yeah, that’s when you talk about uses, you know, of the information like that.

26:37 You know, my kid just wants to go see, you know, uh, Stars on Ice, or whatever the hell that used to be called. But, um, but you think about it. I mean, yeah, private business, uh, casinos, you know. I mean, some of the best, you know, corporate security, uh, is, uh, within the gaming industry, and so, you know, that sort of capability is certainly in use, you know, within casino operations. Okay, all right.

27:01 I just want to finish up with China, and again, I agree, I’m not, I’m not trying to go off on the Chinese people and culture. It’s a beautiful thing, but I just want to know these other issues Um, this spy balloon, uh, well, first of all, the espionage. If they do so much of it, Mike, is it mean that there’s a good ROI on that, and should we, or we, when I say US, UK, I’m a dual citizen, as well, does that prove we should be doing more if it really has a return on investment?

27:27 Well, I’m not saying we don’t do more. Uh, we just don’t go into any details. And look, you should always hope people, because people always say that to me when I talk about what the, uh, Chinese regime does, or what the Russians are engaged in, or, you know, the Iranian intelligence, which is very good. Um, and people always say, ah, the U.S. does it too, or the Brits do it too, or whomever. I’m thinking, well, you better hope they do, and you better hope they’re, you know, the best at it, because this world, it doesn’t exist as a community of nations.

27:55 You know, people, people always make that mistake, that we’re all going to sit around and you know, sing songs together, and unicorns are going to be flying out of our asses, you know. But it’s, it’s not the way it works. And so my point, I guess, is always that we better, we better be the best at it. Um, now we have a, there’s a different approach, which is where the playing field is not level, and that is that, and, and again, people are always going to say, ah, you know, that doesn’t sound right.

28:22 I think you’re you’re not being truthful, but this is the way it works in the US and the UK and elsewhere, when you collect intelligence, uh, you don’t have a remit. Your remit is not to collect intelligence to support your economy, right? So if I gather information about a particular US company, that’s being, you know, I can’t go and provide that and say, hey, look, you can jump-start your research and development. We’ve got some great intel, right? Because there’s a firewall built up, right that says we don’t, we’re not going to screw with the free market system, and that would, that would privilege one company over another.

28:54 Okay, whereas the entire remit in a place like China, and China is not the only place, there’s a lot of countries that do this, where their intel service is essentially, you know, a subcontractor for their economy, and so they, they out there, you know, helping to hoover up information, and then shoving it into the private sector, uh, or pseudo-state-owned companies to help them advance the ball, right? And so there’s a difference there. It’s a subtle difference, but it’s an important difference, because it means the playing field, again, isn’t level.

29:25 Are they trying to, um, get in our face a little from a psyops perspective? I mean, the balloon, I mean, they must have known there was a chance of us finding out, you know, on this article, the Journal, they’re flying their jets within 20 feet of our jets out there in the South China Sea. I mean, you know, is there some of that or is that not really their style? Are they just trying to grind us out slowly, like boiling the frog in the pot with the water.

29:49 You start off, and you just slowly turn the temperature up until we don’t know what hit us, and by, you know, 20 21 70. I don’t know. What do you think is happening there? Yeah, I think it’s, it’s interesting. I think it’s, there was, it’s very complex, the sort of, their perception of intel gathering Um, they, they operate on many levels, right?

30:09 So people say, well, why the hell would they use a balloon when they’ve got, you know, satellite capability, and, or signals intercepts, or whatever it may be? Well, they, you know, what it’s, you, it’s, you use all the tools in your kit bag, and um, they happen to have a fairly robust airship recon program to gather a variety of types of intelligence. Did they, did they imagine that there was a chance that we would spot that balloon? I’m sure they did.

30:37 Look, they you know, they’d tend to be very smart in the way they gather intelligence. Were they embarrassed by the incident? Probably slightly. Did they ultimately not care? I don’t think they cared, really.

30:49 Um, and so, and I think in a way, um, there was probably, there were some folks that thought maybe they were sending a signal, um, that they were, they were trying to, because, they, there’s complex when you talk about Chinese diplomacy and the relay of messages, and, and what they’re thinking, they, you know, they tend to work in, in ways different from the West, right? We’re going to write a communique or a harshly worded note, or you know, a range of meeting, and oftentimes they’re doing things more indirectly, right, through actions or subtle messages or, uh, sidebar conversations whatever it may be. So I, I think that, uh, all those factors were at play here.

31:30 Uh, they’re not going to stop, but there was a period of time, it was 2015, I think, when Obama and Xi supposedly came to an agreement, you know, that China would not engage in cyber shenanigans, and of course all they did was, you know, step up their game. So they don’t really care, right? Because again, in part, they view the West as a declining, uh, you know, part of the world, and they view their rise to the top as inevitable. At some point there was this fascinating documentary a couple years ago.

32:05 I don’t know if you saw it, but it was about a Chinese car company that opened up a plant in America, and Um, they were trying to revive some plant, I think it was in Michigan or something, and like, by the end of the movie, the Chinese are just looking at these Americans, and they’re just like, you big fat lazy people, you can’t do anything. You get angry when we tell you to use your, your bare hands to clean up the glass, and like all this stuff, and it was just this fascinating look on their culture versus all our culture, and they didn’t, they looked at us as, like, this declining nation that was at the end of it, and wasn’t willing to do the hard work, the hard graft to build. I don’t know if you saw that, but is that kind of the attitude, and are they right, Mike?

32:49 Yeah, more importantly, are they right? Uh, yeah, look, I, you know, I don’t, again, I don’t want to disappear on a rabbit hole, but I have a theory that says that every generation here in the West, and and, and I suppose specifically I’m talking about the US now, in terms of softness, right? But I think every generation in the West wants it to be easier for their kids, right? So, you know, my, uh, my grandfather came over from Russia. He was a very hard individual, a very difficult, very, he was, he was basically a douchebag, um, but he wanted it still.

33:28 He wanted it better for his kid, my dad, right? My dad was the world’s greatest man. I, I will never meet a person better than my dad. I will never do that. And but my dad, so my dad wanted it better for me.

33:39 Well, I got kids, right? I want it better for them. Eventually you get to diminishing returns, right? And things because we’re not out working and collecting clean water and hunting down food, or, you know, the rough equivalent, it gets so easy that yes, we get very soft. And so you look around, and you know, I, I know a lot of great young people, right?

34:03 A lot of them who, who are in or served in the military and are fantastic, right? So I’m not one of those people that says, ah, it’s just generation sucks, right, or this new generation, you know. But I do think collectively each generation has been getting softer, and I think that that’s a real problem, and I think that is certainly how the Chinese regime views the West. Um, and they look at us as we sit around and make up reasons to be angst-written, right?

34:32 Because we’ve got so much time, uh, and, and essential luxury on our hands that we can all sit around and complain about nowadays. So it is interesting. Yeah, we can all sit around. Maybe it’s not people are bad, but you’re listening and going that’s not interesting. Yeah, um, and you kind of hinted at this, but I’d love for us to talk about it.

34:53 You kind of, you know, we have this new generation of, I’m a global citizen, and why do we need wars anymore, and why do we have to Pete, but like you’re saying, look, the essence of any nation is to look out for its own nation, and that means aggressive intelligence-gathering services, because if you don’t do it, they’re going to do it, and in the long run somebody pays, and you might not get your latte anymore, and you might be speaking Chinese if we don’t do our jobs. Like, is that message lost sometimes on, I’ll say it, maybe the kids or the newer generation that are, you know, that never saw a war? I mean, I grew up having bad dreams, Mike, that Russia was going to launch nuclear missiles on America.

35:30 I watched that crazy television movie, The Day After, scared the out of me for years. Yeah. And so, you know, uh, but, you know, these, these I hate to say to these kids these days, but I’m a global citizen, and then that, but like, is how do you explain that? Maybe that’s not realistic, that there will always be nation states, and they will always act in their own interests, and that there is no way of having just one global citizenry. Or, I think part of it is your experience, right?

