TIM WALZ’s CONNECTIONS TO CHINA with Diana West and Dave Collum

Diana West and Dave Collum- TIM WALZ’s CONNECTIONS TO CHINA

Part II: We discuss Diana’s book The Red Thread. the feminist movement, Trump, Kamala, Russia/Ukraine, elections 2024, and more.@realDianaWest @DavidBCollum @Matt_Bracken48

FULL SHOW: https://t.co/NObz5bO0SJ pic.twitter.com/3QPtVXpg9X

— Michael Farris (@CoffeeandaMike) September 19, 2024

Complete interview. 

 

3:26. There was a certain skill set that I took to the problem of the anti-Trump conspiracy but for example, it is also the case and I've done some further research since that some of these players did all seem to run through Moscow before the fall of the Soviet Union or its early days.  That would be Nellie Ohr. 

Bruce Ohr.  Not sure of Bruce Ohr, but Nellie was there.

Nellie was the Russian fusion, Russian expert, kind of Christopher Steele opposite . . . Christopher Steele was there. Fiona Hill was there.  She's in the Post Red Thread research.  David the McCain Aid [David Foster Wallace?] he was there.  

Nina Jankowicz was there. 

4:24. Recently I was very shocked by this I found that Victoria Nuland has a thin Red Thread I wrote a piece on Substack yeah darling girl but she literally went to work after college I believe she went to Brown she left Brown and this would have been in the mid 80s she went to work on a Soviet fish processing trawler as her first job.  And it's very strange because of that that's not a very safe thing to do; you're going to have a dossier opened up on you.  I mean this was the '80s.

Yeah, that should keep you out of top-secret security clearance, right?

One would wonder about that.  You know, and I was very shocked.  I did not expect to find that but I did.  

5:06. Yeah, Tim Waltz who has huge Chinese connections.  Holy moly!  How did that happen?  

But think about how, where we are in terms of the country, its institutions, including the Democratic Party, which is supposed to be an American political party, in terms of thinking that's okay.  Not that long ago someone with his credentials would have been just, you know, "I'm sorry, dude, you're not going to make it into the big time."  It's amazing to me that there's no longer the survival reflex.  It's the survival reflex along with everything else that's been beaten out of us . . . 

5:48. Or they have taken over, or they have won. 

5:51. Yes I would say that is, that is the other part of the sentence . . .  

5:57.  So it's not just oblivion.  They have won.  You know, the campuses are 98% left leaning [I would say Bolshevik] right? They won that.  I don't know how you undo that.  People say, "How do you fix that?  With 98% left wing?  There's no obvious mechanism.

6:11. But that even goes down to the lower education system, elementary, middle school . . .

6:15. Daycare.  Daycare.  We are getting the kids freshman year. People say oh you guys are really screwing up the kids I got no the kids are arriving freshman year damaged they are one nudge away from being a Marxist.

6:30. And they were selected by the admissions offices.

6:34. Oh, I can't imagine what essays are being written to get in to Cornell now.  I cannot fathom.

6:39. You could select a different class if your admissions office chose to. I often think of what goes on in the admissions officer choosing these classes they've been taken over for sure and this predates the Frankfurt School I mean we didn't have to wait for Marcus to have this happen and the rest this is something that the Communists communist teachers organizations unions and so on you may have heard of Bella Dodd she was a very famous official, a Communist Party, teacher's union official out of New York who defected, went back to the Catholic Church, became very instrumental witness in probably the 1950s late 40s, 50s, explaining how these things are done.  The schools were already riddled with communist teachers.  There's a really interesting little moment when the Soviet Union . . . Interesting little moment of alliance between the Soviet Union and Nancy Germany before Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union 1941 so 1939 to summer '40, '41.  New York legislature did an investigation into authoritarian impulses what not in the schools and ended up with a report on the Communist infiltration in New York's Public Schools and colleges that is mind-blowing.  And this is 1941, so you've already got CCNY and the different colleges and high schools.  You've already got massive communist teacher infiltration going on, so it was already quite dense.

8:47. Communist is a strong word.  Would Marxists be more accurate?

