Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Col steal Sust's light.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Just trusting me as a fate shadows a secret lot.
Doctor Curry is got to do a Mars graminologist co
Sales of the Law.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
In the Achocy Cackles a Crime Ray and Jane Brust
the Frame And here's America's Criminologist, Doctor Kerry Myers.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Hr Folks, Welcome to America's Criminologists. I'm doctor Curry Myers,
retired major county sheriff and former special Agent Say Trooper.
Also spent fifteen years in the world of academia and
don't hold that against me, serving as a school dean
and as a professor teaching criminology. This show is where
we talk about crime culture and the foundations that sustain
(01:04):
civil society. And it's all about the three important pillars
that I framed in my book. They have a pharaoh
man talking about the importance of faith, the importance of family,
and the importance of formation. Because crime doesn't begin in
the street, it begins when those foundations weaken. And as always,
if you'd like to explore more about applied criminology in
(01:27):
my work, feel free to visit my substack at doctor
Curriemeiers dot substack dot Com. This segment of America's Criminologist
is brought to you by Real Resilience. That's our ee
L Real Resilience. It's a transformative program helping inmates prepare
for successful re entry. It uses inspirational films and guided discussions.
(01:50):
Real Resilience teaches practical tools to build resilience, strengthen relationships,
and restore hope for the future. It's real learning through
real stories where positive choices are modeled, not just preached.
Real Resilience because re entry isn't just release, it's a
second chance done right. All right, here's my rift for
(02:14):
the day. Higher education institutions are not simply places of
instruction anymore. They are cultural engines shaping civic morality, institutional legitimacy,
and national security posture. When those institutions drift into ideological
activism rather than scholarship, the downstream effects reach law enforcement,
(02:40):
intelligence agencies, and public trust itself. Today we're joined by
doctor John Gentry, whose work examines whether federal attempts to
roll back to EI policies and academy are actually producing
many full reform, or whether institutional culture is absorbing those
pressures and continuing unchanged now Doctor John Gentry was a
(03:03):
twelve year as an intelligence analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency,
where he mainly worked economic issues associated with the Soviet
Union in the Warsaw Pac countries. For two of those years,
he was a senior analyst on the staff of the
National Intelligence Officer for Warning. He is a retired US
Army Reserve officer with most assignments and special operations and
(03:27):
intelligence arenas. Doctor Gentry now also teaches for the School
of Defense and Strategic Studies excuse me, Missouri State University.
He formerly taught at Georgetown University, Columbia University, and the
National Intelligence University. You see his work often. He writes
regularly on intelligence and security issues, including four books in
(03:50):
about forty or fifty it's probably more like five sixty
articles now in book chapters on intelligence topics. His most
recent book is Diversity Dysfunction, The DEI Threat to National
Security Intelligence. He received a PhD in political science from
the George Washington University. His recent articles examined diversity equity
(04:11):
and inclusion programs persist despite executive level reform efforts, and
what this means for higher education and national security institutions
moving forward. Doctor Gentry is also currently writing a book
examining the domestic consequences of foreign influence operations originating in
(04:33):
the Soviet Union, now Russia and China. I can't wait
to see that book. It should be a great one,
doctor Gentry. Welcome to America's criminologists.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Glad to have you, Thank you, Curry, happy to be
with you. All right.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Your recent article argues that the Trump administration's DEI rollback
efforts are not producing meaningful change inside universities. So what
evidence led you to that conclusion.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Well, I was curious about universities, going back to why
universities did or did not stock my books, and in
particular was concerned abo about university libraries being important parts
of libraries, and decided in March of last year to
(05:22):
take a look at whether they were responding to the
president's then pretty vociferous efforts to reign in DEI policies
in the federal government and the colleges as well. So
I looked at over four hundred university libraries. It found
(05:43):
one hundred and fifty seven of them had DEI statements.
And my concern was my interest, it was to see
whether they were going to respond to the president's pretty
strong initiatives. So I looked at these one hundred fifty
seven on roughly the first day of the month for
the next six months, and I found found in October
(06:07):
that less than twenty percent of those had reduced their
coverage even a little bit or eliminated it. So only
twenty percent or so of these DEI abiding, if you will,
libraries had responded to the President. And the reason I
think that's important is that libraries are in fact important
(06:30):
parts of universities. They respond to presidential chancellor's policies within universities,
so they're good. They're good indicator, if you will, of
how universities as a whole view DEI.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Well, I agree with you. I mean at the academic level,
I think the libraries play an important role, not only
because you know, a lot of professors have books there
that people can get. There's a the ability for students
to go in and see all kinds of different philosophies
and all kinds of different political uh information from from
(07:11):
various sides. I think that's important. That's why higher academic
learning should exist, is that we see different two different sides,
and perhaps three or four different sides to a particular issue.
So in your opinion, with the strong measurement for for
for having such strong libraries, what could be affected in
the long term if we're not being able to offer
(07:34):
a student a real dialogue In different opinions.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
Well, library libraries change in essence what students and faculty
researchers know. That They do this in several ways. One
is one is through what their acquisitions are. They don't
they don't acquire every book that's out there, and they
also they also dispose of books. So so they control
(08:00):
the the the amount of informative the amount and the
type of information that's available. They run programs, they hire,
they hire staff who have political attitudes and so on.
And they also have an effect on the creation of
knowledge through their interaction with publishing houses, particularly with university presses.
(08:22):
So university presses are interested in selling books they have
to break even usually and so so they they will
they will write books that they think that university libraries
are going to buy. So so so the political views
of libraries actually affect what publishers will publish. So it's
(08:44):
a significant significant impact on the long run in terms
of what we know.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
It also impacts speaking engagements, right, is do you feel
like it's had an impact on your ability to be
hired to come out and speak on different topics.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
Well, not so much. Libraries. I got canceled at Georgetown
University for writing a politically incorrect journal article. But the
fact of the matter is that the book that you
mentioned earlier now is not politically correct from the standpoint
of most universities. So I'm in a different category now
than I used to be.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Yeah, and that's where you taught at one time. So
even having their own professors not being able to have
the free supposedly I love the term academic freedom that
we really don't have at the college level when it
comes to conservative thought. There is an academic freedom. You've
got to pretty much keep it under wraps, or you've
(09:46):
got to move on, it seems.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
Like, or write or write about and teach about things
that do not have political components, and of course there
are fewer and fewer of those at this point.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Yeah, it makes it very difficult not to add politics
because public policy can affect so many different things that
you know, in any particular discipline. That's that seems like,
for sure, have you found that the universities complying symbolically
with federal directives while maintaining the same operational culture. So
are they saying that they're complying and just not or
(10:23):
are they not even saying they're complying?
Speaker 4 (10:25):
Is both?
Speaker 3 (10:27):
So does the federal government have people have a process
in which they have to, you know, do a check
mark to say, yes.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
We are we do this or that. I don't think
they are doing anything of the sort. At the at
the university level, at the library level. Some of the
some of the school's websites, and that's what I was
looking at, will make make accommodations. They'll use some other buzzwords.
So so inclusive excellence is now one of the ones
(11:01):
that they used to replace uh the place to de.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
De I with.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
But others, others are very candid. They say, you know,
we don't care what the federal government is. We're committed
to de I and and by George, we're going to
We're going to keep doing it. And they get away
with it. There's not there aren't There aren't sanctions against them,
especially if you're in a in a blue state, so
to speak, this is what your political leadership is interested
(11:28):
in seeing. So so there's there's just there's very little,
very little change.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
What kinds of reforms would actually affect institutional behavior instead
of public messaging? Is there anything? Is there any kind
of carrot and stick these institutions can can have placed
on them?
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Well, I think the I think the the the important
things are personnel related. Uh, And this is where governors
have have have some clout where the federal government doesn't.
If they can change people, and they can insist on
altered organizational cultures, and they can do that through laws
(12:10):
or they do it through budgets, then they've got a
chance of changing things. And one important thing to do
as well is alter the curriculum. Make sure that that
courses are reasonable from an educational standpoint, and that the
mix of courses is appropriate to so so, state governors
(12:32):
and state legislatures are actually in a better position to
affect public schools here than the federal government is.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
And did you notate any of those states in your writings?
Speaker 4 (12:45):
Well, I found that I found several states that had
no DEI libraries at all. So Florida, South Carolina, Idaho
came up as being clean, so to speak. On that respect,
The Blue states were entirely with maybe one exception, were
(13:10):
entirely UH de I compliant and stuck with it. UH
from a I think an important policy perspective. Some Republican
led states nevertheless had universities that that whose libraries were
were were DEI advocates all the way through my study period.
(13:32):
So so Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Indiana, Montana, for example,
had had libraries that were DEI advocates. And you might
might have expected an, uh A symmetrical kind of a
(13:53):
basis that those that those Republican administrations might might address
that issue, but they but they haven't.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Yeah, last month, I spoke at the University of Idaho.
It was a wonderful experience, went out there and we
actually spoke in the in the basketball arena, and it
was on some different topics and mine was seeing Christ
through the Darkness, So I was talking about the effects
of crime that has been you know, going on. But
(14:24):
it was sold out. There was twenty five hundred people
that came to that came that to that event.