35:58 I think everybody bases their opinions on their, their own personal life experience, right? So, like I said, I spent a lot of time in some, some, uh, uh, unpleasant and challenging environments, and, uh, I have no um, you know, I’m not by nature, uh, you know, a cynical person, but I’ve seen enough to realize that, you know, we’re not a community of nations. We don’t, you know, we’re not altruistic in every, you know, manner. We don’t, uh, think of others necessarily first.

36:32 It’s not, sometimes it’s not the human nature, and it’s certainly not how nations work. So I think that the idea that somehow we don’t need wars, we don’t need borders, right? Um, it’s, it’s insane. Um, but it is, I get it, because it’s, it’s a product of what your own personal life experience is, and if you’ve seen a lot, then you tend to be a little bit more, maybe, pragmatic or realistic, and a little less, I, you know, uh, idealistic. So I, I get why, you know, people may think, or maybe younger folks think, you know.

37:06 And look, honestly, I’ve got a daughter who, when 9/11 hit, right, she was yeah, geez, I don’t know, that’s new math for me, but she was seven years old, right? Old enough to understand that something bad, really bad, had happened. Then she grew up, right, through the war on terror, uh, not to mention 2008 recession, not to mention, you know, the housing crash, not too much. So there is a, there’s a generation, uh, that has seen a lot of trouble, has seen a lot of strife, and particularly those that served, whether, you know, in the British military, the U.S. military, or allies, whoever, and so they have seen a lot of strife.

37:46 Uh, they tend to be more realistic, right? So that’s what I mean by you can’t just paint any generation with one big broad brush, right? It’s, it’s, it’s, I know a lot of people of my generation who are complete douche nozzles. So yeah, no, I’m glad you say that, because you can’t, and there’s a lot of incredible, um, young people that are, that are doing amazing things with great perspective. By the way, I should have asked if I could swear on this show.

38:08 I normally don’t, but I guess you got me doing it, so, so I apologize. So, speaking of wars, we, we’ve got one just around the corner from us. It’s, shocks, shocking to me how close it is to the UK, and how hot this war is. I mean, you wouldn’t know it by looking at me, but in my spare time I like to do some break dancing, and I follow some of the young kids that break dance around the world. The ones, this Ukrainian kid, and up until a year and a half ago, he was in Ukraine complaining about lockdown and COVID, and he was doing his thing, and now all he posts on his Instagram page are these harrowing, harrowing scenes of, you know, entire cities just blown out, in this you know, down in the subway during the, during the bombings, and we have this whole thing going on over here, and so what do you see when you see this hot war happening right now in Europe’s backyard, and what are the ramifications of it, or is it just a distraction for China, which we should keep our eyes on?

39:03 Well, we should be multitasking. Um, to your point, and we, we should be smart enough and capable enough, uh, competent enough to keep our eye on, you know, multiple crises. So, yeah, the Ukraine conflict. Look, it’s interesting, because I mean, as an example, I, I had my boys over in London, uh, last summer, for, uh, quite a while, and I took him to the Imperial War Museum. Um, yeah, it’s a great, it’s a great museum.

39:36 I tell people all the time, if you’re getting anywhere near London, make sure you go. And, but there’s a, their World War One exhibit in particular we’re walking through, and, and you know, the, the Ukraine conflict was obviously going on. Um, the Russians at the time were blockading, uh, wheat shipments. So there was, you know, some real concern over potential starvation problems, obviously, and, and not to mention just sort of this idea that that it was becoming a, a war of entrenchment, attrition.

40:04 And so we’re walking through, and I’m trying to talk to the boys, and and they’re, they’re sharp, but you’re trying to get them to understand, right, what’s old is new again. You know, life tends to repeat itself in patterns, and here we’re looking at this World War exhibit, and one exhibit, and they’re talking about the starvation and the lack of food. They’re talking about the war of attrition and the fact that they’re fighting and making maybe you know, gaining a couple of yards in the course of a month, and you’re trying to explain how bizarre it is, uh, that we’re now right back into, into that type of conflict.

40:39 Nobody saw a ground war in Europe with trenches, trenches. I know. Yes, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s absolutely insane, but, uh, I’m not sure, you know, at the end of the day, I’m certainly not smart enough when you, you start theorizing on where it’s all going. Putin doesn’t seem to mind the idea of a war of attrition. I suspect that he and his cronies think that’s the only way they’re going to, to win this, is by grinding down the West to the point where we do lose interest or get, uh, distracted by something else, um, give up on the, the level of resource, which is astounding, that is being provided to the Ukrainians.

41:19 So, um, nobody’s really talking about an exit ramp or a pathway here, and you know, you can argue that, look, nobody, nobody here, at least in the US, where everybody’s waving Ukrainian flags, and they’ve got Ukrainian bumper stickers, and we stand with Ukraine. Well, of course we do, because they’re incredibly brave, and that they’re putting up a fight that nobody saw or thought was capable, but at the same time, when, you know, when the Russians took Crimea, nobody gave a damn over here, right? Not even the administration, really.

41:51 Um, and you know, they didn’t really care that there were Russian troops in eastern Ukraine for all these years. So you know, now we do care, because we, we like our stories simple, right? We like it, it’s like a, a movie script, and so we want to be able to follow it, and this is something we can follow. Uh, but I don’t know where it goes. I don’t, the, the US public in particular doesn’t have a lot of patience.

42:15 Um, and so I’m not sure, uh, where this ends, unless Zelensky and, and, uh, and Putin show an interest in something other than total victory, because I don’t see the Russians ever leaving Crimea. Yeah, I don’t see that happening. Um, for me it seems that the US just loves this because it’s a great tool to irritate what is still an enemy, which is Russia, albeit less powerful than they used to be. They still are a thorn in the US’s side, and now they can actually do it, because they got someone willing to fight a proxy war and give them some money, and they can really make it difficult.

42:54 I mean, it is, is this Putin’s Afghanistan, to a certain extent, that we were in? I mean, this is going to cost them a lot of bandwidth, a lot of political capital, and all we have to do is write some checks, and it’s going to be irritating for him for five more years, or however long this lasts. So that’s one question I will let you answer. The second thing is, I’ve had a couple guests on my show that had some CIA experience, like Andrew Bustamante, and even Jim Rickards, who spent some time, I think, consulting for the CIA back in the day, and they said, look, this is a propaganda war happening right now in America, in the UK, that Ukraine has a chance, or they’re fighting a good fight, but the reality is, that’s not happening, and Russia will just grind this away, and it’s only a matter of time before Russia is successful, and they’re not going to get out also because Putin just doesn’t have any choice.

43:39 So I don’t know. I’m just curious what you think of some of those narratives. I do look at the news now with like a scance now, because I’m reading The Times of London, and, well, the New York Times. I don’t even know why I read that thing anymore, but I do, and I’m always thinking, this feels like a narrative. It always has this, oh, it’s a hopeful thing, and they’re gonna make it, and they’re the freedom fighters, and it feels like it’s being spun to me in the West, of what’s happening in Ukraine, and the reality is a different picture.

44:09 Yeah, there’s definitely a narrative, right? And, you know, Zelensky has done a great job of capturing and, and framing that narrative. Yeah, and with a great deal of top-cover support from the, from the West media, but uh, I think that, yeah, the, the hard truth, the reality, is that if it is a war of attrition, if this does grind on, then the odds are not in Ukrainian military’s favor, right, with a caveat, the caveat being, unless the West has an insatiable appetite to continue to provide, uh, ever-increasing level of, uh, support and hardware.

