Scheer Intelligence

The CIA’s destructive role in world politics since the end of World War II as a secret rogue spy agency controlled by unelected intelligence officers has become so ubiquitous that it can be joked about. But behind the jokes lies a far darker reality: the agency's imperial ambitions have fueled a legacy of death and destruction in the name of expanding American power. Hugh Wilford, author and professor of history at California State University Long Beach, joins host Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast to delve into the specifics of CIA operations and their impact on geopolitics from its inception to the present day. Wilford’s book, “The CIA: An Imperial History,” emphasizes how the CIA is an unprecedented force in the world, advancing the goals of a global empire with a facade of spreading democracy. Although it makes for good Hollywood stories, the subversiveness of the agency alongside its brutal methods made it such an effective power that Scheer describes as capable of “destroying the right of people to make their own history.” The two mention the coup in Iran in 1953, choreographed by the CIA, and operations in Vietnam in the ‘60s and most odious examples. The CIA’s bloody worldwide campaigns would leave populations dazed and confused, all under the pretense of acting in their best interest, while the rest of the world remained similarly in the dark. Wilford explains, “It's not just that America is trying to hide its imperial role from world audiences, from people in the post-colonial world in the Global South, it's also somewhat trying to hide what it's doing from U.S. citizens.” These imperial ambitions, Wilford warns, inevitably have a way of backfiring, and the CIA’s history is proof of that. The CIA’s consistent meddling in the Middle East in the 20th century resulted, for instance, in the occupation of the Palestinian people, which has translated to the genocide today. “The growth of this massive secret state to carry out this globalist foreign policy has had baleful consequences, disastrous consequences, not just for people living overseas, but for people within the United States as well,” Wilford explains.

The “big club” that “you ain’t in,” as George Carlin famously put it, is increasingly visible as the presidential election rolls on toward November. Politicians and the donor class that controls them have made it known to the public that they are not representatives of the majority but rather the small elite minority. Nomi Prins, financial historian, author and former Goldman Sachs managing director, joins host Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast to describe exactly how this process works as well as touch on the evolution of the world economy away from the U.S. As a result of U.S. mishaps in 2008 with the financial crisis as well as the current geopolitical involvements in Ukraine and growing disruptions between the U.S. and China, Prins explains how the world is recognizing the ability to move past the U.S. as well as the dollar: “What's happened is the alliance of nations that needed the U.S. and needed the dollar to trade don't need it anymore.” China’s rise with the BRICS nations alongside has encouraged this, and the U.S.’s policies of supporting the financial system and allowing the banks to run things has led to the rest of the world to say, “We will compete, we'll do exactly what you're doing, but we're going to do it on our own terms.” Back at home, when it comes to economic justice, the two party system, in short, is a farce, and the difference between how the internal system of each party works is hardly noticeable. “Everything kind of moves upward and gets smaller as it moves upward in terms of who has the power and who wants to retain the power,” Prins tells Scheer. That’s why, she asserts, “even if things get questioned on the surface, the idea of changing them doesn't really get pushed throughout party policy.” As much as people try to push for or enact change, the questions fall on deaf ears, Prins says. People “can blame the other party, they can blame each other, but they don't get to blame the system, because they don't feel that there's any real connection or control that they could have over the system.”

It is around that time in an election year where the typical platitudes and ultimatums exclaiming it is “do or die,” “now or never” are being thrown around. The overarching narrative from the past two elections remains the same: the Democrats are not great: they bolster the military industrial complex, make empty promises to working people and maintain sometimes identical policies to their right wing counterparts on issues like immigration … but we must choose them or face the wrath of Donald Trump and the Republicans. In this spirited debate on the Scheer Intelligence podcast, host Robert Scheer spars with Jeff Cohen—author, co-founder of RootsAction.org, founder of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), and retired journalism professor at Ithaca College. The two butt heads around the issue of lesser evilism, questioning whether this year will bring actual change from the Democrats in their support for Israel’s suppression of the Palestineans alongside a range of other pressing issues. Cohen stresses that while the Biden administration’s actions involving Gaza, Ukraine and its saber-rattling of China and Russia are “inexcusable,” a Trump reelection will prove to be worse on all fronts. “Trump's second term will be very, very different than the first. He had no plan, it was chaotic. They [now] have a plan,” Cohen tells Scheer. “They're going to implement ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ which threatens the whole planet. And trust me, they have a plan to suppress progressive dissent.” Scheer fires back, arguing that this is the exact same argument that has been heard not only in recent elections but for most of his long life. “What we do is we center most of our political discussion, knowledge in this country around the character of the president and these periodic elections: who are the virtuous, who are the evil?” Scheer retorts. “Whereas, in fact, we face very profound, systemic problems that the election tends to obscure.”