Speaker 4 (14:29):
And they.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
The school that even indicated that you know, if I
if I wanted to sell my book, that people can
get mine online. That's what I focused on. But they
would be happy to put it in their library. So
you know, I think you're right. You know, some places
are allowing that more a little bit more academic free
that freedom than others. Are you finding anything that's showing
(14:55):
similar behavior internationally? Where other colledges of notoriety that might
be international are they leading the way in this DEI
behavior as well when it comes to libraries or.
Speaker 4 (15:13):
I have not looked the libraries in Europe or Australia,
New Zealand or other places, but I do have friends
and colleagues who are professors in other places, and particularly
in the United Kingdom. The kinds of things that we're
experiencing here are there also in Canada as well. So
(15:33):
what's happening here is not unique.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Yeah, So you noted some state legislatures. I think there's one,
particularly Ohio, that have made some progress. What are some
actual state level reforms that can be perhaps more effective
than federal execution action?
Speaker 4 (15:55):
Okay, so what happened in Ohio and what you could
do in addition to that is past state laws that
ban THEI and state specifically what state university state colleges
are to do. You could have a governor who would
make a executive priority, the emphasis on traditional learning standards.
(16:21):
Governors typically can name boards of trustees or regents, and
in many states it's the regents who actually oversee university administrations.
If you've got you've got a board of trustees that
is is is is eager to restore traditional standards, and
(16:42):
they can look into the university on a detailed basis,
look at programs, look at individual faculty members, look at
look at this the composition of syllabi and so on,
and actually actually mandate changes. They can do things that
will effect what's really important, and those are organizational cultures
(17:05):
and internal incentives.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
How about governors. Have you noticed in particular governors that
are leading the way in some of these.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Well, Mike wine Wine, the governor of Ohio, I think
was it was first and foremost we and I live
in Virginia. Our former governor UH now Governor Younkin was
was was keen on reducing the impact, but was stymied
(17:35):
largely by the Democratic controlled legislature. They refused to ratify
his nominees for the regents for some of the state universities.
But Ohio, Ohio is a good, a really good example
of first steps. In my view. The result. The result
(17:56):
was that several several of the schools that eliminated DEI
were Ohio State schools and they did it directly as
in the aftermath of of state governmental actions.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
And what did Ohio specifically do. I know you went
through a litany of the of them, but what did
Ohio specifically do?
Speaker 4 (18:19):
Well? They did? They did I think all of the
things that I that I've talked about, but two important
ones were laws passed in the spring and then in
June of twenty twenty five, which which which mandated different
behaviors by the state schools. And it was immediately after
that second law in June that that that five I
(18:43):
think of the Ohio schools that I looked at changed
their change their policies.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Now do you recall any of the language and those
specific I don't want to, you know, detail you to
the specific language, But do you recall some of the language.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
In those oh I don't. Well, it was the abolished
d I actually I don't. I don't have them before
me and I can't can't, I can't, I can't tell
you that. But they were basically said, you were not
going to to to to provide preferences to people or
correspondingly discriminate against people on the basis of of of
(19:21):
demographic identity type.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
How about Congress, So, what what role can Congress realistically
play in creating reforms that courts cannot easily reverse?
Speaker 4 (19:32):
Well, that's that's a that's a tough one and a
good one. I think. I think Congress is important if
if it could act. Of course, it's uh, it's largely virtual,
largely gridlocked from the tight tight control in the in
the House and in the sixty vote requirement in the
(19:53):
in the Senate. But what what Congress could do would
be too would be to enact budgets that would specify
what kinds of behavior by universities entitles them to federal money.
So the idea, the idea that you in essence force
(20:17):
force private actors to do what you wish through the
powers of the purse, has been established for a long time.
So Congress can't mandate that a private university do a
specific thing that it can say if you don't do
us and so you're going to lose your federal money.
So laws could be passed to to to affect, to
(20:41):
affect behavior in the context of financial incentives.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
Now, the president has done a few things via FIAT. Correct,
is there some stuff that that what are some of
those things and could he do perhaps more under presidential.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Of well, he's he's done quite a bit in terms
of executive orders, so that that were from my perspective,
good starts. So and banned uh uh the DEI policies
within the federal government. So that meant that all of
the diversity offices and federal agencies were disbanded. He actually fired,
uh fired fired a number of those people, uh. Subordinate
(21:25):
groups within organizations within these agencies, like the employee resource groups,
the affinity groups were disbanded, uh to some extent, the
hr the human resources organizations were changed, and there were
there were a few other things of that sort. So
(21:46):
I think those were good starts, but they didn't get
to the issue of organizational culture to the extent that
I'm aware of anyway that they they they affected incentive
was relatively relatively brief, relatively superficial, and they did not
get to the organizational culture issue. And what I'm what
(22:09):
I'm hearing from people in the intelligence community in particular,
is it Yeah, it's happening here, will outlast will outlast
will outlast Trump. Not a problem. Just keep your heads
heads down for another another two three years and then
all will be okay.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
So do you think DEI policies are they in many
ways civil rights violations?
Speaker 4 (22:38):
Well, I think they are in the sense that they're
they're basically saying that that all demographic identity groups. So
DEI is inherently a group of a group way of
of addressing human beings. So all demographic identity groups are
(23:00):
per de e I being oppressed uh standard term by
Caucasian men. So so so in essence, d what de
I does is say there that there there needs to
be redressed. So what you're doing is discriminating against Caucasian
men then to to advance the interests of these these
(23:20):
other these other identity rooms.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
And with respect to the books, then are the are
the through the library system? Are the books then also
therefore potentially discriminating against Caucasian male authors?
Speaker 4 (23:33):
Absolutely sure? Do you have is that?
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Is that?
Speaker 3 (23:37):
Do you find that might be the case even regardless
of politics, or or are left leaning white Caucasians given
a pass or do they even go They may be
above a conservative, but they're at the bottom end of
the of the of the trough.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
If you will, right, it's hard, it's hard to see
the absence of a publication. So it's hard for me
to see this is being being implemented by the libraries.
But what we do know about, and I've experienced this
a little bit myself, is that there's a there's a
there's a thing called citation equity, uh, for syllabi and
(24:15):
for writing articles and books and so on, and so
you're expected, if you're if you're sufficiently with it, so
to speak, you're you're expected to cite proper people in
your own publications. In these publications would again be people
(24:36):
other than white men.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Have you examined some of the books to see whether
or not the content is reaches the parameters what old
academia may would follow when it comes to academic clarity,
academic form writing those books correctly.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (24:59):
Well, a lot of a lot of is death snuffer. Oh, absolutely,
a lot of stuff is just nonsense. That's just nonsense.
There was there was, there was quite a scandal really
in the academic world. Gosh, I don't know, five six,
seven years ago now, where three three three people wrote
bogus uh, you know, fake Uh, uh, you know, purposefully
(25:23):
inflammatory articles related to LGBTQ and other other types of things,
sent them to journals and actually had them published. They're
they're just made up stuff, but they were politically correct
and they were finally found out before they decided to
admit this themselves. But it caused quite a scandal because
(25:44):
because the journal editors in the peer review process processes
were were not catching bad quality, but they were they
were approving messages that were ideologically acceptable. So it's a
huge problem.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Now, yeah, have you have you known any academic libraries
to have fallen under those potential lawsuits and if so,
what are what are some of the organizations that are
following up with legal remedies?
Speaker 4 (26:16):
Well, lawsuits, no, not a not not a bit, not
a bit. But the university libraries themselves say we're going
to acquire on the basis of DEI and we are
going to redress what we perceive to be uh, the
injustices done to two favored identity groups in past. So
(26:42):
they are not they're not shy about admitting this.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Gosh, doctor, Uh, you would think that that the language
alone would be enough to file some sort of legal
remedy as a result, off, they're If they're that brazen
about it, it's hard for me to understand why they're
getting away with it.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
Well, well they are, they absolutely are. They're they're committed
to redressing oppression, so they say, and that's perfectly acceptable.
And some parts of the country.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
Wow, it's just mind boggling to me that they've been
able to state this publicly and in their research and
in their literature and they actually have gotten away with
it for the long time. Have there any have the
have the states that have investigated this found any evidence
of that where they put it forward?
Speaker 4 (27:44):
Well, again, I haven't seen any discussion about this. It's
just it's just really the obvious, the you know, the
obvious way that they operate.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
All Right, My friends were talking today with former CIA
analyst doctor John Gentry. More to come after this commercial break.
We'll be right back. Hi, folks, Doctor Curry Myers here
(28:21):
to let you know that my new show is called
America's Criminologist with doctor Curry Myers. Every Tuesday at one pm.
Is a former State Trooper special agent share from a
major county. I will offer sharp insights into the pressing
issues shaping American society Today. I'll have guests, news, and
my insights as an applied criminologist throughout the one hour show.
So criminals and the progressive politicians that allow them to
(28:43):
fester beware because this show is directed at you, America's criminologist.
Every Tuesday at one pm.
Speaker 6 (28:49):
On k e T.
Speaker 7 (28:52):
Take km ET Radio with you everywhere you go by
downloading the new updated, free iPhone, Android phone and tabolt
remote app found in the Apple App Store or Google
play Store. Listen live to your favorite shows on all
of your remote devices. Information can be found on the
KMET Radio website at KMET fourteen ninety am dot com.