44:50 Um, and you know, the EU is providing shells faster than they can manufacture them, and, you know, we’re getting close to, you know, the top tier of our, of our, uh, uh, hardware that we’re going to provide. You know, we’ve already handed over a Patriot missile system. Um, and so I think that you have to ask yourself, um, you know, is that possible? Is it possible that we continue doing this for the next three, four, or five years, right? Um, I, I don’t know what the answer to that is, so I, I’m, I’m certainly open to the idea that the war of attrition favors the Russian military, in part because we know, over the decades and decades, you know, how much they can suffer, and the Russian population has always shown this bizarre ability to suffer.

45:40 Um, and so unless they get to their Afghan moment, you know, where the moms and, and others, you know, pressure the the regime, and they feel as if they’re losing control of the public, perhaps that will be one thing that causes Putin to back off. But what does that mean? You know, again, it’s highly unlikely in, in the real world, not in, in somebody’s imaginary hopeful world, but it’s unlikely in the real world that it’ll give up Crimea, and it’s unlikely that they’re going to get all the troops out of eastern Ukraine.

46:09 So, uh, yeah, but if you do that, if you say, that in a way, if you say, well, they should look for a negotiated settlement, then you’re accused of being a Putin puppet, and here in the U.S., you’re accused by both the left and the right, right? Um, you know, the Ukraine conflict has turned the Democrat Party here in the U.S. into a war, uh, machine, right? Nobody, nobody’s supporting Ukrainians in the war effort more than the Democrats. Um, you know, so it’s, it’s an interesting dynamic, but I don’t see where it goes without, you know, some real hard discussions about how do we find a pathway, uh, to a settlement.

46:52 It’s a great way to get reelected. I think they ran a study. A wartime president has a super high chance of getting reelected, and it’s good for business, right? Everyone’s making a lot of money on these arms, and they’re getting rid of all, all that old inventory, right? So they can stock up on new inventory.

47:09 Uh, well, yeah, it’s that military-industrial complex that Eisenhower, you know, talked about, and and you, you can’t argue against it. They are, you know, they’re cranking it out, but, um, but at the same time, you know, our warehouses are run dry, the same as, you know, the UK and EU’s, and, uh, and you have to think about China, because nothing happens in a bubble, right? It’s an increasingly shrinking world, and so China looks at this, and, you know, hey, they’re studying how we responded to this incursion, and to their war in Ukraine, from a perspective of Taiwan, and sort of the greater, you know, view of the, uh, global environment.

47:45 And they’re also looking at it and saying, great, you guys are, you know, running through all your, your, uh, your hardware and uh, depleting your resources, and you’re probably not going to be in a position for a handful of years to, you know, seriously counter anything we decide to do. If, if China rolled into Taiwan tomorrow or next year, there’s not a damn thing the U.S. would do about it, or could do about it, correct? Yeah, again, it’s not a popular thing to say, because we always imagine we’re gonna, you know, defend democracy and stand by our allies, and, and all of that.

48:18 But if anybody actually firmly believes, uh, that the Biden administration would send troops to defend Taiwan, I, no way, you know, I’ll have some of what they’re smoking. Yeah, no way, no way. The public American public puts up with that, you know, and, well, until maybe their Broncos don’t start because the semiconductors aren’t working. That’s a whole nother story, but they’re Broncos. Yeah, so I don’t know that’s cultural pull there, like that.

48:44 So, uh, um, all right, talk to me about the Nord Stream pipeline. I’ve had a couple guests here that said the U.S. clearly blew it up. All right, I’ve had Gym Records saying that, who’s to Manchin, and I had Seymour Hersh on here telling me exactly how they blew it up. What do you think? Uh, yeah, I’m not willing to discount anything.

49:05 Um, I’m always a little suspicious when anybody says they know something for 100 percent, right? I spent a lot of time in the world of intelligence, and, um, and uh, yeah, you really come across, uh, you know, 100 percent credible information. So and particularly when you talk about anonymous sources. Well, I got, you know, anonymous sources. I know people who know people, and they’re telling me that this is what happened.

49:27 I, I’m not saying I don’t believe that. You know, that the West didn’t you know, have a hand in, uh, in it, but um, you know, I don’t, I don’t have any, you know, information that tells me specifically one way or another. I could see scenarios where either side could be responsible, but yeah, I guess I’m always a little bit, um, doubtful anytime I hear anybody say, yeah, 100 percent certainty, this is what happened. Okay, then give me your sources. Give me your information.

49:56 Give me, you know, let me, let me hear about it. Well, I mean, the Germans didn’t blow it up, pretty damn clearly. The Russians, it’s really hard to make an argument that they would want to blow it up, so there’s not many people left, right, Mike? Um, yeah, not an easy thing to do, either. Not a simple thing to do.

50:12 It’s not a simple thing. Um, who’s got the technology? Well, Russia certainly got the capability. Uh, why would they do it? I don’t know.

50:22 You know, why, the, did they think they would take, uh, the entire Ukraine? Strategic, you know, you can’t subscribe logical action sometimes to, uh, somebody like a Putin. Ukraine is totally logical. Yeah, yeah. I don’t know, I don’t know.

50:39 Was it because, if you think about it, if, if you’ve I mean, obviously their assessments were off, way off. Yeah. Um, you know, their command and control was, was shoddy. Um, but in the scheme of things, yeah, I don’t know. It wasn’t, it wasn’t completely a logical decision.

50:59 On food, yeah, maybe not worth it, but not random either. It was driven by emotion. It was driven by his desire to recreate the Soviet Union. Yeah, which has a lot of knock-on consequences. I mean, why do you want your, uh, you know, Olympic medalist to juice and win all the medals associated?

51:14 I mean, it gives you points at home Ukraine was probably in a similar mindset. It gives him political capital that keeps him alive, literally alive, maybe for a few more years. But yeah, he’s always found a bogeyman. He’s always found some outside threat anytime he feels as if, you know, he needs to bolster his, his authority or his control. Um, and you know, but, but yeah, this was, this was part of, in part, an emotional, uh, decision, playing out a desire that he’s stated for a number of years now about, re, rebuilding the Soviet Union in some capacity.

51:52 Um, but again, with Nord Stream, I, you know, again, who knows? I, you know, it, it certainly could be. Don’t discount anything. Never say never, right? Because, you know, without solid intel, you know, I’m just saying you take it all with a grain of salt and don’t discount.

52:07 I’ve seen some very bizarre things over the years, uh, where the perpetrator is not who you would imagine it to be. Okay, no, I appreciate that insight. Um, Twitter Files. Have you looked at those things? Because I’m kind of curious what you think of those.

52:22 Um, I’ll just give you my thought and perspective. I mean, with the latest wave, I guess, that came a few weeks ago or maybe even a month ago, you know, we saw a lot of government agencies meddling in Twitter’s business and asking them to shut down accounts, to, um, you know, to suppress messaging or suppress the, uh, the viral growth of messages, and it honestly looked like it was like a dogpile. At some point you had FBI, things that look like the CIA, Senate subcommittees, you know, all these people coming in, in all these different attack vectors, basically telling Twitter to do this and do that.

53:02 Um, we had a very interesting experience in 2020, Mike, where, in April 6th of 2020, I had the second largest YouTube live stream broadcast in the world, right here in the studio, and my, and that video was subsequently deleted and banned about 30 minutes later. Never happened to me in my nine-year history at that point, and then I started getting taken off of all these other social platforms, and I got thrown off Dropbox and PayPal, and for having this same person ask open questions about PCR tests, masks, things that were deemed not okay by the tech platforms. Yeah.

53:34 And at the time, uh, you know, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I just, I leave that to my guests, but I just thought, okay, that’s a little odd. But, you know, but when I look at the Twitter Files, I’m like, wow, if there really was agencies going around to one big social platform telling them not to allow the, you know, 100 Biden laptop story to go, or this or that, or that it’s pretty obvious to think they probably are asking Google and Meta and these other companies to do the same thing, and I started thinking, well, maybe there was a coordinated attack.