Those seeking systemic change often aim to radically overhaul the existing structure and directly challenge the rot they see within. Although history has shown this to be successful at times, it is usually extinguished by the powers that be and perhaps more pragmatic approaches could have brought about the sought change. This is the story told by Dr. Donna J. Nicol, an author and academic, about Dr. Claudia Hampton and her journey to preserve affirmative action. Nicol joins Scheer Intelligence host Robert Scheer to discuss her new book, “Black Woman on Board: Claudia Hampton, the California State University, and the Fight to Save Affirmative Action.” Nicol sets the scene for her protagonist, introducing the time period in which Black radicalism is at a particular high following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. According to Nicol, Hampton chooses an approach that relies on the tedious path of making inroads with those in power. “[Hampton’s] working in the system not as a Black radical, but as someone who chooses a different way of operating, of a different way of leading, which I refer to in the book as ‘sly civility,’” Nicol tells Scheer. Self-awareness led her down this path, Nicol said. “She understands that her race and her gender are things that can be held against her.” The radicalism is still relevant, however, and Nicol describes how a person like Hampton is able to render that spirit into meaningful legislation. “We need that agitation on the outside, but we need somebody on the inside to translate this into policy, to translate this into resources for the community,” Nicol said. Without Hampton, affirmative action wouldn’t have looked the way it ended up. Nicol tells Scheer about Hampton’s time on the California State University board of trustees from 1974 to 1994, including how “during her 20 years on the board, you see the highest increase of students of color, of faculty of color, and those numbers have not been replicated since then.”

Seventy-nine years ago, the Truman administration dropped atom bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instantly killing approximately 100,000 innocent civilians. Host Robert Scheer calls these horrific incidents among the major instances of terror ever committed in human history. Bill Hartung of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft joins Scheer Intelligence to discuss the history and legacy of nuclear weapons in relation to the military industrial complex, as a $2 trillion effort from the Pentagon to build “a new generation of nuclear-armed missiles, bombers, and submarines” takes place. The central question underlying the conversation is asked by Scheer; “How could they, in good conscience, be talking about modernizing the devil's weapon?” Hartung claims that the Pentagon and arms manufacturers are doing so under the guise of deterrence, but also because of false stories of controllable nuclear war and even the “evil” consideration that it may be necessary to use nuclear weapons on certain populations. “I think some of the folks promoting this stuff would like to believe that they're not putting the future of humanity at risk. So they kind of tell themselves these stories, which they then tell to the public and hope they can persuade them.” In the past, the horror of nuclear war was widely acknowledged to some extent by the public and the political class alike, as even Reagan said a nuclear war could never be won and should never be fought. Hartung claims that the belief that nuclear war could be winnable was previously “pushed off the agenda,” but it “seems to be back.” Despite movies like Oppenheimer, which to some extent injected the issue of nuclear war into public discussion, citizens and the media remain largely uninterested and unaware of the dangers of nuclear war, especially with regard to the war in Ukraine. This is reflected in the opinions of the American political class. Hartung points out that “if you go to Washington, there's this sort of atmosphere that, if you're for reducing these things, you know, you're the one who's unrealistic. The logic is flipped on its head ...”

Journalist and author Robert Scheer hosts Joel Whitney, who discusses his compelling book, "Flights: Radicals on the Run." They delve into the history of American dissent, spotlighting figures like Angela Davis and Malcolm X, who faced persecution for their beliefs. Whitney highlights the struggles of W.E.B. Du Bois and Lorraine Hansberry amid McCarthyism, illustrating the harsh realities of censorship and the price of truth-telling. Their conversation unravels the counter-narrative of American history and the ongoing fight for freedom of expression.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress proved to be a testimony of the U.S. government and its politicians’ stance on the genocide in Gaza. With standing ovations, smiling handshakes and overall warm welcome by a large number of Washington politicos, the strength of Israel’s influence in the U.S. is clear. Richard Silverstein, author and journalist of the Tikun Olam blog, which covers the Israeli national security state, joins host Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast to dive into Israeli history, its evolution and how its current stage fails to represent Judaism to the world.For Silverstein, Netanyahu’s speech was nothing new as it was filled with the same ideas and tropes about the barbaric Arab and Muslim world against the civilized, Western, Judeo-Christian world. Silverstein said these thoughts, “exemplify a certain attitude and approach that has existed for decades in Israel.” The current zeitgeist that exists in Israel today, whether it be through its government or settler population, does not represent any recognizable form of Judaism, Silverstein said. “This is why I've become an anti-Zionist, because I don't want to be associated with an Israel that sees its religion as destroying the Palestinian existence in Israel; that kind of Judaism is horrific.” Silverstein noted, “Israel betrayed the values I had as a liberal Zionist … and I think the genocide in Gaza has really sealed then put the nail in the coffin of Zionism.”