(29:16):
That Weapon Dress Again km e T fourteen ninety am
dot com. Download your free new KMET Remote app today.
Go to the Apple App Store or Google Playstore for
your free new KMET Radio Remote mobile app today.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
Our records indicate that you've been lied to. Listen to
the Truth Constitution Radio with Douglas V.
Speaker 6 (29:45):
Gibbs Saturdays at one pm on KMET.
Speaker 5 (29:53):
As you know, I have been talking about standing up
for our country doing something. He's big box store, skate
o and well the little Guy's clothes? Will our voices
be heard? Does voting with our dollars work. Patriotswitch dot
com gives patriots the power to walk away from the
big box stores forever. Stop supporting the enemies of freedom.
Now that's why patriotswitch dot com was created for those
(30:17):
who support America. Patriotswitch dot com.
Speaker 6 (30:23):
Hello listeners, this is Christopher from The Christopher Show. Hey,
if you miss one of our shows you're at km
E T. Don't worry about it. You can go to
our web page and that's kim ET fourteen ninety am
dot com. Go to the homepage, click on the SoundCloud
tab and hear any show anytime you want.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
Hey, my friends, is doctor Curry Meyers, America's criminologist. I
have a new sponsor for my show. I mean Real Resilience.
That's our ad L transformative program helping inmates prepare for
successful re entry and uses inspirational films and guided discussions.
Real Resilience teaches practical tools to build resilience. It's really
(31:04):
an important tool, Real Resilience, because reentry isn't just released,
it's a second chance done right. Welcome back, glad to
have you. Welcome back to America's Criminologists. Remember you can
view my work on substack at doctor Currymeyers dot substack
(31:24):
dot com. And if you're interested in my work on faith,
you can check out my work the St. Michael's Group.
It's also on substack Saint Michael's Group dot substack dot com.
We're talking today with retired US intelligence US Army Intelligence
offerre officer and former CIA analyst, doctor John Gentry. Welcome back,
(31:45):
my friend, Thank you all right. In criminology, we often
say culture eats policy for breakfast, whether we're talking about
police agencies, correctional systems, or universities. Behavior follows incentives and
vedded inside institutional structure, not press releases. Academic institutions, cultural
(32:09):
and intelligence community culture now share really similar politicalized vulnerabilities.
Don't you think it seems like they're kind of following
the same same, you know, capabilities when it comes to vulnerabilities.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
Yes, I would certainly agree with that, and I think
there at least two big reasons for that. One is
that society as a whole is moving in this direction,
and a lot of the young people who who have
been politicized by universities going back seventies, eighties, nineties have
(32:51):
joined the intelligence community in recent years, particularly after the
hiring boom after nine to eleven two thousand and one.
So you have a lot of a lot of the
university perspectives on things now in the intelligence community at
the working level, and of course, over twenty years, a
(33:12):
lot of these people are now senior managers. But then secondly,
starting with President Obama, you had a purposeful effort by
presidents in particular Obama and Joe Biden to introduce ideological perspectives,
(33:33):
cultural perspectives heavily DEI related into the workforce. So there
was an effort, a specific effort to politicize by presidents
which we have never seen before.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
And we've had a huge impact in the amount of
foreign adversaries actually coming into work in higher learning in America.
We're seeing more and more. We've had some recent rests
that have occurred because of these foreign influences. But can
you share a little bit of information about what you're
seeing from this kind of direct result of governments sending
(34:11):
in some of their high level professors to actually infiltrate
if you will, college institutions.
Speaker 4 (34:17):
Well, there's been a lot of that lately, particularly the
particularly the Chinese and scientific areas. Math science in particular,
there's a story about biological weapons that generated some attention
a while back that what I found in my I'm
(34:38):
planning in my research for this ongoing book that I've
been talking about is something goes back further and is
harder to track and more insidious, and that is that
going back over a century to the nineteen twenties, so
Union created a Third Communist International, which was voted to
(35:01):
disrupting and disintegrating a Soviet term foreign capitalist countries, and
they enlisted the Communist parties in their target countries, including
the Communist Party of the USA. And education was one
of the areas that both the Soviets and the Communist
(35:25):
Party worked on very hard. And what we can see
now in the literature is that there were separate, separate
communist schools established, There was infiltration of teachers' unions. By
the nineteen thirties, there was a large a large number
of faculty recruited starting in the nineteen thirties. You get
(35:49):
to the nineteen sixties and faculty we were supportive to
some degree of the radicals of the anti war period.
In the nineteen sixties, a lot of the radicals, the
old students for Democratic Society type people who you have.
I'm sure you remember gray hair that you've got well
(36:10):
as I do. But you know, the SDS collapsed roughly
nineteen seventy. The radicals of the nineteen sixties went their
separate ways. A lot of them went to universities, and
so they then said, look, we can't we can't work
through the streets to do the revolution. That's what we're
(36:33):
interested in is revolution. So let's go back to the universities.
Let's work education to train and doctrinate people and do
the revolution from within through the universities. And I think
we're seeing the results of that now.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
And now we've seen infiltration into the K through twelve community,
and absolutely so.
Speaker 4 (36:56):
There there was a fellow by the name of Apollo
free are Year, if I'm pronouncing that right. It was
actually a Brazilian Marxist who developed some techniques related to
embedding Marxian thoughts Marxian ideology into lessons for students. And
(37:18):
actually we see this in the communist part of USA literature,
not that not identified in those terms, but going back
to the nineteen thirties, so the idea of inserting Marxist
ideas into schooling is now quite advanced, and the schools
(37:39):
of education in the United States are teaching this regularly.
So the teachers of our even kindergarten kids now are
are steeped in critical pedagogy, as it's called, and they
are indoctrinating our children going to the preschool.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Now, when it comes to other foreign activators, you know,
it comes to mind the Palestinian question, It comes to
mind transgenderism, things like that that may or may not
have really any structural impact on the Communist Party, but
it seems to me there becomes this an enemy of
(38:21):
my enemy as my friend scenario where they're aligning with
these institutions in order to help continue to break down
American culture. Is that the case or are they independent
enough where they operate on their own or is this
a means to the end by the.
Speaker 4 (38:41):
They're not at all independent. So you're right right to
say that. In fact, the Common Turn as I mentioned,
you know, actually started talking with Muslim groups in the
nineteen twenties.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
Yeah, I'm get the Muslim Brotherhood to be align about
that time.
Speaker 4 (38:58):
Period they're dealing with dealing with them, you see, talk
about a red green alliance against the Western States, the
White States. So Israel, Israel is counted in this context
as being colonial European, rich, capitalist power. So you've got
(39:21):
the alliance of hard leftists with the Muslim radicals. Even
though they may disagree profoundly on some specific issues, they
do agree that they oppose Israel in the West. So
as you say, the enemy of any enemy of my
enemy as my friend. So clearly they're these things that
(39:43):
are related and transgender issue, women's rights, feminism, and so on.
These became began to be important starting in the nineteen fifties.
Some of the people who were early in advocating them,
as Eric from for example, were Marxist and the idea
(40:04):
here was to was to create incentives for women in
this case in the case of feminism, to to break
the traditional nuclear family. So the idea was part of
the bigger Marxian push to break Western society so that
(40:28):
it would be weaker and could could eventually then be
taken over by Marxist Marxist with the Soviets called Marxist
quote progressive forces.
Speaker 3 (40:40):
So we saw the turn of the century, I'm speaking
nineteen hundred turn of the century where the Ottoman Empire
began to grow immensely out of the Muslim Middle West,
got into Africa, started getting into Southern Europe. That was
the beginning of World War One, where they aligned with
(41:00):
Germany at that time when they were defeated, did that
did they disappear and then go into this thought process
like Muslim Brotherhood where they decided to do it through
some sort of academic research as a result of that defeat.
Did they have to kind of rethink where they were
going because I know they're playing the long game as well.
Speaker 4 (41:22):
Yeah, not to my knowledge. Muslim Brotherhood came along somewhat
somewhat later, but the commentary and again I was talking
with people with Muslims in Central Asia in the nineteen
in the nineteen twenties and trying to come up with
alliances that would be focused against the capitalists West. So
(41:43):
early on, the Soviets were mainly concerned about Western Europe.
Great Britain, especially the United States became the biggest, the
big enemy, the main adversary.
Speaker 3 (41:54):
A little bit later on, now we've seen recent reforms
efforts address structure, really the culture inside the United States
intelligence community or mostly service level compliance mechanisms. Is that
is that probably the case? It really is not getting
that deep. But is there an effort or is it
(42:15):
or is that a long game that's going to have
to be played in order to weed out that kind
of cultural insiderism.
Speaker 4 (42:22):
Well, it is a long game. So we've seen a
little bit. So THEI has gone, the diversity offices are gone,
affinity groups are gone. As I mentioned, there's been some
some change I understand in the human resources departments. I
understand also that there is a little bit of a
change in terms of recruiting going to uh, you know,
(42:44):
going to universities in the heartland of the country and
not not not the Ivy League anymore. But those those
things good starts, though they are only take you so far.