8:50.  I think what they were looking at were Communist party members if I'm not mistaken.  I think they literally were looking at something very defined and remember back in the day it wasn't as a big deal to have a card being part of a Communist party it hadn't gone through all the other decades yet.  They used to get cards that had numbers, and I think that actually stopped when the House on Un-American Activities Committee began identifying Communist party members by their membership cards, and so they stopped issuing them.  I think that was a result of that.  

9:31  I'm going to guess your brief mention of McCarthy through unbelievable fire.  So you talk about McCarthy early in your first book, . . . 

9:37 The late great McCarthy

9:45  and I thought it was going to go seriously into McCharthy, and it didn't hardly touch on him, didn't even mention Roy Cohn, any of these guys, right, so it was in passing that McCarthy had it right, right?

9:52  Yeah, yeah, definitely. 

9:56  I'll bet you that your detractors used that for headline attacks, is that correct? 

10:03  Well, it is correct, I, and I am quite proud of this, I was called "McCarthy on Steroids."

10:12  You probably had three sentences in the book on McCarthy.  I mean it was really not a big part of the book.

10:21  It's a grounding place.  This is what I meant about Stan Evans' book about McCarthy [Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies, M. Stanton Evans, 2007.], which I really recommend; it will, I mean that really flipped my, I didn't really know anything Joseph McCarthy except what you might pick up from the vapors and the noxious references but I'd never made any kind of study of McCarthy, and then I read, I don't know how, I picked up M. Stanton Evans' book which in some ways should never have been written or published at that point and time, I mean it was over and done.  McCarthy was the demon child of American history.  He writes this book and it's amazing.  It's an amazing piece of detective work.  I mean he was a shoe-leather journalist.  Fantastic.  Basically, I thought that if you can do that with McCarthy, what else has been completely misrepresented, lie upon lie upon lie.  The other thing that also drew me in was at the time I was writing, I was a syndicated columnist, appeared on shows, and so on and this was post-9/11 times, and if you brought up Islam, and if you brought up Islam and if you  were critical of Islam, you got slammed as an islamophobe I used to write about this all the time many many columns devoted to Islam and Jihad and Dhimmitude, Islamic Law, all these things Europe I did a lot of reporting in Europe on islamization I was just wondering why can't we have a grown up conversation about Islam in this country and that book took a bit of shape from that debate believe it or not I was on the old Lou Dobbs show on CNN and it was right before Barack Obama was elected president the first time and I had some fairly mild comment I'd written about Obama's socialist policies in my column but I hadn't gotten it out on CNN and there was like this weight it's very hard to get the s word out I said I'm going to say it I'm going to say it so I'm sitting there the sound booth in Washington and it rolls around to me and I just well Lou will just have to wait and see if Senator Obama his if his policies would take the United States in his into a socialist Direction and you get the round Robin's on the pundits in this Hillary person comes on and he says Diana red beating went out a long time ago and blah blah blah and I thought red baiting I did have a chance to rebut and I did have a much better presentation on why I would think he could be socialist but the point is I didn't quite I knew red baiting vaguely but I had to go look it up and I had to figure it out and I realized that there's this correlation between Islamophobe to cut off debate, and red-baiting to cut off debate.  And then I was reading Stan Evans book about that time and that's when I started going back and ask when did this happen that we can't talk about Islam can't talk about communism and then I figured out it's before McCarthy and that was kind of the Genesis of the investigation

DIANA WEST: How Communist Ideology Infiltrated America’s Security Agencies & Fueled Spygate

American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, Diana West, 2013.

The Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy, Diana West, 2019.

They're not there upholding their constitutional oath in fact they're trashing them.  And when you actually look at some of the very cold, I would say Marxist, beliefs behind these people that seem to animate them, they are deceiving us as to who they really are and they are trying to enact their own visions of what the quality should be irrespective of these oaths and irrespective of the people's will.

Is it possible that communist ideology has infiltrated America's intelligence agencies? After looking into key figures involved the Spygate Scandal, what information did Diana West uncover about their beliefs?  And how is Donald Trump a counter-revolutionary president in West's view?

THE SEARCH FOR IDEOLOGICAL DRIVERS IN THE ANTI-TRUMP CONSPIRACY

The actions on the part of senior officials in Washington that certainly it may be argued that some of them are seditious I mean really serious actions against the rule of law in their efforts to take down this presidency.  The campaign undermined the transition and it's gone on and on and I was trying to get a sense of why are they so angry, why were they resorting to these measures when America is known for peaceful transition of power.