54:06 Um, what do you see when all this evidence comes up? If, if you even consider it evidence? Yeah, no, I, I, yeah, I do, to some degree. Look, there’s nothing more dangerous than a politicized intel organization, or a politicized law enforcement, particularly federal law enforcement organization. So people should always be concerned and on the lookout, and wary and cynical and questioning, right?

54:33 And in part, we give that responsibility in the U.S. to, you know, organizations like the Senate Intel Committee and the, you know, Congressional Intel committee. We send our representatives to Washington, they get on those committees, and we trust, in part, for some reason, not sure why, that they will ask intelligent questions, and they’ll be curious people, and they’ll be inquisitive, and they’ll want to demand answers, and typically that doesn’t happen, because Washington DC is completely dysfunctional, and it’s, we’re all, investigations go to die. So I think, um, first of all, I guess from a 30,000-foot view, yeah, you have to be very, very careful, very cynical, and very cautious.

55:17 Now, transparency is important. Um, from an intel perspective, you stop short of sources and methods. Right? There’s a reason why you do keep secrets in the intel community, right? But that only goes so far, right?

55:34 And you have to, you then have to ensure that you have transparency, uh, and understand, you know, to a degree, that it’s possible what they’re doing. So I think with Twitter, was there an effort? Well, sure, there’s an effort right now to, uh, to influence social media. And I, I don’t understand why, in part. Um, it seems like it’s acceptable, right?

56:01 But there does seem to be this, this attitude that if, if I don’t like your speech, well, then we, we just don’t want to deal with it, right? Maybe it goes back to what we were talking about earlier, with the softening of society, you know, this idea that words are violent, so words aren’t violence, right? The First Amendment in the U.S. protects all forms of speech, right? Um, and so you may not like it, but, you know, I have the right to say it, and that is, if you remove that right and suddenly the mob rule tells you what you can think and what you can’t think, then we’re no different than, you know, Putin and his regime, or she and his regime.

56:42 And so I, I think the Twitter Files are, or it’s, an important exercise, because I think it is surprising a lot of people. It’s not going to change, you know, it’s not influencing the hard edges, right? The hard left is going to look at it and go, gosh, that’s propaganda, that’s because it’s not what they believe, and they don’t want to hear it. The hard right already believed it, right? So they’re not changing, but it is having an impact, I think, on those, you know, a few dozen people that still live in the center.

57:11 The CIA was also trying to influence Twitter, right? There’s this nameless organization in those files, but it basically is them, right? Well, I, you know, I don’t know, but I will say that the CIA, the FBI, um, do they have a role to play in the world of the internet? And I guess their role should be, if I’m an analyst, for example, I was never smart enough to be an analyst, but if I was an analyst for the agency, and we’ve identified um, a bot farm, a Russian bot farm that is spewing out um, you know, around an upcoming election, whether it’s 2024 or the Congressional elections or whatever, then you would like to think that there’s a mechanism for the intel organization, whoever it is, to brief, uh, the responsible people who have the clearances within those organizations, that, uh, social media companies, to say, we are providing you with insight into what has happened.

58:16 Just like with the FBI, if the FBI twigs on, uh, uh, you know, a Chinese, uh, espionage plot operating somewhere in the U.S., designed to target, pick a company, Raytheon, IBM, whomever, then you’d like to think that the FBI goes to them and says, we have identified this, right? And we’re providing you with this information from a security perspective. Right? Um, that’s in my book, that’s okay. That’s, that’s a good use of your intel or your law enforcement.

58:49 The problem is when it goes off the rails. The problem is when they say, ah, you know, we’re not really sure, but you should be on the lookout for, you know, Russian bots, and you know, uh, here’s the sort of thing they might say, you know, so keep an eye out, and maybe what you want to do is, we’ll put, you know, half a dozen of our people in with you, and they’ll kind of keep an eye on things too, and it all gets a little bit too cozy, right? Uh, there’s a level of dialogue that I’m okay with from a security perspective, on hard evidence, on hard intel, on obvious information that should be provided.

59:27 When it gets beyond that, that’s when you have a problem, when they start influencing and start saying, maybe this is what you ought to think about doing. Right? But that’s enabled by people up on Capitol Hill, in Washington DC. We’ve got politicians now that are, that are yelling and saying, well, social media should start, you know, censoring, uh, this or that. Um, uh, right?

59:49 I mean, it’s, I, I, that, that’s a real problem, when politicians and when intel or law enforcement starts all working together to decide what is appropriate to hear. You got a real issue. Yeah, no, it’s a good point. It was just fascinating for me to see how the Twitter people were pushing back and just like saying there’s no evidence of any Russian meddling here, and yet that was just the narrative that they had just chosen, and we kept hitting them with it.

1:00:14 It seemed at some point the Twitter execs just acquiesced and were like, all right, you, whatever you want to say, if you want us to take it down, we’ll take it down, but we’re tired of telling you there is no Russian influence there. So, you know, and then you think about it, and what they’ll do is, any organization, you know, has some agenda, right? And so you could argue that Twitter’s, you know, personnel were, were, you know, primarily sitting on the left side of the spectrum.

1:00:37 So they’ll take that advice. So they’ll take that general warning from law enforcement, from intel, and then they’re going to use their own, they’re going to edit it themselves, right? And they’re going to decide, within that, okay, what do we don’t like, or what do we suspect? Well, their own personal agenda is going to influence it, whether they’re on the left or whether they’re on the right, right? It’s just human nature.

1:00:57 It’s where it’s going to work. So it’s a very dangerous thing, because, you know, either side can play that game. And I just, uh, I’m not sure how we, how we got to the point where we’re also concerned about, uh, words, right? Maybe you’re offended by it, but so what, right? Uh, to move on, while we’re in an information war right now, aren’t we?

1:01:19 I mean, we really are. And so, you know, maybe if you’re not offended by words, but if they can persuade and build consensus, or false consensus, and it’s become a brand new technology. I mean, they’re even saying, I mean, over the weekend we saw the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, and then the Fed took some action and guaranteed depositors. But you know, I was, I was in banking for 15 years, and I was watching it unfold and speaking to people behind the scenes, but they were all saying that, because social media now is so advanced that bank run apps happened so much faster than even it could have before.

1:01:53 And so we’re living in this new world right now, where, you know, a few statements could mean a couple hours later you’ll have a a run on a bank that might have, in the past, have taken weeks, or would have taken a lot more momentum to do. And it’s just another sign that we’re literally in an information war, and I lived it in 2020, where I was like, oh my gosh, it’s, uh, it really is about the perception as opposed to the reality. And, um, I felt that in 2020 in a big way, because we were, our messages were being taken down.

1:02:26 And just on that point, Mike, I, you know, I’m, I was born in America, and it was just, I don’t know, I got angry. I got really angry when YouTube pulled that video, and I thought, you know, what, my immediate reaction was to upload it again, and then upload it again, and then I did a vlog complaining about it. And I, I just wanted to fight, because it seemed so fundamental to not allow someone to speak, and allow their opinion to be heard, so where you could consider it or choose not to, or whatever.

1:02:52 And so I kind of stood up, Mike, and I thought, well, who’s here to protect my First Amendment rights? Well, first of all, you’re not in America, so you better put that on hold. I’m like, okay, but there’s, there’s some equivalence in the EU or the UK, and everyone said, no, no, no, Brian, that’s a private company, and they can do what they want. And I thought, okay, it’s a private company, but it’s, it’s also providing a public utility, since we’re all locked down.

1:03:15 And what killed me is, I would later find out that the governments that refused to represent me were now going to the private companies and breaking my First Amendment laws by telling them not to allow me to have my freedom of speech. Right? So it was this incredible shell game, where they were, they were saying I’m not responsible, and yet they were literally, you know, violating my rights, you know, through proxy, in a private company. And I saw it all come back together, I believe, with those files, and it was, um, I don’t know, it was sobering to see that happen.