And I am not seeing uh, significant reform going on now.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
Well, if you see, if you have careers in there
that are mid level to working on high level positions
that they couldn't get rid of, then they certainly could
carry on that mantra and try to reintroduce those philosophy.
Speaker 4 (43:19):
That's one of them. So one of the things that
one of the things that we're that I'm hearing is
that they're they're just they're just buckling down. And again
there currents.
Speaker 3 (43:30):
Yeah, yeah, Again, it's a long game. Is seems to
be played all the time. So your upcoming book, I'm
excited about this doc. This is going to examine how
foreign influence operations affect domestic American institutions, not just foreign policy.
What does the average American misunderstand about this threat?
Speaker 4 (43:51):
Well, I think what what what many people think about
it is, g it was it was the Russians trying
to help Donald Trump in twenty sixteen. Gee, this is
this is awful, And you know, you're a little bit
of a little bit of reporting here and here and there.
But what people really should know is that that what
(44:13):
the Russians are doing is very similar in focus, in
technique and aim to what the Soviets did. There are
some clearly some differences. The Soviets were Marxists, Putin is not.
We have new technologies now in terms of the Internet
and someone that Putin can use that the Soviets did
(44:34):
not have access to. But the goals are are really
pretty much the same. They're not as trivial, really in
the scheme of things. They're not as trivial as helping
a single presidential candate. They're designed to disrupt, to cause
dissension in and to eventually destroy the United States as
(44:57):
we know it. That is the goal. That's Soviets and
Russians have been saying for many, many, many years. It's
actually not This is not an analytic judgment, it's a
I'm reporting empirical fact here. So it's a huge issue,
goes back a long way, and I think most Americans
(45:18):
do not appreciate the ambition and the danger involved.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
So you mentioned Putin, So what what's your opinion? You
know the Soviet Union in Russia so very well, because
you've spent a lot of time in that area. What
do you think is Putin's political beliefs? If it's not communism,
where is he at politically and what is he what
(45:47):
does he hope to accomplish there?
Speaker 1 (45:48):
Is it?
Speaker 3 (45:49):
Is it a dictatorship? Is it an elements of fascism?
Speaker 4 (45:52):
What?
Speaker 3 (45:53):
What might that?
Speaker 4 (45:54):
Well? Yeah, he he clearly is as an in charge leader.
He's an authority. This is actually pretty common in Russian history.
So he's the great Man of Russia at the moment.
Perhaps Stalin was an earlier version of this, and of
course the Csars before that, But there have been a
(46:18):
lot of people, there are a lot of people who
look at his personality and talk about what he's what
he's up to, and so on. And among the things
you see regularly are he's authoritarian, he's a nationalist, he
is a former KGB officer, which he's a checkist. Going
back to the term of the check out of the
first Soviet intelligence service that Lenin established, what that means
(46:42):
is that, in addition is that he is anti American.
He believes that the Soviet Union was a great thing. Uh,
not so much in terms of its ideology, but in
terms of its empire. So the Soviet Union controlled huge empire,
lots of people. It was an indisputed world power, great power.
(47:08):
The terrible thing that happened in nineteen ninety one was
that Russia's power it was diminished. Putin blames the West
and the United States especially for that. And he is,
by virtually all accounts I see, determined to restore the
glory of the Soviet Empire.
Speaker 3 (47:29):
Are they a paper tiger or do they have the
capability to be what they think they are or what
they say.
Speaker 4 (47:36):
They are, Well, that's a sixty four thousand dollars question.
The Russians clearly think they're more more powerful than the Ukrainians.
Do it At the moment, the Russians, by every measure
that I've seen is still have a very capable nuclear force.
(47:58):
Their conventional army is they've been bogged down and in
UH in Ukraine, so that war is going on longer
than the United States was in World War Two, and
the Ukrainians are fighting pretty well. But the but the
Russians have a lot of other techniques, so information is
(48:18):
one of them. They're doing sabotage in Europe. We've had
some explosions and disappearances of people here in the United
States that lead me to wonder if the Russians aren't
operating here too. So they have a number of uh
of of uh tricks up their sleeve, which they're obviously
using already. And they're playing against a divided West that
(48:43):
doesn't fully appreciate the nature of the adversary. And we've
got all sorts of divisions within within the West Europe,
you know, within Europe, and of course with of course
with mister Trump and NATO and so on. So these
are all wonderful things, these do visions, these weaknesses from
their standpoint are all wonderful things from a Russian standpoint.
Speaker 3 (49:05):
Yeah, So how should Americans think about influence operations in
the area of social media compared with Cold War where
we live in a different time, how should we think
about how we can be attacked, how we can be manipulated.
Speaker 4 (49:20):
We can be manipulated in massive numbers of ways. So
in the in the Cold War period, so before the Internet,
before social media, the Soviets were very effective actually in
and uh and in influencing people through print media, through
books and newspapers, journals, and some of they fed disinformation
(49:42):
to friends in the in the press. And of course
now with social media and the Internet, you've got you've
got the ability to communicate with many more people very quickly,
and you can do it in sophisticated ways enabled by AI.
So I I'm convinced that it's virtually impossible to specifically
(50:04):
identify every every disinformation trick so to speak out there.
But what we can collectively do is be a little
bit more more more self aware, be a little bit
more introspective and say, gee, you know, if this looks
like it's really really outrageous, it may well be. And
(50:32):
so we know now, we know now that the Russians
have been doing a lot of what the Soviets did,
and that is fomenting, fomenting outraged through disinformation. So we
collectively need to be much more introspective than we have been.
Speaker 3 (50:51):
Yeah, and it's really fostering the current social contagions that
are going on with respect to the use of the
Internet and social media on top of it. Right, Yes,
So what risk do foreign influence campaigns create for domestic
cohesion and institutional trust inside the United States?
Speaker 4 (51:14):
Well, they create they What I think go back to
what the goal is. What the Soviets we're trying to
do in the twenties, what Putin is trying to do now,
what people like medbat the former president, of prime minister
and so on to say explicitly, our goal is to
destroy the United States. That's the goal. So how do
you do that? You're not doing it by literally blasting,
(51:37):
blasting out, blasting a big goal and the central part
of the continent. What you're doing is trying to destroy
the coherence of society, destroy the internal structure of the economy,
break it, and allow for a new government to arise
that is conducive to, that is amenable to if you
(52:01):
will subordinate to Soviets in the old days and amenable
to Russian interests now, so they're talking really, really about
achieving a successful revolution. So that's a term we should
be thinking about. Keeping in mind the goal is to
(52:22):
generate political revolution in the United States.
Speaker 3 (52:27):
Boy, it seems to be working in the Blue States
of America.
Speaker 4 (52:29):
Yes, it's working. It's working well generally. There was a
fellow about a nay of Ury Bizmanov who was a
a kdb DE factory worked for the Navasiti news agency.
That was an old Soviet Soviet agency and actually still
around now. But he wrote and he wrote in nineteen
eighty three, so do the arithmetic forty three years ago.
(52:52):
He wrote then that the Soviet the Soviet program had
already then generated significance excesses.
Speaker 3 (53:02):
So if policymakers truly wanted to reform institutional culture, what
types of things should they do? What are like two
actions that they have to do well?
Speaker 4 (53:13):
I think the first one, the first one is to
recognize the nature of the problem. We do not have
people talking in terms of revolution. They don't use the
word sedition, they don't use the word disintegration of the country,
And we should be thinking about about the situation in
(53:36):
those terms because that's what we're facing. And then the
second thing would be, once you understand this really existential
threat to society as we long have known it, then
you need to address first, I think that political threat.
So that gets the issues like sedition, gets to issues
(53:59):
of of stopping people from doing the kinds of revolutionary
incitement that are being being done in universities now. And
then once you're in that arena, you can go on
and do some of the some of the things to
help get that done.
Speaker 3 (54:18):
In documented sedition, I don't know the last time we
actually went after somebody for seditious behavior. We don't need more.
Do we have to start enforcing the laws when it comes.
Speaker 4 (54:27):
To we have to make new laws. I mean, there
was what was known as the Alien Registration Acting, was
the Smith Act that that that that arrest that caused
people to be arrested for advocating and beginning to do
a little bit of action intended to overthrow the US government.
And there were a communist part of USA people arrested
(54:48):
for that in the early nineteen fifties. But the Supreme
Court has gutted that law. So we need we need
new legislation.
Speaker 3 (54:55):
Doctor John Gentry, how can we follow your work real quickly.
Speaker 4 (54:58):
Well, two books, two books I mentioned, uh, Neutering the
c I A. That's a that's on politicization and the
intelligence community and that and the diversity dysfunction or on
on Amazon. I've got several uh, several podcasts uh and
I quite a number of my articles are are freely
available online as well.
Speaker 3 (55:18):
Folks check out doctor John Gentry, he's a gent Appreciate
you very much, my friends. I'm doctor Curry Myers, been
in America's Criminologist. Stay safe, stay informed, and we will
see you next week.
Speaker 2 (55:36):
Call steal, gabble, blade up. Just twisting me as a
bad shattle sequist, Doctor Curry. Last, do the scriminalois con.
Speaker 1 (55:54):
Seals of the lotosy cackles the cr breaking change through
fat stuff to the fame
Col steal Sust's light.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Just trusting me as a fate shadows a secret lot.