Nelly Ohr was an academic she had been a professor in the 1990s and that meant they were going to publicly available writings, book reviews, for example, a PhD thesis, that I could at least look at to try to get a better sense of who she was, and, indeed, she turns out she is a Russian expert.  She speaks the language.  She taught the subject.  She got a PhD in history at Stanford after Harvard, and she studied in the Soviet Union when it was still the Soviet Union.  I ended up putting together in The Red Thread kind of an ideological profile of Nellie Ohr.  She's my first case in which I learned that she did have a very soft spot for the regime of Joseph Stalin.

Fascinating.

Terrifying!  She would talk about the terror and the excitement of the Stalin era.  She was talking about the frustration in a book review of trying to teach about this era to her students at Vassar in the 1990s. Terror I can understand.  Excitement?  If you look a little further, you can find similarly that she applauded Stalin for trying to build a legal structure, "the agonizing paradox of Stalin era," trying to build a legal structure on the one hand, and yet executing innocent civilians on the other hand.  This is the kind of moral equivalent attitude when you're looking at this bloodthirsty regime that killed millions and millions of people.  The legal structure was a sham if you're killing and executing innocent civilians.  This was very clearly a theme of her writings and indeed including in her PhD thesis that I learned that she follows a school of history in American academia known as revisionism, one that came about in the '60s and '70s that was essentially promoted by straight-up Marxist and the New Left what we used to call the new left in this country which really wasn't much different from the old left it was usually their children but they took over the departments on college campuses and they are at school that writes about itself and has its stars and so on and she clearly followed in the school and the people here are people who she essentially considered her mentors and study Network at Harvard and so on.  So it became pretty clear that there was a red thread, if you will hear in terms of an openness to communist ideology as it was, put into practice.  So she was case number one.  Gives you a flavor of what I was finding with Nellie Ohr.  What intrigued me is that she does have CIA credentials.  She worked for their open-source shop, so she had a CIA connection.  Interesting. We also know she took out a ham radio operator's license in the spring of 2016.  Who is she talking to? 

WWII could have ended earlier in 1943, but the communists in high ranking positions in DC blocked an effort from German high command to prevent Communists from taking over Eastern and Central Europe

.@ehret_matthew: "Diana West's pedigree as a Kristol mainstream Yale narrative controller"

Whatever "mainstream" status @diana_west_ may have had once, it was taken from her after she wrote AMERICAN BETRAYAL (2013).   https://t.co/Cas3RJf6l4 pic.twitter.com/sJBXI7sKSa

— Richard Poe 🇺🇸 (@RealRichardPoe) December 30, 2023

from Amazon, 

American Betrayal is America's lost history, a chronicle that pits Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight David Eisenhower, and other American icons who shielded overlapping Communist conspiracies against the investigators, politicians, defectors, and others (including Senator Joseph McCarthy) who tried to tell the American people the truth.

American Betrayal shatters the approved histories of an era that begins with FDR's first inauguration, when "happy days" are supposed to be here again, and ends when we "win" the Cold War. It is here, amid the rubble, where Diana West focuses on the World War II--Cold War deal with the devil in which America surrendered her principles in exchange for a series of Big Lies whose preservation soon became the basis of our leaders' own self-preservation. It was this moral surrender to deception and self-deception, West argues, that sent us down the long road to moral relativism, "political correctness," and other cultural ills that have left us unable to ask the hard questions: Does our silence on the crimes of Communism explain our silence on the totalitarianism of Islam? Is Uncle Sam once again betraying America?

In American Betrayal, Diana West shakes the historical record to bring down a new understanding of our past, our present, and how we have become a nation unable to know truth from lies. 

You can find speeches and interviews given by Diana West all over the internet.  I found this one on YouTube, where she reviews her 2014 book, American Betrayal.  

At the 9-minute mark, she talks about the communist occupation of Washington, D.C. strategy-making chain, and how that chain worked to extend WWII for two more years past 1943.  