1:03:49 Well, I think that, yeah, there’s, there’s, it is that group think. It’s that mob mentality. It’s, it’s, uh, I don’t know, however you want to refer to it, but the information flow, right, the ability, as you mentioned, firm, you know, people to make a decision quickly, uh, built around fear, and you know, a lack of, of, uh, understanding around SVB, or the Silicon Valley Bank, as an example, um, or the influence, uh, of a, of a population leading up to an election.

1:04:21 Right? It did. You’re right. It used to take weeks, months, right, for information to flow around, for people to make decisions. You think about, um, yeah, we’ve been doing, you know, covert action campaigns forever, right?

1:04:34 Propaganda, right? So you think about, okay, we want to change the hearts and minds of a, of a population in a communist country, right? So what did you used to do in the old days? Yeah, you’re trying to figure out how to get, you know, uh, the word out, Voice of America, or, you know, you influence journalists, right? Right, to start publishing pieces favorable, you, you know, you look at the Russians.

1:04:56 The Russians were over here in World War II, right, when the U.S. was still isolationist, and they were trying to influence, you know, the U.S. to stay isolationist, right, before they decided it was clever to, you know, when Hitler decided it was clever to invade Russia. So when Germany and Russia were still together, you know, you had Russia working here in the U.S., trying to influence public opinion, but they were doing it without the internet, and they were doing it by paying off journalists. They were doing it by paying trade union leaders to influence their members, uh, forming, you know, organizations supposedly that were independent and calling for isolationism.

1:05:30 So it’s always been going on. It’s nothing new, uh. It’s, um, accelerated, right, and much more efficient and sophisticated, uh, through the use of technology. Yeah, uh, Mike, I’m going to digress here and ask you the question everyone wants to know, and that is, who shot JFK? Oh yeah, this guy named Chad.

1:05:54 Um, most people don’t know that. No, I, I think, uh, yeah, the JFK, oh my God, the JFK story. Um, it’s, it’s, there’s only a handful of conspiracy theories that I think will never die, right? There’s not that many of them. Uh, JFK is one of them.

1:06:12 Wasn’t that term conspiracy theory developed by the Warren Commission to try to put shade on the fact that there was anything going on? Yeah, yeah, and that’s exactly, that’s exactly where it first surfaced, as far as I know, at first surface. So there’s one, commission reports that psyop worked on you and me. Yeah. Well, I mean, it’s, it’s, uh, it’s never going to go away.

1:06:33 I mean, my own personal opinion is, uh, that it’s nowhere near as, as, uh, unsettled as the assassination of Martin Luther King, which I think is actually the one, if you had to say, okay, where do you think you would really want to spend your time in a very deep-dive investigation? It would be Martin Luther King. I just think there’s, there’s no way there weren’t other elements to that. Um, and it’s just that one really is, is puzzling. There’s, there’s, uh, there’s, there’s too many dots that, you know, don’t connect.

1:07:12 Uh, JFK, I don’t know, you know, he had, he had motive. You know, he was desperate to try to show his, his allegiance, and, uh, you know, to the, to the revolution. Um, he had traveled down to Mexico City. The Soviets. Lee Harvey Oswald.

1:07:31 You’re saying Lee Harvey Oswald? Yeah. He had sufficient training. I’ve been up in that Book Depository. That was not a tough shot, really.

1:07:39 A lot tougher shots out here in, in Idaho trying to take down an elk, even with that weapon, even with that weapon, even without weapon. Okay. Yeah, it’s, uh, you know, and so I, you know, again, having said all that, never say never. The one thing I have learned from hosting Black Files Declassified is, never, never say never. There’s always a possibility, until you get what you almost never do, 100 percent credible intelligence, you know, pointing to, you know, only one scenario.

1:08:09 So, but I do think, um, uh, the, the assassination of Martin Luther King was, would there, there’s more to that than we know. About. I just, you know, anyway, that’s just me, but that’s, that’s kind of interesting. I don’t know many, but much about the details of the Martin Luther King assassination, but who is it chalked up to be, and then is it more likely to be something like the CIA or FBI? Well, I think, ultimately, without going into Christmas, I think there was a sort of a cabal of, uh, local and state and federal, uh, mostly, uh, I don’t know, agencies that, uh, felt it relevant to, um, to remove Martin Luther King from the scene.

1:09:06 Uh, and I say that just because, you know, there’s, when you look at the, when you look at the timeline, and that’s kind of where you have to start, right? Does any, any investigation, right? You have to build it on solid ground, right? Otherwise it’s just, it’s a house of cards, right? And that’s where you can’t start an investigation with, um, uh, supposition.

1:09:33 You can’t start an investigation with a theory, right? That’s not how it works. You start with hard evidence, and oftentimes part of that evidence is the timeline. And there’s just, there’s, there’s, there’s too many questions about the shooter, about, uh, James Earl Ray, um, in terms of what he was doing leading up to the assassination of Martin Luther King, right? He went from being a two-bit, unsuccessful, couldn’t even be a successful two-bit petty criminal, right?

1:10:01 He was, he was, he was inept, and then, leading up to the, the day when Martin Luther King was shot, you know, he had, he had kind of transformed himself, uh, he looked almost like a professor. He had, you know, founded, you know, somehow got enough cash to to buy a Mustang, uh, vehicle, a Ford Mustang, uh, he kind of disappeared off the grid for a period of time, uh, you know, traveling, uh, through the South, and, and it’s, and then he finds himself over in Europe afterwards, right, where eventually he was arrested, and all that from a, from a two-bit petty criminal. And so I had a chance to interview his brother, um, and it’s, you know, now you’ve got to take everything with a grain of salt, but, you know, I found his story, and the way that he described James Earl Ray and his ability to actually accomplish something like that on his own.

1:10:55 I don’t know. It seems interesting. And then what does that mean if, if this was perpetrated by those agencies? I mean, that opens up, I guess, a lot of questions, and would it have been successful, because you had government involvement? Would it have been successful?

1:11:12 Yeah, that is actually, no, you point to a very important part, which is, you know, maybe the one thing that, uh, uh, mitigates or, uh, you know, refutes what I’m, you know, suspicious of, is the fact that if it had been, you know, uh, local and state, you know, uh, law enforcement or agencies working together, along with, you know, federal law enforcement, perhaps and that, uh, you know, they wouldn’t be able to keep it a secret, right? It’s kind of like, what, you know, I look at JFK, and I think, okay, if, if someone had known, if, you know, it would be a small circle of people, they just can’t keep their yaps shut, you know, for, you know, uh, that long period of time. Someone’s gonna talk, and so yeah, maybe, maybe I’m just, uh, blowing smoke up, you know, that’s, thinking that, you know, maybe there’s something more to the MLK, that’s interesting, but I, I hadn’t heard that before.

1:12:00 Um, have you heard Oliver Stone talk about JFK, because he goes really, really, really deep. He’s got another movie that he brought out about it as well? Yeah, no, I haven’t, and, uh, yeah, Oliver Stone, he’s an interesting cat. I know I guess we probably wouldn’t agree on a lot, uh, but, uh, look, I spent a lot of time, you know, peeking behind the curtain, uh, working with the agency, and, um, you know, sometimes things are as simple as they seem, right?

1:12:27 Sometimes, and, and, and, and I, I think when you look at JFK, part of it is, you know, why the suspicion lasted for so long? In part it’s because we don’t want to believe that something so impactful could be caused by one, you know, uh, right, somebody, one person, right, could have such an impact on so many people in the world. So maybe there’s a, there’s, that’s, that’s part of it. Again, never say never. I, you know, I don’t know.

1:12:53 Yeah, no, I appreciate that. Um, a couple more things I want to ask you about. UFOs. All right. Ten years ago, if you told me there’s a UFO, I would have just smiled at you and closed the door.