Doctor Curry is got to do a Mars graminologist co
Sales of the Law.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
In the Achocy Cackles a Crime Ray and Jane Brust
the Frame And here's America's Criminologist, Doctor Kerry Myers.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Hr Folks, Welcome to America's Criminologists. I'm doctor Curry Myers,
retired major county sheriff and former special Agent Say Trooper.
Also spent fifteen years in the world of academia and
don't hold that against me, serving as a school dean
and as a professor teaching criminology. This show is where
we talk about crime culture and the foundations that sustain
(01:04):
civil society. And it's all about the three important pillars
that I framed in my book. They have a pharaoh
man talking about the importance of faith, the importance of family,
and the importance of formation. Because crime doesn't begin in
the street, it begins when those foundations weaken. And as always,
if you'd like to explore more about applied criminology in
(01:27):
my work, feel free to visit my substack at doctor
Curriemeiers dot substack dot Com. This segment of America's Criminologist
is brought to you by Real Resilience. That's our ee
L Real Resilience. It's a transformative program helping inmates prepare
for successful re entry. It uses inspirational films and guided discussions.
(01:50):
Real Resilience teaches practical tools to build resilience, strengthen relationships,
and restore hope for the future. It's real learning through
real stories where positive choices are modeled, not just preached.
Real Resilience because re entry isn't just release, it's a
second chance done right. All right, here's my rift for
(02:14):
the day. Higher education institutions are not simply places of
instruction anymore. They are cultural engines shaping civic morality, institutional legitimacy,
and national security posture. When those institutions drift into ideological
activism rather than scholarship, the downstream effects reach law enforcement,
(02:40):
intelligence agencies, and public trust itself. Today we're joined by
doctor John Gentry, whose work examines whether federal attempts to
roll back to EI policies and academy are actually producing
many full reform, or whether institutional culture is absorbing those
pressures and continuing unchanged now Doctor John Gentry was a
(03:03):
twelve year as an intelligence analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency,
where he mainly worked economic issues associated with the Soviet
Union in the Warsaw Pac countries. For two of those years,
he was a senior analyst on the staff of the
National Intelligence Officer for Warning. He is a retired US
Army Reserve officer with most assignments and special operations and
(03:27):
intelligence arenas. Doctor Gentry now also teaches for the School
of Defense and Strategic Studies excuse me, Missouri State University.
He formerly taught at Georgetown University, Columbia University, and the
National Intelligence University. You see his work often. He writes
regularly on intelligence and security issues, including four books in
(03:50):
about forty or fifty it's probably more like five sixty
articles now in book chapters on intelligence topics. His most
recent book is Diversity Dysfunction, The DEI Threat to National
Security Intelligence. He received a PhD in political science from
the George Washington University. His recent articles examined diversity equity
(04:11):
and inclusion programs persist despite executive level reform efforts, and
what this means for higher education and national security institutions
moving forward. Doctor Gentry is also currently writing a book
examining the domestic consequences of foreign influence operations originating in
(04:33):
the Soviet Union, now Russia and China. I can't wait
to see that book. It should be a great one,
doctor Gentry. Welcome to America's criminologists.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Glad to have you, Thank you, Curry, happy to be
with you. All right.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Your recent article argues that the Trump administration's DEI rollback
efforts are not producing meaningful change inside universities. So what
evidence led you to that conclusion.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Well, I was curious about universities, going back to why
universities did or did not stock my books, and in
particular was concerned abo about university libraries being important parts
of libraries, and decided in March of last year to
(05:22):
take a look at whether they were responding to the
president's then pretty vociferous efforts to reign in DEI policies
in the federal government and the colleges as well. So
I looked at over four hundred university libraries. It found
(05:43):
one hundred and fifty seven of them had DEI statements.
And my concern was my interest, it was to see
whether they were going to respond to the president's pretty
strong initiatives. So I looked at these one hundred fifty
seven on roughly the first day of the month for
the next six months, and I found found in October
(06:07):
that less than twenty percent of those had reduced their
coverage even a little bit or eliminated it. So only
twenty percent or so of these DEI abiding, if you will,
libraries had responded to the President. And the reason I
think that's important is that libraries are in fact important
(06:30):
parts of universities. They respond to presidential chancellor's policies within universities,
so they're good. They're good indicator, if you will, of
how universities as a whole view DEI.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Well, I agree with you. I mean at the academic level,
I think the libraries play an important role, not only
because you know, a lot of professors have books there
that people can get. There's a the ability for students
to go in and see all kinds of different philosophies
and all kinds of different political uh information from from
(07:11):
various sides. I think that's important. That's why higher academic
learning should exist, is that we see different two different sides,
and perhaps three or four different sides to a particular issue.
So in your opinion, with the strong measurement for for
for having such strong libraries, what could be affected in
the long term if we're not being able to offer
(07:34):
a student a real dialogue In different opinions.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
Well, library libraries change in essence what students and faculty
researchers know. That They do this in several ways. One
is one is through what their acquisitions are. They don't
they don't acquire every book that's out there, and they
also they also dispose of books. So so they control
(08:00):
the the the amount of informative the amount and the
type of information that's available. They run programs, they hire,
they hire staff who have political attitudes and so on.
And they also have an effect on the creation of
knowledge through their interaction with publishing houses, particularly with university presses.
(08:22):
So university presses are interested in selling books they have
to break even usually and so so they they will
they will write books that they think that university libraries
are going to buy. So so so the political views
of libraries actually affect what publishers will publish. So it's
(08:44):
a significant significant impact on the long run in terms
of what we know.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
It also impacts speaking engagements, right, is do you feel
like it's had an impact on your ability to be
hired to come out and speak on different topics.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
Well, not so much. Libraries. I got canceled at Georgetown
University for writing a politically incorrect journal article. But the
fact of the matter is that the book that you
mentioned earlier now is not politically correct from the standpoint
of most universities. So I'm in a different category now
than I used to be.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Yeah, and that's where you taught at one time. So
even having their own professors not being able to have
the free supposedly I love the term academic freedom that
we really don't have at the college level when it
comes to conservative thought. There is an academic freedom. You've
got to pretty much keep it under wraps, or you've
(09:46):
got to move on, it seems.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
Like, or write or write about and teach about things
that do not have political components, and of course there
are fewer and fewer of those at this point.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Yeah, it makes it very difficult not to add politics
because public policy can affect so many different things that
you know, in any particular discipline. That's that seems like,
for sure, have you found that the universities complying symbolically
with federal directives while maintaining the same operational culture. So
are they saying that they're complying and just not or
(10:23):
are they not even saying they're complying?
Speaker 4 (10:25):
Is both?
Speaker 3 (10:27):
So does the federal government have people have a process
in which they have to, you know, do a check
mark to say, yes.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
We are we do this or that. I don't think
they are doing anything of the sort. At the at
the university level, at the library level. Some of the
some of the school's websites, and that's what I was
looking at, will make make accommodations. They'll use some other buzzwords.
So so inclusive excellence is now one of the ones
(11:01):
that they used to replace uh the place to de.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
De I with.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
But others, others are very candid. They say, you know,
we don't care what the federal government is. We're committed
to de I and and by George, we're going to
We're going to keep doing it. And they get away
with it. There's not there aren't There aren't sanctions against them,
especially if you're in a in a blue state, so
to speak, this is what your political leadership is interested
(11:28):
in seeing. So so there's there's just there's very little,
very little change.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
What kinds of reforms would actually affect institutional behavior instead
of public messaging? Is there anything? Is there any kind
of carrot and stick these institutions can can have placed
on them?
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Well, I think the I think the the the important
things are personnel related. Uh, And this is where governors
have have have some clout where the federal government doesn't.
If they can change people, and they can insist on
altered organizational cultures, and they can do that through laws
(12:10):
or they do it through budgets, then they've got a
chance of changing things. And one important thing to do
as well is alter the curriculum. Make sure that that
courses are reasonable from an educational standpoint, and that the
mix of courses is appropriate to so so, state governors
(12:32):
and state legislatures are actually in a better position to
affect public schools here than the federal government is.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
And did you notate any of those states in your writings?
Speaker 4 (12:45):
Well, I found that I found several states that had
no DEI libraries at all. So Florida, South Carolina, Idaho
came up as being clean, so to speak. On that respect,
The Blue states were entirely with maybe one exception, were
(13:10):
entirely UH de I compliant and stuck with it. UH
from a I think an important policy perspective. Some Republican
led states nevertheless had universities that that whose libraries were
were were DEI advocates all the way through my study period.
(13:32):
So so Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Indiana, Montana, for example,
had had libraries that were DEI advocates. And you might
might have expected an, uh A symmetrical kind of a
(13:53):
basis that those that those Republican administrations might might address
that issue, but they but they haven't.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Yeah, last month, I spoke at the University of Idaho.
It was a wonderful experience, went out there and we
actually spoke in the in the basketball arena, and it
was on some different topics and mine was seeing Christ
through the Darkness, So I was talking about the effects
of crime that has been you know, going on. But
(14:24):
it was sold out. There was twenty five hundred people
that came to that came that to that event.