We had hundreds of communist agents in very influential positions in Washington, D.C. by 1943.  One of the things that they were able to do was block . . . a very significant anti-Nazi German resistance.  They had one problem: they were very highly placed.  It included the Intelligence Chief, Admiral Wilhelm Franz Canaris, ; it included church members, it included generals, it included all manner of people from different kinds of groups.  They were anti-communist.  Every plan that they submitted to either the British or the Americans over this period, beginning around 1942, 1943, they would present to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi high command, to the Americans and the British, and in return, they wanted help to keep the Red Army in Russia out of Eastern and Central Europe, and this was always the basic plan.  Because we had so many communists in positions of authority, this would be blocked.  For example, there was an AP bureau chief, named Lochner, an American, who came back in 1942 with communications from Prince Louis Ferdinand of Germany.  They wanted to establish secret communications with Roosevelt.  Prince Louis Ferdinand knew President Roosevelt . . . .   

11:17  The man who blocked Lochner at the White House was Lauchlin Currie, 1902-1993, one of Roosevelt's top assistants, dead-to-rights, confirmed Soviet agent.  So you had Lochner dissuaded, not to call anymore, told it was getting embarrassing hearing from this AP bureau chief from Berlin with special messages from German resistance during the war.  Extraordinary.  The War could have ended earlier.   

15:05.  So I went back into this very dirty intelligence or that really the Soviet Union embarked upon beginning the moment it came into existence in 1917.  But in 1917, it did so in American isolation.  Four presidents and six Secretaries of State refused to recognize the Soviet Union.  It was a revolutionary entity that declared war on everyone, and these presidents and secretaries of state saw no reason to normalize relations with such a critter.  Until FDR came along, and on November 16th, 1933, he normalized relations with the Soviet Union.  I actually think of this date now as America's fall. 

Months earlier in the Soviet Union, what we know now as the terror famine, the famine of Ukraine, the state-engineered starvation, forced starvation of some 5 or 6 million, maybe more, people, had come to an end.  And if several months later, the United States normalizes relations . . . this was not even a term; it's not even discussed in the notes that were exchanged.  There was nothing.  It was as if it didn't happen.  Imagine, you have to scramble histories some, but imagine if after Hitler killed 6 million of his own people, 6 million Jews, a nation decided after that to normalize relations.  We would, you know, be tearing our hair out.  But this was a relationship that always based on this kind of self-delusion, lies; even the agreement itself, it's a very brief exchange of notes, it's kind of surprising when you go back to it.  One of the pages, really the only real page of stipulations, is a series of promises that the Soviet Union had to sign that basically said, "We promise we won't support agents in your country to try to overthrow your Constitution."  This was already going on; it only ramped up after normalization.  And the government, the US government, all the institutions at this point, had to pretend, had to pretend that they were keeping their bargain.  This was a big sea change for the United States.  It was absolute . . . you can see the rise of a double standard in US policies, really double standards everywhere but in terms of the nuts and bolts of it we would end up in this New Deal Administration of Roosevelt in 1930s literally hundreds, hundreds of Americans working for the Kremlin that means not one Aldridge James, not five Cambridge spies led by Kim Philby but hundreds, and they were in place by the 1940s when we entered the war.  [17:40]  They were doing things right here in Washington, so at extremely the highest levels possible.  It struck me that there comes a point with infiltration when it's so dense and so strategic that you have to start thinking of it as an occupation.  It kind of helps . . . when you look at it that way, and I think when you look back and you think of Washington as having been de facto Soviet-occupied in this period, things start making a little more sense.  I mentioned Lauchlin Currie at the White House, you had a man named Duncan Lee [a double agent assigned to spy on General Patton] advising the Wild Bill Donovan of the OSS, many others at the OSS, Franz Neumann, 1900-1954, on the German desk, for example.  Alger Hiss very famously at the State Department.  And, of course, there was also FDR's top advisor, Harry Hopkins, 1890-1946, who remains a very controversial figure.  But I do a lot with Harry Hopkins in terms of pulling a dossier together.  I did study it very deeply and for various, with various evidence in mind.  I think he was a conscious agent but he certainly acted as if he were and effectively promoted the Soviet line to such a point that we had essentially a Soviet occupation even inside the White House because he lived there.  He lived with Roosevelt for 3 and 1/2 years--breakfast, lunch, and dinner, in on everything, particularly in this intense war period.  We still have this disconnect between what we now know that we were penetrated; we know these agents were there; we've had this archival confirmation of much of this, and we still think and we look back at the "Red Scare" and we snicker.  Or we look back, "Oh, you saw commies under every bed," that kind of thing.  I mean that's what automatically comes into everyone's head after this period, really decades, of this conditioning to look the other way, not to probe.  "Red Baiter!" stop thinking about it.  I mean it's really kind of an amazing information-op that has been, we've all sort of lived through.  But when you go back and start reading the memoirs of the people who were experiencing at the time, the bitterness of what they were living through comes through . . . and I just like to mention Robert Stripling, the lead investigator on the House on Un-American Activities Committee when it opened its doors in 1938 under Representative Martin Dies, Democrat of Texas.  Stanton Evans, who wrote the monumental work on Joseph McCarthy in recent years, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Joseph McCarthy and his Fight Against America's Enemies, 2007.  