1:13:03 But these days, you know, Rogan has, you know, fighter pilots that seem very credible talking about, you know, multiple sightings, consistent sightings. We’ve seen the video, etc., and I’m just curious what you think of these flying objects, and not to mention all the people that say they also have knowledge behind the scenes about certain things happening in Los Alamos, etc. Just to put it in perspective, I asked the same thing to Neil deGrasse Tyson, uh, astrophysicist, and Chris Hadfield, the super famous astronaut, and they kind of demurred and wouldn’t really give me an answer.

1:13:35 They said, I don’t know, I don’t believe it, I don’t see any evidence, and I couldn’t get him to really say anything of consequence. But what do you think, right? What do you think? Yeah, yeah, there’s not a lot of upside, uh, there certainly wasn’t a lot of upside until the past few years, for anybody to, you know, say anything about UFOs. They’re not calling them UAPs, unidentified aerial phenomena, just to get rid of the UFO.

1:13:58 Yeah, rebrand it. But, uh, but look, I, I think I’ve talked to, uh, fellow Commander David Fravor, um, who was, uh, one of the more, um, fascinating sightings, and there’s, you know, some gun camera footage, and, you know, they picked it up on the radar down in the carrier group, you know, during the course of his, uh, his sortie, and um, and I found him to be enormously credible, and with enormous experience, no justifiable reason to anybody. And I, I found it to be one of those moments where you think, yeah, okay, there is no explanation right now, so how can you possibly say it’s not possible?

1:14:45 I, I don’t, I don’t get that. You can’t discount it. And so I think there are a lot that, you know, we looked at a lot of them in Black Files that you can discount. You can look at and go, okay, well, that’s, it was a very, very credible reason for, you know, this sighting. But Fravor sighting is that one that I thought, I don’t see any real credible alternative solution other than this is some technology that we don’t understand, whether it’s state-sponsored here on Earth, or whether it’s, you know, extraterrestrial.

1:15:18 I have no idea, but I do know the Fravor is enormously capable, experienced, incredible, and it wasn’t just him, as wingman, saw it. Uh, again, it was, you know, picked up on radar, uh, gun camera footage, and so I don’t think you can discount this, right? I think it is enormously egotistical to say that we’re the only relevant life in the entire whatever that is out there. Yeah, I agree with you. I mean, I’m a mechanical engineer by training, and I’m about not about to just wish something, but when I started listening to these testimonials, and seeing the footage, and seeing the radar, and then Chris Hadfield’s telling me that he was an Air Force pilot, and I like Chris a lot, and his brothers and everybody has been in planes for, you know, centuries of their lives combined, and they’ve never seen anything.

1:16:07 But I’m like, okay, but you’ve got, like you said, credible people talking about these things. It’s not like I was out in a desert and I saw this orb. It’s like, you know, something else, and guys that understand Newtonian physics and understand aeronautics, and they’re seeing things that just, you know, something doesn’t look right here. So yeah, I think it’s working. I mean, there’s a real, there’s a real reason, and then people got very, very upset about it.

1:16:34 Well, oh my God, the Pentagon’s announced that they have an office, or had an office, supposedly they still do, as I would imagine that looks at, um, you know, aerial phenomena, right, that is observed, whether it’s observed by uh military or civilian, and, you know, it was the Advanced Aeronautical Threat Identification Program, AATIP, was the name of the office in the Pentagon, and that, just from a national security perspective, makes sense. If you’ve got, uh, objects, you know, that are spotted, particularly if they’re over sensitive installations or wherever they may be, then yes, you have an obligation, you know, from a national security perspective, to investigate that. Now, the problem was always, you know, from a military perspective, if I’m flying, I have no, there’s no upside for me to, you know, land and walk in, you know, to the, to the hot wash or the briefing room and say, you know, I, by the way, I think I saw a UFO.

1:17:25 That’s, like, through your career, a lot of good. So they had to try to take that stigma away, which was smart, because again, from just a national security perspective, yeah, you better evaluate that, get the footage out, you know, get the radar readings, and understand what it was, um, or go talk to those civilians, at least, you know, the credible ones, and say, what was this? Uh, so I think that made sense. Um, that morphed into, you know, I’m sure another office, they said they shut down AATIP.

1:17:52 I, you know, there’s still a national security reason to want to know what is up there, particularly if the Chinese have developed, or, and we know they are developing, uh, hypersonic, uh, weapons. Um, then yes, we better pay attention to it. But from, uh, you know, from, is there, is there something from outside this world? You know, the one, again, the one interview that I, I had, and the one person I talked to, was Commander Fravor, and, you know, the evidence that they had.

1:18:22 You know, if someone comes forward and says, this is exactly what it was, here’s the credible information to discount the idea that it might be extraterrestrial, fine. But until then, you’ve got to keep the door open. Yeah, most definitely. Um, Mike, what do you think of artificial intelligence? The world has been recently enamored, and it’s front and center in a lot of people’s conversations because of this, uh, ChatGPT technology that went from zero to a million users in four days, and then to a hundred million users in 60 days.

1:18:51 It’s the fastest adoption of technology in human history, and I’ve played with that. I bet you have as well. And apparently ChatGPT-4, I’ve heard, is days or weeks away, and apparently it goes from 170 billion nodes to 100 trillion nodes, and it can do crazy stuff. Um, talk to me about this technology, because if China is doing all the great espionage that we we know they are doing, you know, AI is a funny one. I’ve had some experts on the show, and while ChatGPT is what this, this thing called narrow AI, that does this one thing particularly well, but doesn’t necessarily have intelligence.

1:19:29 It’s all going towards this concept of artificial general intelligence, which is this thing that actually can improve on itself, and can come up with new ideas and make itself better, and potentially hit this singularity concept, where it kind of takes over. What do you think? And then what are the national security ramifications of this tech, because whoever gets it might literally rule the world? Yeah, yeah, I think that’s, that’s the, from my perspective anyway, I’m not, I’m not smart enough to talk about the, you know, the technology behind it or the eventual capabilities of it.

1:20:04 And not that I’m a Luddite, but you know, um, I took a computer class when I was in college, my one computer course, and I remember it was with punch cards. You remember punch cards? Uh, my dad came up with a stack of punch cards. I’m not that old, but my dad did them. So yeah, okay, they had to be, but they had to be.

1:20:22 I was at a university. I guess we hadn’t gotten the new technology, so we were still using punch cards, and it had to be in a certain order, and, you know, 10,000 punch cards would tell you that two plus two equals four, uh, so I’m in this computer class. It’s definitely not in my wheelhouse, and I walk out the door and I drop all these punch cards, you know, so the whole thing is out of sequence, and I’m looking at it, and I look at my buddy and I say, it’s computer bullshit, it’s never going anywhere, and I dropped the class, and that was the last time I got anything.

1:20:51 So I’m probably the last guy you want to talk to about artificial intelligence. But I will say, from an operational perspective, that you’re absolutely Right, your last point, I think, from my perspective, is the most important, which is how is this going to be used uh, to target, uh, other nations, right? How is this going to be used to, uh, to spy? How is this going to be used to influence public opinion, right? Those, those are the questions that I find most interesting, right?

1:21:17 Not how is it going to be used by a student so they can write, you know, the world’s best essay. Um, or is it eventually going to, you know, turn into a RoboCop scenario, and they take over the world? But I find it, I, I know the degree of competition that exists out there um, in the world of espionage, and I know that the, as an example, again, not to beat on the Chinese regime, but I, I tend to, the Chinese regime is focused very heavily on this, um, just as they are on every technology, and in part because they want to be ahead of the curve.

1:21:54 They want to be, uh, the innovators on this, right? And so they’re looking from a perspective of how can they use this to enhance what they’re already doing, and so yeah, we, we need to understand its abilities, uh, but from an operational perspective, I look at it from, you know, what is the threat to the U.S.? Yeah, it sounds like it’s significant. Um, fentanyl hasn’t really come over to Europe, in the UK, the way that it has in the US. Um, and it kind of then knocks on to maybe questions about borders or border security.