Speaker 4 (14:29):
And they.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
The school that even indicated that you know, if I
if I wanted to sell my book, that people can
get mine online. That's what I focused on. But they
would be happy to put it in their library. So
you know, I think you're right. You know, some places
are allowing that more a little bit more academic free
that freedom than others. Are you finding anything that's showing
(14:55):
similar behavior internationally? Where other colledges of notoriety that might
be international are they leading the way in this DEI
behavior as well when it comes to libraries or.
Speaker 4 (15:13):
I have not looked the libraries in Europe or Australia,
New Zealand or other places, but I do have friends
and colleagues who are professors in other places, and particularly
in the United Kingdom. The kinds of things that we're
experiencing here are there also in Canada as well. So
(15:33):
what's happening here is not unique.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Yeah, So you noted some state legislatures. I think there's one,
particularly Ohio, that have made some progress. What are some
actual state level reforms that can be perhaps more effective
than federal execution action?
Speaker 4 (15:55):
Okay, so what happened in Ohio and what you could
do in addition to that is past state laws that
ban THEI and state specifically what state university state colleges
are to do. You could have a governor who would
make a executive priority, the emphasis on traditional learning standards.
(16:21):
Governors typically can name boards of trustees or regents, and
in many states it's the regents who actually oversee university administrations.
If you've got you've got a board of trustees that
is is is is eager to restore traditional standards, and
(16:42):
they can look into the university on a detailed basis,
look at programs, look at individual faculty members, look at
look at this the composition of syllabi and so on,
and actually actually mandate changes. They can do things that
will effect what's really important, and those are organizational cultures
(17:05):
and internal incentives.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
How about governors. Have you noticed in particular governors that
are leading the way in some of these.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Well, Mike wine Wine, the governor of Ohio, I think
was it was first and foremost we and I live
in Virginia. Our former governor UH now Governor Younkin was
was was keen on reducing the impact, but was stymied
(17:35):
largely by the Democratic controlled legislature. They refused to ratify
his nominees for the regents for some of the state universities.
But Ohio, Ohio is a good, a really good example
of first steps. In my view. The result. The result
(17:56):
was that several several of the schools that eliminated DEI
were Ohio State schools and they did it directly as
in the aftermath of of state governmental actions.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
And what did Ohio specifically do. I know you went
through a litany of the of them, but what did
Ohio specifically do?
Speaker 4 (18:19):
Well? They did? They did I think all of the
things that I that I've talked about, but two important
ones were laws passed in the spring and then in
June of twenty twenty five, which which which mandated different
behaviors by the state schools. And it was immediately after
that second law in June that that that five I
(18:43):
think of the Ohio schools that I looked at changed
their change their policies.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Now do you recall any of the language and those
specific I don't want to, you know, detail you to
the specific language, But do you recall some of the language.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
In those oh I don't. Well, it was the abolished
d I actually I don't. I don't have them before
me and I can't can't, I can't, I can't tell
you that. But they were basically said, you were not
going to to to to provide preferences to people or
correspondingly discriminate against people on the basis of of of
(19:21):
demographic identity type.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
How about Congress, So, what what role can Congress realistically
play in creating reforms that courts cannot easily reverse?
Speaker 4 (19:32):
Well, that's that's a that's a tough one and a
good one. I think. I think Congress is important if
if it could act. Of course, it's uh, it's largely virtual,
largely gridlocked from the tight tight control in the in
the House and in the sixty vote requirement in the
(19:53):
in the Senate. But what what Congress could do would
be too would be to enact budgets that would specify
what kinds of behavior by universities entitles them to federal money.
So the idea, the idea that you in essence force
(20:17):
force private actors to do what you wish through the
powers of the purse, has been established for a long time.
So Congress can't mandate that a private university do a
specific thing that it can say if you don't do
us and so you're going to lose your federal money.
So laws could be passed to to to affect, to
(20:41):
affect behavior in the context of financial incentives.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
Now, the president has done a few things via FIAT. Correct,
is there some stuff that that what are some of
those things and could he do perhaps more under presidential.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Of well, he's he's done quite a bit in terms
of executive orders, so that that were from my perspective,
good starts. So and banned uh uh the DEI policies
within the federal government. So that meant that all of
the diversity offices and federal agencies were disbanded. He actually fired,
uh fired fired a number of those people, uh. Subordinate
(21:25):
groups within organizations within these agencies, like the employee resource groups,
the affinity groups were disbanded, uh to some extent, the
hr the human resources organizations were changed, and there were
there were a few other things of that sort. So
(21:46):
I think those were good starts, but they didn't get
to the issue of organizational culture to the extent that
I'm aware of anyway that they they they affected incentive
was relatively relatively brief, relatively superficial, and they did not
get to the organizational culture issue. And what I'm what
(22:09):
I'm hearing from people in the intelligence community in particular,
is it Yeah, it's happening here, will outlast will outlast
will outlast Trump. Not a problem. Just keep your heads
heads down for another another two three years and then
all will be okay.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
So do you think DEI policies are they in many
ways civil rights violations?
Speaker 4 (22:38):
Well, I think they are in the sense that they're
they're basically saying that that all demographic identity groups. So
DEI is inherently a group of a group way of
of addressing human beings. So all demographic identity groups are
(23:00):
per de e I being oppressed uh standard term by
Caucasian men. So so so in essence, d what de
I does is say there that there there needs to
be redressed. So what you're doing is discriminating against Caucasian
men then to to advance the interests of these these
(23:20):
other these other identity rooms.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
And with respect to the books, then are the are
the through the library system? Are the books then also
therefore potentially discriminating against Caucasian male authors?
Speaker 4 (23:33):
Absolutely sure? Do you have is that?
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Is that?
Speaker 3 (23:37):
Do you find that might be the case even regardless
of politics, or or are left leaning white Caucasians given
a pass or do they even go They may be
above a conservative, but they're at the bottom end of
the of the of the trough.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
If you will, right, it's hard, it's hard to see
the absence of a publication. So it's hard for me
to see this is being being implemented by the libraries.
But what we do know about, and I've experienced this
a little bit myself, is that there's a there's a
there's a thing called citation equity, uh, for syllabi and
(24:15):
for writing articles and books and so on, and so
you're expected, if you're if you're sufficiently with it, so
to speak, you're you're expected to cite proper people in
your own publications. In these publications would again be people
(24:36):
other than white men.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Have you examined some of the books to see whether
or not the content is reaches the parameters what old
academia may would follow when it comes to academic clarity,
academic form writing those books correctly.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (24:59):
Well, a lot of a lot of is death snuffer. Oh, absolutely,
a lot of stuff is just nonsense. That's just nonsense.
There was there was, there was quite a scandal really
in the academic world. Gosh, I don't know, five six,
seven years ago now, where three three three people wrote
bogus uh, you know, fake Uh, uh, you know, purposefully
(25:23):
inflammatory articles related to LGBTQ and other other types of things,
sent them to journals and actually had them published. They're
they're just made up stuff, but they were politically correct
and they were finally found out before they decided to
admit this themselves. But it caused quite a scandal because
(25:44):
because the journal editors in the peer review process processes
were were not catching bad quality, but they were they
were approving messages that were ideologically acceptable. So it's a
huge problem.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Now, yeah, have you have you known any academic libraries
to have fallen under those potential lawsuits and if so,
what are what are some of the organizations that are
following up with legal remedies?
Speaker 4 (26:16):
Well, lawsuits, no, not a not not a bit, not
a bit. But the university libraries themselves say we're going
to acquire on the basis of DEI and we are
going to redress what we perceive to be uh, the
injustices done to two favored identity groups in past. So
(26:42):
they are not they're not shy about admitting this.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Gosh, doctor, Uh, you would think that that the language
alone would be enough to file some sort of legal
remedy as a result, off, they're If they're that brazen
about it, it's hard for me to understand why they're
getting away with it.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
Well, well they are, they absolutely are. They're they're committed
to redressing oppression, so they say, and that's perfectly acceptable.
And some parts of the country.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
Wow, it's just mind boggling to me that they've been
able to state this publicly and in their research and
in their literature and they actually have gotten away with
it for the long time. Have there any have the
have the states that have investigated this found any evidence
of that where they put it forward?
Speaker 4 (27:44):
Well, again, I haven't seen any discussion about this. It's
just it's just really the obvious, the you know, the
obvious way that they operate.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
All Right, My friends were talking today with former CIA
analyst doctor John Gentry. More to come after this commercial break.
We'll be right back. Hi, folks, Doctor Curry Myers here
(28:21):
to let you know that my new show is called
America's Criminologist with doctor Curry Myers. Every Tuesday at one pm.
Is a former State Trooper special agent share from a
major county. I will offer sharp insights into the pressing
issues shaping American society Today. I'll have guests, news, and
my insights as an applied criminologist throughout the one hour show.
So criminals and the progressive politicians that allow them to
(28:43):
fester beware because this show is directed at you, America's criminologist.
Every Tuesday at one pm.
Speaker 6 (28:49):
On k e T.
Speaker 7 (28:52):
Take km ET Radio with you everywhere you go by
downloading the new updated, free iPhone, Android phone and tabolt
remote app found in the Apple App Store or Google
play Store. Listen live to your favorite shows on all
of your remote devices. Information can be found on the
KMET Radio website at KMET fourteen ninety am dot com.