Although Julian Assange is free and home in his native Australia, his story and decade-long suffering at the hands of the U.S. government must never be forgotten for the sake of the survival of the First Amendment. In this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast, host Robert Scheer is joined by Kevin Gosztola, who runs The Dissenter newsletter and has been reporting on the Assange case and whistleblowers in the U.S. for more than a decade. Together, they underscore the significance of the Assange case and delve into the details explored in Gosztola's recent book, "Guilty of Journalism." Gosztola makes clear one of the main points of the whole ordeal, which is the inconsistency in the U.S.’s interpretation of its own laws. “The First Amendment and the Espionage Act are in conflict in this country. You can't reconcile the two, at least the way that the Justice Department wants to use the Espionage Act against people who aren't even just U.S. citizens. They're trying to apply U.S. law to international journalists,” Gosztola told Scheer. The U.S. response to the internet age and the powerful journalistic revelations of Assange and WikiLeaks was to criminalize such actions, sending a clear message: anyone attempting to blow the whistle or expose the U.S. government's crimes would face severe punishment, including the use of the Espionage Act, which could imprison someone for life. “Unlike Daniel Ellsberg, [Chelsea] Manning didn't have to sit there at a Xerox machine making copies. [She] just sent the copies of the documents to WikiLeaks, and then WikiLeaks had all these files that they could share with the world,” Gosztola said. Despite the online journalism revolution, many in the media space still remained quiet throughout the  Assange debacle both because of their ties to government officials and their lack of professional rigor. Gosztola posed several questions to them: “Where were you? Why weren't you doing the investigations to uncover these details? Why did this WikiLeaks organization come along and reveal these details about Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the nature of US foreign policy? Why do you accept that all of this information that was classified should be classified?”

The 75th anniversary celebrating the creation of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, creates an opportunity for those in the war machine to double down their commitment to war and for peace advocates to amplify their calls for non-violence. David Swanson, co-founder and executive director of World BEYOND War and long-time peace advocate, joins host Robert Scheer on this episode of Scheer Intelligence. Swanson talks about his new book with Medea Benjamin, “NATO: What You Need To Know,” and how it analyzes what NATO means today as a worldwide enforcer of U.S. led military power, having grown from a 12-member organization to 32 members and “partnerships” with more than 40 non-member countries and international organizations. According to Swanson, NATO's original function as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union has outlived the fall of the communist state and transformed the organization into a rapidly expanding extension of the U.S. war machine. “You don't have to ask informed historians or intelligent peace activists. The Secretary General of NATO says it; they now wage wars, not just in defense or what they call deterrence.” What was once envisioned as an adjunct to the United Nations addressing war and peace has now evolved, with NATO extending its reach far beyond the Atlantic to forge partnerships with Asian countries in a militarized response to China's rise. Swanson does not make light of what this will mean for the future: “It's the end of everything. It's the end of all life on earth. There's no small nuclear war. There's no tactical nuclear war, and yet this is where we're headed.”

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow cities to ban people from sleeping outdoors presents a major shift in the perception of poverty and homelessness in the U.S. and what the Eighth Amendment represents. Clare Pastore, a law professor at the University of Southern California, joins her faculty colleague Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast to break down what the decision means and expand on her article published in The Conversation. Pastore explains that the legal precedent reversed by the conservative majority was that “it's cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to criminalize sleeping outdoors for people who have no other option.” Now, Pastore tells Scheer, cities are not barred from enforcing this kind of criminalization. “These are not laws to protect people. Homeless people are at greater danger than they are a danger to others. These are laws trying to get people to just move out of the jurisdiction and go somewhere else,” Pastore said. Scheer argues that the problem has been around long before the recent SCOTUS decision and the elephant in the room for states like California, which Scheer points out is the fifth largest economy in the world, do not use their vast resources to address the problem but rather put the blame on decisions like this and continue their politics that ignore the central issue. Pastore agrees, telling Scheer, “My biggest fear, in terms of a generation of people who are growing up thinking this is normal, is that this idea that this is intractable, is taking hold and it's not right.” The greed in the U.S., where housing is regarded as a private good, strains the ability to attack the roots of the issue. “We have very few controls on how much [housing] can cost and we have very few incentives to make it cost less and we just don't put those kinds of legal mechanisms in place to preserve and create more affordable housing,” Pastore said.