1:22:28 How big of a deal is fentanyl, just from being on the ground in the States? Um, and how does this play out? This is a highly concentrated form of opiate that now can be manufactured, you know, chemically, I think usually on site in Mexico now, and the whole old-school supply chain of growth of coca in Colombia and move it here, or go, the poppies in Southeast Asia and move it here, seems to be completely thrown on its head, and you can literally get it with precursor chemicals coming from China and make it anywhere, highly concentrated.

1:22:59 It’s now being cut, I’m told, from everything, from cocaine, even, to have marijuana, and the, the overdose deaths are through the roof. Um, part of the reason I left New York City in 2001 is because of my drug problem, and, uh, which resulted in an overdose. Now, I’m pretty sure, Mike, that these days I would have been dead with what’s going on with that stuff. And so it’s something that, is something I look at even differently than others. What’s your take on it, and again, from a national security perspective?

1:23:27 Yeah, it’s, um, yeah, you pointed out that precursor chemicals, primarily coming from China, um, that are making their way to Mexico, and then up into the US, over, uh, over a hundred thousand fentanyl- related deaths last year. Um, you know, so, and we’ve got a problem, right? We, like him or hate him, right? Everyone’s got an opinion about, uh, the previous president, about Trump, but um, you know, the policies, you can separate the person from the policies, right?

1:24:01 I don’t have to like the president. I I have to like the policies, and the policy towards border security was closer to spot on then than it is now. Now it’s, it’s almost an open border, right? They’ve, they, it’s almost as if they don’t care, or they, they, so that has contributed over the past couple of years to this massive increase in the flow of drugs, also human trafficking, right? And what has that done?

1:24:26 That has put billions of dollars into the pockets of the cartels that control most of that border region with the US, and look, I mean, the, the Mexican government under AMLO, and really under any pick-a-pass administration, right, it’s been basically incapable or unwilling to deal with the, the issue of cartels. So it’s, I, I don’t think, a, we’re not going to, there’s been some talk here in the US about, you know, sending in the US military. That’s not going to happen, right?

1:25:01 We’re not going to, we’re not gonna start droning cartel leaders down in Mexico. Um, Mexico is an incredibly important trade partner. It’s a sovereign nation, and I don’t think we’re gonna, we’re gonna start engaging in special operations down there without their permission. Um, now, could we have an enhanced, uh, presence down there, with the permission and with the blessing and cooperation and liaison with the Mexican military? Uh, Mexican Marines tend to be the best service down there, um, considered the least corrupt, uh, and very capable, so maybe there’s a way to enhance our relationship and our, and our cooperation to deal with the cartels in more of a, of a fashion that the cartels would understand, which means eliminating them, right?

1:25:49 Because that’s pretty much all they understand. And, you know, then people will point out, well, during the Calderón administration, um, Calderón actually made an effort, right? Um, and that was when we had that massive uptick in violence down in Mexico. It was awful, and I’d have offices down in Mexico, we do a lot of business down there, and um, on the security side and on the information side, and uh, that was a very ugly period of time, right? But it was because there was an effort trying to, to remove the cartel, to eliminate the cartels, created a lot of headroom, and so a lot of the subgroups started fighting each other, and that’s not happening now.

1:26:30 They’re doing, AMLO is doing, what previous administrations had done, which has managed the problem, right, to, to minimize the violence, and because we don’t really have what you would consider to be border security and border controls, which every other nation has, once again, the US seems to apologize for wanting to have borders secure, at least this administration does. Um, that, that is allowed for this, this massive flow of narcotics, not just fentanyl, uh, but other narcotics. And you’re right, you know, I, I don’t understand the risk appetite of anybody nowadays who, who takes a pill or, you know, illicit drugs, because, you know, your odds are not good, um, you know, there’s a really, very good chance that it’s laced with fentanyl to some degree.

1:27:17 So, uh, but it’s not going to stop people’s risk appetite. Yeah, so it’s an interesting time, to say the least. Um, your book is called Company Rules, or Everything I Know About Business I Learned From the CIA. Can you talk about it, and talk maybe a little bit, as much as you can, about your business, because you’ve got offices here in London, you’re in the States, you’re in Mexico, Lord knows what other countries you’re in, Mike? But tell me what’s business like, and what’s the book about?

1:27:45 Sure, thank you, uh, for mentioning it. It’s, um, it’s an audio book. It’s on Scribd, uh, S-C-R-I-B-D, the Netflix of books, um, the script platform, and it’s an audio book, which, you know, it’s because I don’t know enough big words to write a real book. Um, but it’s, uh, essentially it’s not about my time with the agency. It’s that when I got out of the outfit, um, I, I had to do something, right?

1:28:12 Too, too young to retire, and so went into business, which a lot of people thought was a, a very stupid move on my part. I had no business experience, and I learned, or I, I realized after a while that part of the reason we were able to keep the business moving forward was because of some of the ideas that I’d taken away from the agency, right? So what I call company rules, um, and they’re not, it’s not written in stone. They don’t give you a manual titled Company Rules when you join the agency, and I think a lot of folks who spent time there, great people, would have their own set of rules, right?

1:28:48 These happen to be mine, and so they’re basically just guiding principles that I think, frankly, I use when I’m dealing with my kids. I use in general life, but I found that they were very helpful, uh, navigating business and trying to start and create and build a business, and then make sure that it, you know, keeps a pulse, um, over all these years. So that’s, that’s a synopsis of it. My company is a, it’s an intelligence and security firm, uh, called Portman Square Group, and we’re, we’re in Washington and New York and London and Mexico, Monterrey, Mexico City, uh, Chicago, I forget where else.

1:29:26 Um, and it’s, uh, basically, uh, you know, strategic intelligence and a variety of security services, due diligence and investigative support. Um, and all the people, that’s the probably the most rewarding thing. I don’t recall if I mentioned it in the book, I should have, is, it’s the most rewarding thing about starting a business and then keeping it going is, is really the people. I’ve got people that have been with me now for 17 years, right, and they’ve raised families now within the company.

1:29:55 And it’s, it’s, that’s, you know, I don’t want to sound touchy-feely, but that’s been really rewarding, just working with those people, and now they’re kind of like family, and everybody in a mission together. Yeah, yeah, and they, and they’re, they’re as equally invested in, in the business and the work product and the reputation and doing the right thing. Um, so it’s been, you know, but I mean, the, the rules themselves are pretty straightforward, uh, but they’re, they’re again things like, know your operating environment, right?

1:30:29 And, and, you know, it, that’s, that’s, in, in operational terms, when you’re on the field and you’re working, in my old job, that was pretty critical, to know your operating environment, particularly when you were in a hostile, uh, area. Um, in business, it’s equally important, right? I got, whatever we’re doing, we’re talking about know your operating environment from a sector perspective, or from a jurisdiction, a location, uh, whether you know, talking about your competitors, whether you’re talking about knowing your, you know, who your shareholders or your advisors are, uh, potential clients.

1:31:01 I mean, there’s, there’s a lot to it. Um, so what I found was, a lot of these ideas that were, from my perspective, critical to having success within, uh, the CIA, they just transferred, and I didn’t even realize it for a while. Uh, and then, when I did, I started writing down some notes, and eventually we ended up with this book, excellent. And what, what’s the culture like in your company, in comparison to, like, the CIA? Because there’s, like, I caught this Netflix show out recently, and I think it’s, like, this young guy who’s, like, a lawyer at the CIA, and it’s a little over the top, but it sounds like this really cagey, wacky, you know, culture in there, of people kind of not trusting each other, worried about taking the back bag, but also trying to work together to get the bad guys, and it was just, it really looked weird.