(29:16):
That Weapon Dress Again km e T fourteen ninety am
dot com. Download your free new KMET Remote app today.
Go to the Apple App Store or Google Playstore for
your free new KMET Radio Remote mobile app today.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
Our records indicate that you've been lied to. Listen to
the Truth Constitution Radio with Douglas V.
Speaker 6 (29:45):
Gibbs Saturdays at one pm on KMET.
Speaker 5 (29:53):
As you know, I have been talking about standing up
for our country doing something. He's big box store, skate
o and well the little Guy's clothes? Will our voices
be heard? Does voting with our dollars work. Patriotswitch dot
com gives patriots the power to walk away from the
big box stores forever. Stop supporting the enemies of freedom.
Now that's why patriotswitch dot com was created for those
(30:17):
who support America. Patriotswitch dot com.
Speaker 6 (30:23):
Hello listeners, this is Christopher from The Christopher Show. Hey,
if you miss one of our shows you're at km
E T. Don't worry about it. You can go to
our web page and that's kim ET fourteen ninety am
dot com. Go to the homepage, click on the SoundCloud
tab and hear any show anytime you want.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
Hey, my friends, is doctor Curry Meyers, America's criminologist. I
have a new sponsor for my show. I mean Real Resilience.
That's our ad L transformative program helping inmates prepare for
successful re entry and uses inspirational films and guided discussions.
Real Resilience teaches practical tools to build resilience. It's really
(31:04):
an important tool, Real Resilience, because reentry isn't just released,
it's a second chance done right. Welcome back, glad to
have you. Welcome back to America's Criminologists. Remember you can
view my work on substack at doctor Currymeyers dot substack
(31:24):
dot com. And if you're interested in my work on faith,
you can check out my work the St. Michael's Group.
It's also on substack Saint Michael's Group dot substack dot com.
We're talking today with retired US intelligence US Army Intelligence
offerre officer and former CIA analyst, doctor John Gentry. Welcome back,
(31:45):
my friend, Thank you all right. In criminology, we often
say culture eats policy for breakfast, whether we're talking about
police agencies, correctional systems, or universities. Behavior follows incentives and
vedded inside institutional structure, not press releases. Academic institutions, cultural
(32:09):
and intelligence community culture now share really similar politicalized vulnerabilities.
Don't you think it seems like they're kind of following
the same same, you know, capabilities when it comes to vulnerabilities.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
Yes, I would certainly agree with that, and I think
there at least two big reasons for that. One is
that society as a whole is moving in this direction,
and a lot of the young people who who have
been politicized by universities going back seventies, eighties, nineties have
(32:51):
joined the intelligence community in recent years, particularly after the
hiring boom after nine to eleven two thousand and one.
So you have a lot of a lot of the
university perspectives on things now in the intelligence community at
the working level, and of course, over twenty years, a
(33:12):
lot of these people are now senior managers. But then secondly,
starting with President Obama, you had a purposeful effort by
presidents in particular Obama and Joe Biden to introduce ideological perspectives,
(33:33):
cultural perspectives heavily DEI related into the workforce. So there
was an effort, a specific effort to politicize by presidents
which we have never seen before.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
And we've had a huge impact in the amount of
foreign adversaries actually coming into work in higher learning in America.
We're seeing more and more. We've had some recent rests
that have occurred because of these foreign influences. But can
you share a little bit of information about what you're
seeing from this kind of direct result of governments sending
(34:11):
in some of their high level professors to actually infiltrate
if you will, college institutions.
Speaker 4 (34:17):
Well, there's been a lot of that lately, particularly the
particularly the Chinese and scientific areas. Math science in particular,
there's a story about biological weapons that generated some attention
a while back that what I found in my I'm
(34:38):
planning in my research for this ongoing book that I've
been talking about is something goes back further and is
harder to track and more insidious, and that is that
going back over a century to the nineteen twenties, so
Union created a Third Communist International, which was voted to
(35:01):
disrupting and disintegrating a Soviet term foreign capitalist countries, and
they enlisted the Communist parties in their target countries, including
the Communist Party of the USA. And education was one
of the areas that both the Soviets and the Communist
(35:25):
Party worked on very hard. And what we can see
now in the literature is that there were separate, separate
communist schools established, There was infiltration of teachers' unions. By
the nineteen thirties, there was a large a large number
of faculty recruited starting in the nineteen thirties. You get
(35:49):
to the nineteen sixties and faculty we were supportive to
some degree of the radicals of the anti war period.
In the nineteen sixties, a lot of the radicals, the
old students for Democratic Society type people who you have.
I'm sure you remember gray hair that you've got well
(36:10):
as I do. But you know, the SDS collapsed roughly
nineteen seventy. The radicals of the nineteen sixties went their
separate ways. A lot of them went to universities, and
so they then said, look, we can't we can't work
through the streets to do the revolution. That's what we're
(36:33):
interested in is revolution. So let's go back to the universities.
Let's work education to train and doctrinate people and do
the revolution from within through the universities. And I think
we're seeing the results of that now.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
And now we've seen infiltration into the K through twelve community,
and absolutely so.
Speaker 4 (36:56):
There there was a fellow by the name of Apollo
free are Year, if I'm pronouncing that right. It was
actually a Brazilian Marxist who developed some techniques related to
embedding Marxian thoughts Marxian ideology into lessons for students. And
(37:18):
actually we see this in the communist part of USA literature,
not that not identified in those terms, but going back
to the nineteen thirties, so the idea of inserting Marxist
ideas into schooling is now quite advanced, and the schools
(37:39):
of education in the United States are teaching this regularly.
So the teachers of our even kindergarten kids now are
are steeped in critical pedagogy, as it's called, and they
are indoctrinating our children going to the preschool.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Now, when it comes to other foreign activators, you know,
it comes to mind the Palestinian question, It comes to
mind transgenderism, things like that that may or may not
have really any structural impact on the Communist Party, but
it seems to me there becomes this an enemy of
(38:21):
my enemy as my friend scenario where they're aligning with
these institutions in order to help continue to break down
American culture. Is that the case or are they independent
enough where they operate on their own or is this
a means to the end by the.
Speaker 4 (38:41):
They're not at all independent. So you're right right to
say that. In fact, the Common Turn as I mentioned,
you know, actually started talking with Muslim groups in the
nineteen twenties.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
Yeah, I'm get the Muslim Brotherhood to be align about
that time.
Speaker 4 (38:58):
Period they're dealing with dealing with them, you see, talk
about a red green alliance against the Western States, the
White States. So Israel, Israel is counted in this context
as being colonial European, rich, capitalist power. So you've got
(39:21):
the alliance of hard leftists with the Muslim radicals. Even
though they may disagree profoundly on some specific issues, they
do agree that they oppose Israel in the West. So
as you say, the enemy of any enemy of my
enemy as my friend. So clearly they're these things that
(39:43):
are related and transgender issue, women's rights, feminism, and so on.
These became began to be important starting in the nineteen fifties.
Some of the people who were early in advocating them,
as Eric from for example, were Marxist and the idea
(40:04):
here was to was to create incentives for women in
this case in the case of feminism, to to break
the traditional nuclear family. So the idea was part of
the bigger Marxian push to break Western society so that
(40:28):
it would be weaker and could could eventually then be
taken over by Marxist Marxist with the Soviets called Marxist
quote progressive forces.
Speaker 3 (40:40):
So we saw the turn of the century, I'm speaking
nineteen hundred turn of the century where the Ottoman Empire
began to grow immensely out of the Muslim Middle West,
got into Africa, started getting into Southern Europe. That was
the beginning of World War One, where they aligned with
(41:00):
Germany at that time when they were defeated, did that
did they disappear and then go into this thought process
like Muslim Brotherhood where they decided to do it through
some sort of academic research as a result of that defeat.
Did they have to kind of rethink where they were
going because I know they're playing the long game as well.
Speaker 4 (41:22):
Yeah, not to my knowledge. Muslim Brotherhood came along somewhat
somewhat later, but the commentary and again I was talking
with people with Muslims in Central Asia in the nineteen
in the nineteen twenties and trying to come up with
alliances that would be focused against the capitalists West. So
(41:43):
early on, the Soviets were mainly concerned about Western Europe.
Great Britain, especially the United States became the biggest, the
big enemy, the main adversary.
Speaker 3 (41:54):
A little bit later on, now we've seen recent reforms
efforts address structure, really the culture inside the United States
intelligence community or mostly service level compliance mechanisms. Is that
is that probably the case? It really is not getting
that deep. But is there an effort or is it
(42:15):
or is that a long game that's going to have
to be played in order to weed out that kind
of cultural insiderism.
Speaker 4 (42:22):
Well, it is a long game. So we've seen a
little bit. So THEI has gone, the diversity offices are gone,
affinity groups are gone. As I mentioned, there's been some
some change I understand in the human resources departments. I
understand also that there is a little bit of a
change in terms of recruiting going to uh, you know,
(42:44):
going to universities in the heartland of the country and
not not not the Ivy League anymore. But those those
things good starts, though they are only take you so far.