20:25. In Blacklisted by History, Evans writes that everything they said about Joseph McCarthy they said first about Martin Dies, which is something of a revelation again because I didn't know you had the same interest in exposing these networks, fascism and communism, in the late 1930s.  Stripling worked for Dies and then later chairman for at least 10 years.  He wrote a memoir, and he said the reason he wanted to write this memoir he said,

I wanted to tell in detail the price that men must pay for the dubious privilege of being reviled in print and on the air for their labors in what amounts to a necessary sewer project of communist investigations.  

He goes on to say,

that this book is his attempt to outline without conjecture the scope of the Communist conspiracy against the government and the people of the United States, even though to do so is to invite the charge of fascist, Red Baiter, witch hunter, and "smear artist."  To fail to do so is to capitulate to a resourceful enemy who can endure any counterattack except exposure."

21:37. Exposure.  This is really the mechanism of the book is exposure.  After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, people, of course, know that the archives opened in Moscow briefly, selectively.  At a certain point after Moscow archives begin to open, what we know as a Venona archives, open here 1995.  I always find it quite interesting when you see that progression as to why the American government was cow into releasing some of these same types of documents that late, 50 years after the fact, is an interesting question why they wanted to keep these secrets so long but what the Venona archive is in 1939 when the Nazis and the Soviets had their friendship pact, Western Union was sending the Soviet cables, Embassy cables back to Russia.  And the government ordered them to make copies.  This is sort of early NSA data collection, and they just piled up by the thousands, by the hundreds of thousands.  Really at a certain point in 1943 when we become allies during the war, the code breakers were told to start translating them in order for us to find a way to be better allies. This was actually the original intention.  The code breakers not too long after actually began discovering that these cables, these diplomatic cables were actually day and date discussions and cable traffic related directly to Soviet espionage here in the United States.  Coming to all of this information as a journalist and not as a historian, I told my editor at St Martin's that I've started a new genre called, investigative history, but he wasn't so sure we could go on with this.  It's pretty intense but what I discovered was that the general history, the regular books that you'll find in the bookstore here, not intelligence histories but biographies, books about the war books, about Yalta, and so on, Cold War, they have not as a rule Incorporated the findings of the intelligence historians.  It's as if all this work that has been done since the 1990s and the great scholars have gone into these archives and assembled them for us, they're around the store here somewhere, many of them their work is still off in a corner, almost like an academic boutique industry, it's over here, and the regular historians just keep on going without any correlation of this very important work.  And that's why I could come along after the thousands of books that have been written about World War II in this period, on the Cold War and Roosevelt, and write something that seems new.  This knitting together had not been done and I think that this vacuum is part of what I think of as an American betrayal, because at a certain point what we're looking at when you put this all together consciously or not, or consciously and not, because I think it's both, but Uncle Sam was actually covering up for the Russian bear.

24:42. Today we can ask his uncle Sam covering up for Islam as we support jihadists across the Middle East it's hard not to wonder as we eradicate officially the study of Asia Jihad from security agencies the Pentagon the military colleges and vacuum up everyone else's phone records it's hard not to wonder and I also wonder if ultimately we will find ourselves in some sort of cold war or hot War with Islam just as we did with them the Soviet Union after World War II and wonder how that ever happened.

American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character https://t.co/yr4kOpQOPQ via @amazon

— St. Michael, the Archangel (@aveng_angel) December 30, 2023