1:31:51 Is that, is the CIA have a weird culture? Can you comment on that? No, no, I know the show you’re talking about. I can’t remember the title of it, but my wife’s had me sit down a couple of times and watch it. Apparently I’m a very difficult person to sit next to when I’m watching a show based on espionage or spy, because I sit there, and I, I, I just, yeah, I eventually just start shifting around and making noises, and then eventually I get up and walk away, disgusted.

1:32:14 But, but you weren’t impressed? What’s that? You weren’t impressed by their narrative? Um, I tend to, you know, yeah, I tend to be a difficult person to sit and watch shows like that with. Um, it’s just um, the agency itself, I mean, I can’t say enough good things about it.

1:32:34 I’m one of those people that came out of it, had a great ride. I really enjoyed it. I love the people I worked with. The experiences, you know, sometimes you’d walk away from something and you go, nobody else on the planet is doing this right now, and so it’s, it, and it gives, it gives you a relatively young age a tremendous amount of responsibility, you know, and particularly in the operations side of things, where, where I was, and so you you know, for the right person, it’s, it’s a fantastic place to be, and that’s, you could say the same thing about MI6, or, you know, or MI5, or really, really any service, I suppose, like that.

1:33:09 But um, yeah, the, the reality is, it, it’s a, it’s a bureaucracy. There’s no doubt about it. Um, when you’re in operations and you’re operating overseas, you don’t feel that, that, you know, that much. Right? I mean, you know it exists.

1:33:27 You know, there’s a, there’s a, there’s a machine out there that’s turning away, right, and you’re part of that. Um, but you do have this incredible level of responsibility. I remember when I was young, just thinking, God, really, you’re gonna let me do this? Um, and it was, it was fantastic, and so, um, but you learn how to make decisions. One of the things, one of the rules in the book is, uh, called “Get off the X.”

1:33:51 And the X, and insecurity, or operational sense, it’s an ambush site, right? So you don’t want, hey, you don’t want to be on the X, but when you get on the X, you’ve got to get off it, right? You’ve got to recognize it, right? The goal is obviously to recognize the indicators of a potential ambush site and avoid it. But if you don’t, then you have to make decisions quickly.

1:34:10 And in business terms, transferring it over to the private sector, now, what I mean by get off the X is, you have to make decisions quickly, right? You have to, you have to take imperfect information and make a decision. It’s never like a Tom Clancy book or a movie, where you have all the details you want. Oh, and then the director says, well, this is what we’re going to do, or the guy out in the field says, yes, this is what we’re going to do, because now we have all the details.

1:34:34 You never have all the details, and if you wait to have all the details, something bad’s gonna happen. So the idea is, you just start, and the agency is very good at teaching you how to do that, how to make decisions quickly and with imperfect information. And it’s, that turned out to be a very important part of business, and and so anyway, but the company, you know, my, my, the Portman Square Group, um, I, I think one of the things I took away from the agency was to explain the mission and then get the hell out of the way.

1:35:09 As long as you’ve, hire the right people. Hire smart people. Hopefully it’s not hard when it’s me, I can hire people smarter than me, uh, and then you explain the mission, and then you get out of the way, and you let them do what they’re capable of doing, right? And in our case, we got very creative people, terrific at eliciting information, terrific at research and data mining, terrific at investigations, all those things, and they don’t need me, uh, you know, micromanaging things.

1:35:37 So I think we’ve created a company where people, at an early age, this is the comparison to the agency, get a lot of responsibility, right? And, and they get a chance to do a variety of things, and that’s why, in part, I think we’ve been successful in an industry that tends to have a lot of movement. We’ve been successful at keeping people for a long time, because we, we created that environment. Yeah, well, congratulations to you. It’s not easy to keep people for that long.

1:36:02 Hell, it’s not easy to stay in business for that long. Um, it just, it just doesn’t. It reminds me of one of my mentors. He always said, he said, um, high-performance people make decisions based on imperfect information, or he also used to say, stop spreadsheeting it to death. He’s like, a deal is either hot or not.

1:36:21 You should know it in the first 60 seconds, and, um, you should be able to move on it. That was the way he always taught, and, um, sounds like a smart guy. Yeah, he’s a smart guy. He’s a fascinating dude, uh. So yeah, look, Mike, I really appreciate your perspective on all this stuff.

1:36:37 I really appreciate your time. Um, just any final thoughts from you, and what’s the best place for people to follow you, or also learn more about your company, etc.? Sure, yeah, well, I mean, we’re out there. Um, Portman Square Group is for all your global intelligence and security needs. Um, and, uh, and I appreciate again mentioning the book.

1:36:57 Uh, The Company Rules is available on Scribd, uh, the script platform, um, and then I’m on, uh, I’m on, do we say the Twitter? I guess we could say Twitter. Yeah, um, at, uh, at CompanyMan is the, uh, is the, the Twitter name, uh, but yeah, this has been terrific. Guy, uh, uh, apologize, I occasionally disappeared down a rabbit hole when I’m talking, but uh, I appreciate it. Great questions, and, and yeah, the time has flown.

1:37:23 Yeah, for sure. I mean, final thoughts, Mike, I mean, I always say, you know, to that 20-year-old that’s listening to us right now, who found something in here that resonates, and I know you’ve got kids of different ages, but like, what advice do you give to them? You know, they’re growing up in a world that we didn’t. They’re growing up in a world where their digital identity sometimes is more important than their physical identity, or feels more real. A lot of questions happen, and obviously Ukraine happening and China happening, and these kinds of things.

1:37:52 Is there any kind of advice you try to give to them, or just people in general? Yeah, um, only what I tell my kids. Um, again, we all base our experiences in our life, you know, stories, but, uh, hey, don’t do anything stupid on the internet. It never dies. Um, everything’s available.

1:38:13 I know that because I run an impartial investigations firm, so never do anything stupid on the internet. Um, and then the other thing is life isn’t really that difficult, right? I tell my kids this all the time. It appears that way, but in reality, you don’t ever have that many options on the old decision tree. Yeah, when faced with a problem, and you also have to remember that the world, um, all you have to do, and I tell my kids this all the time, and I think they’re starting to believe it, it’s just work that much harder than everybody else, right?

1:38:51 You don’t have to give it 190. Right? There’s no such thing. Just work a little bit harder than everybody else, and you can control that. You can do that, right?

1:38:59 And your reward will be this much bigger, right? It’s just, it’s so simple, because most people in life, and I don’t want to sound cynical, but they don’t do this much more, right? They don’t work that much harder, so you can shine, right, without sort of this massive effort that you imagined it to take. And yeah, so I, I probably say that at least once a day to my kids, uh, trying to get them to understand that I don’t want, my job is not to raise average people.

1:39:29 Right? There’s enough average people in the world, uh, thank God, because, you know, we need all types. But I, I just feel like my job is not to raise average children, and, and they don’t have to be professional athletes, they don’t have to be, you know, a nuclear physicist, right? But they have to be productive, and they have to be, you know, loyal and honest and humor-filled, and they have to, you have to be, you know, you just want to leave this world knowing that you’ve left others on here who are capable of moving the ball forward to some degree.

1:40:04 Yeah, it’s fantastic advice. Um, and I’m, I’m with you on that. I’m not here to raise average children either, and so, uh, yeah, I try to encourage them to go a little harder, uh, if they can. That’s for sure. Uh, the book is Company Rules, or Everything I Know About Business I Learned From the CIA.

1:40:20 You can get it on Scribd. Uh, Mike, thanks so much. Follow you on Twitter. Um, keep, uh, spreading the information out there, keep letting us know what’s really going on, and focusing on those really important things and not just the noise. Let’s do this in London sometime in person, shall we?

1:40:34 I look forward to it. I look forward to it very much. Man, all right, fantastic. Thank you, Mike. Appreciate it.

1:40:39 Thanks, everybody. We’ll see you next time on London Real. Take care. Bye. Thank you.