And I am not seeing uh, significant reform going on now.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
Well, if you see, if you have careers in there
that are mid level to working on high level positions
that they couldn't get rid of, then they certainly could
carry on that mantra and try to reintroduce those philosophy.
Speaker 4 (43:19):
That's one of them. So one of the things that
one of the things that we're that I'm hearing is
that they're they're just they're just buckling down. And again
there currents.
Speaker 3 (43:30):
Yeah, yeah, Again, it's a long game. Is seems to
be played all the time. So your upcoming book, I'm
excited about this doc. This is going to examine how
foreign influence operations affect domestic American institutions, not just foreign policy.
What does the average American misunderstand about this threat?
Speaker 4 (43:51):
Well, I think what what what many people think about
it is, g it was it was the Russians trying
to help Donald Trump in twenty sixteen. Gee, this is
this is awful, And you know, you're a little bit
of a little bit of reporting here and here and there.
But what people really should know is that that what
(44:13):
the Russians are doing is very similar in focus, in
technique and aim to what the Soviets did. There are
some clearly some differences. The Soviets were Marxists, Putin is not.
We have new technologies now in terms of the Internet
and someone that Putin can use that the Soviets did
(44:34):
not have access to. But the goals are are really
pretty much the same. They're not as trivial, really in
the scheme of things. They're not as trivial as helping
a single presidential candate. They're designed to disrupt, to cause
dissension in and to eventually destroy the United States as
(44:57):
we know it. That is the goal. That's Soviets and
Russians have been saying for many, many, many years. It's
actually not This is not an analytic judgment, it's a
I'm reporting empirical fact here. So it's a huge issue,
goes back a long way, and I think most Americans
(45:18):
do not appreciate the ambition and the danger involved.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
So you mentioned Putin, So what what's your opinion? You
know the Soviet Union in Russia so very well, because
you've spent a lot of time in that area. What
do you think is Putin's political beliefs? If it's not communism,
where is he at politically and what is he what
(45:47):
does he hope to accomplish there?
Speaker 1 (45:48):
Is it?
Speaker 3 (45:49):
Is it a dictatorship? Is it an elements of fascism?
Speaker 4 (45:52):
What?
Speaker 3 (45:53):
What might that?
Speaker 4 (45:54):
Well? Yeah, he he clearly is as an in charge leader.
He's an authority. This is actually pretty common in Russian history.
So he's the great Man of Russia at the moment.
Perhaps Stalin was an earlier version of this, and of
course the Csars before that, But there have been a
(46:18):
lot of people, there are a lot of people who
look at his personality and talk about what he's what
he's up to, and so on. And among the things
you see regularly are he's authoritarian, he's a nationalist, he
is a former KGB officer, which he's a checkist. Going
back to the term of the check out of the
first Soviet intelligence service that Lenin established, what that means
(46:42):
is that, in addition is that he is anti American.
He believes that the Soviet Union was a great thing. Uh,
not so much in terms of its ideology, but in
terms of its empire. So the Soviet Union controlled huge empire,
lots of people. It was an indisputed world power, great power.
(47:08):
The terrible thing that happened in nineteen ninety one was
that Russia's power it was diminished. Putin blames the West
and the United States especially for that. And he is,
by virtually all accounts I see, determined to restore the
glory of the Soviet Empire.
Speaker 3 (47:29):
Are they a paper tiger or do they have the
capability to be what they think they are or what
they say.
Speaker 4 (47:36):
They are, Well, that's a sixty four thousand dollars question.
The Russians clearly think they're more more powerful than the Ukrainians.
Do it At the moment, the Russians, by every measure
that I've seen is still have a very capable nuclear force.
(47:58):
Their conventional army is they've been bogged down and in
UH in Ukraine, so that war is going on longer
than the United States was in World War Two, and
the Ukrainians are fighting pretty well. But the but the
Russians have a lot of other techniques, so information is
(48:18):
one of them. They're doing sabotage in Europe. We've had
some explosions and disappearances of people here in the United
States that lead me to wonder if the Russians aren't
operating here too. So they have a number of uh
of of uh tricks up their sleeve, which they're obviously
using already. And they're playing against a divided West that
(48:43):
doesn't fully appreciate the nature of the adversary. And we've
got all sorts of divisions within within the West Europe,
you know, within Europe, and of course with of course
with mister Trump and NATO and so on. So these
are all wonderful things, these do visions, these weaknesses from
their standpoint are all wonderful things from a Russian standpoint.
Speaker 3 (49:05):
Yeah, So how should Americans think about influence operations in
the area of social media compared with Cold War where
we live in a different time, how should we think
about how we can be attacked, how we can be manipulated.
Speaker 4 (49:20):
We can be manipulated in massive numbers of ways. So
in the in the Cold War period, so before the Internet,
before social media, the Soviets were very effective actually in
and uh and in influencing people through print media, through
books and newspapers, journals, and some of they fed disinformation
(49:42):
to friends in the in the press. And of course
now with social media and the Internet, you've got you've
got the ability to communicate with many more people very quickly,
and you can do it in sophisticated ways enabled by AI.
So I I'm convinced that it's virtually impossible to specifically
(50:04):
identify every every disinformation trick so to speak out there.
But what we can collectively do is be a little
bit more more more self aware, be a little bit
more introspective and say, gee, you know, if this looks
like it's really really outrageous, it may well be. And
(50:32):
so we know now, we know now that the Russians
have been doing a lot of what the Soviets did,
and that is fomenting, fomenting outraged through disinformation. So we
collectively need to be much more introspective than we have been.
Speaker 3 (50:51):
Yeah, and it's really fostering the current social contagions that
are going on with respect to the use of the
Internet and social media on top of it. Right, Yes,
So what risk do foreign influence campaigns create for domestic
cohesion and institutional trust inside the United States?
Speaker 4 (51:14):
Well, they create they What I think go back to
what the goal is. What the Soviets we're trying to
do in the twenties, what Putin is trying to do now,
what people like medbat the former president, of prime minister
and so on to say explicitly, our goal is to
destroy the United States. That's the goal. So how do
you do that? You're not doing it by literally blasting,
(51:37):
blasting out, blasting a big goal and the central part
of the continent. What you're doing is trying to destroy
the coherence of society, destroy the internal structure of the economy,
break it, and allow for a new government to arise
that is conducive to, that is amenable to if you
(52:01):
will subordinate to Soviets in the old days and amenable
to Russian interests now, so they're talking really, really about
achieving a successful revolution. So that's a term we should
be thinking about. Keeping in mind the goal is to
(52:22):
generate political revolution in the United States.
Speaker 3 (52:27):
Boy, it seems to be working in the Blue States
of America.
Speaker 4 (52:29):
Yes, it's working. It's working well generally. There was a
fellow about a nay of Ury Bizmanov who was a
a kdb DE factory worked for the Navasiti news agency.
That was an old Soviet Soviet agency and actually still
around now. But he wrote and he wrote in nineteen
eighty three, so do the arithmetic forty three years ago.
(52:52):
He wrote then that the Soviet the Soviet program had
already then generated significance excesses.
Speaker 3 (53:02):
So if policymakers truly wanted to reform institutional culture, what
types of things should they do? What are like two
actions that they have to do well?
Speaker 4 (53:13):
I think the first one, the first one is to
recognize the nature of the problem. We do not have
people talking in terms of revolution. They don't use the
word sedition, they don't use the word disintegration of the country,
And we should be thinking about about the situation in
(53:36):
those terms because that's what we're facing. And then the
second thing would be, once you understand this really existential
threat to society as we long have known it, then
you need to address first, I think that political threat.
So that gets the issues like sedition, gets to issues
(53:59):
of of stopping people from doing the kinds of revolutionary
incitement that are being being done in universities now. And
then once you're in that arena, you can go on
and do some of the some of the things to
help get that done.
Speaker 3 (54:18):
In documented sedition, I don't know the last time we
actually went after somebody for seditious behavior. We don't need more.
Do we have to start enforcing the laws when it comes.
Speaker 4 (54:27):
To we have to make new laws. I mean, there
was what was known as the Alien Registration Acting, was
the Smith Act that that that that arrest that caused
people to be arrested for advocating and beginning to do
a little bit of action intended to overthrow the US government.
And there were a communist part of USA people arrested
(54:48):
for that in the early nineteen fifties. But the Supreme
Court has gutted that law. So we need we need
new legislation.
Speaker 3 (54:55):
Doctor John Gentry, how can we follow your work real quickly.
Speaker 4 (54:58):
Well, two books, two books I mentioned, uh, Neutering the
c I A. That's a that's on politicization and the
intelligence community and that and the diversity dysfunction or on
on Amazon. I've got several uh, several podcasts uh and
I quite a number of my articles are are freely
available online as well.
Speaker 3 (55:18):
Folks check out doctor John Gentry, he's a gent Appreciate
you very much, my friends. I'm doctor Curry Myers, been
in America's Criminologist. Stay safe, stay informed, and we will
see you next week.
Speaker 2 (55:36):
Call steal, gabble, blade up. Just twisting me as a
bad shattle sequist, Doctor Curry. Last, do the scriminalois con.
Speaker 1 (55:54):
Seals of the lotosy cackles the cr breaking change through
fat stuff to the fame
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.