no people with obesity who have struggled with obesity and related conditions. and i think that that's why all of this is so relevant and these weight drugs are so relevant and so i think we are just about out of time, but i am so appreciative your time today and it was so great to talk to you about this book so. thank you so much. you ask great questions and i admire your reporting for bloomberg. and i really enjoyed conversation.my name is sofia n,

author, event coordinator here at the library. and thank you.

thank you for joining us for this evening's program. some quick notes, if you haven't already. books being sold by our bookselling partner, snug books right outside. they'll be available for purchase now or after the program and tickets are still available. ali velshi joining us in may on may 9th. go pratt library dot org to find out more and reserve your tickets and now for tonight's program. tonight i'm happy welcome jonna mendez to the pratt library to discuss her new book in true face a woman's life in the cia unmasked. in it, she talks about her cia career as a contract wife performing secretarial duties for the cia as a convenience to her. a young officer stationed in europe and true face recounts not only the drama of mendez's high stakes work, how the savvy operator parlayed her everyday

woman appeal into incredible subterfuge, but also the grit and good fortune it took for her to navigate a misogynistic world. this is the story of an incredible career and what it took to achieve it. jonna mendez is a former of disguise with over 25 years of experience as a cia working in moscow and other sensitive areas with her late husband, tony. she is the bestselling of argo, the moscow and spy dust, the washington post called the book engaging, enlightening. and true face is an addition to the canon of nonfiction books about, an institution encrusted in created by movies, television, hostile intelligence services, and occasionally the agency itself. publisher. publishers weekly says that

mendez details fascinating career in this gripping memoir, an entertaining and enlightening glimpse into the opaque of spycraft. and in kirkus review of in true face, they wrote fans of true espionage will enjoy mendez's steer stories of a formative era in intelligence history. it is my great pleasure to welcome jonna mendez to the stage. thank you. make it organized just for a minute. i brought book just in case. i wanted to read a chapter to you. good evening. i wasn't sure if anyone would

come. i mean, i've been watching baltimore on my tv all day as everyone has, and just now got caught up on what's what's happening there. it's it's quite a day. it's memorable day. i'm looking for the clicker. where's the clicker at. we do this every time i speak. i'm mean, i'm an idiot. it comes to things technical. anyway, so i'm going to talk to you about my book called in face. did that title any sense? thank you to any of you. did you understand what it was when you just saw it in true face? because that's the cia speak for under. for women. for women is without makeup. that's your true face. you know, when you wake up in the morning, that's your face.

if you came to see me in my disguise lab, that's where we began. it also means take it away. take it away. any scaffolding and presenting yourself as the real person you are. i was never when i named it that that it was going to translate. so i said, i just tell you how wrote the book and why i wrote the book. and then a little bit about the cia which is probably why you came to see this to begin with. i wrote the book during covid. my husband had passed two years previously. my dog had passed about six months previously, and it was just me during covid, i did about 26 jigsaw puzzles by myself and i them and sent them to my friends and they said, please stop. no mass. and then i thought, well i'll just i'll write a memoir.

and that's what this book set out to be was my memoir of my life and my career at the cia. now, i knew the cia was going to have their way with it. once i sent it to them because they do some editing. they do some reviewing, they take some stuff out that is still classified. stuff that i might not realize is classified. but overall, they didn't they didn't remove most of any story in there what you might find for trading if you get the book and read is it's a little sketchy about where i am. there are a lot of cities that they didn't want me talking about being in that city. that's okay with me. but for instance, i had my run in with mother teresa. you can probably make a good guess where i was. i have been looking for her. i would have i would have done it differently. okay. so this is the memoir and then

as i'm writing it, i discovered that i just tell my story, my story of. a woman in the cia. it's not a standalone story. there were lots of women in the cia in various capacities, in various roles and we all had. there's that there's a new york times journalist who's written about the cia for years, and he didn't ever really the agency. he was very critical of the agency. and so we, in turn, were a little critical of him. we didn't like him very much either. his name was tim weiner. it turns out while i was away. tim weiner wrote the review of this book for the washington. it was a big review, was like half a page. and i was in california when i heard that, oh my god, there was a review and wrote it.

and i thought, you know, that's my book and he's not going to like it. just want to go on the record is saying he loves this book. he was so it was embarrassing. i have completely changed my opinion of that man. i feel like a hypocrite. but what can i do? yeah, it was just it was amazing. and that's what first time i got a sense that this book might have some legs and. i think that it does. so that's the prelude to this talk. the picture on the screen you will see is when i was 19, i was living in wichita. i was going to wichita state university when my best friend off to germany to marry an american second lieutenant. i think that's the lowest level of military officer dumb that that's where you start that's that's it.

that's the beginning. so she went to marry this military fellow and wanted me to come to germany to be in her wedding, to be her matron honor while growing up in wichita, kansas, i'd been trying to figure out how i was going to since i was six and i knew i wanted to leave. i just couldn't ever make the plan jell. and there it was go to germany, be in sherry's wedding and i did that. so this is picture just kind of i don't know. i'd been there maybe a week. i don't know who this man was, but i. he was introducing me to german beer it with a ceramic top, you know and i'm sorry. i like take that cigaret out of my hand, but i cannot. i came from the land. 3.2 beer and when i was a teenager in wichita, could not drink enough beer to get a buzz going. you just couldn't consume that much beer and in germany.

they would pour you beer if you were seven years old. they didn't care at all. i turned one in germany and it was just not big deal. not a bit. so. so i ended up in germany. i loved it, loved it, loved it. it was really green, it was damp, it was lush, it was hilly, it was trees everything the kansas was. so i thought i'd stay. now my friend sherry and her husband got a train. they went to. they went to italy on their honeymoon. and there i was just, me from kansas drinking beer. so what i did, i got on a train and i went to frankfurt. frankfurt, germany, which is a big economic center in europe. lots of banks, lots of banks. so in the train station, i found a phone booth with a phone book. i got big handful of deutschmarks and alphabetically

started calling american banks just because i recognized the names initially i wasn't necessarily i want to work in a bank. i was thinking an american company is going to be more likely to hire me. so first i called the american consulate and they said, dear, we don't do jobs, we do visas. you need a visa. we can help you out. but no, we don't do jobs. so that was the as i call bank of america. that was the bs. i said, i'm looking for a job. said, not here. no, we're not interested. i called what was the third one. started with a c can't remember. they said no, no. we have a job for you. and then i called chase manhattan bank in downtown frankfurt, across the street from the opera house, and i said, i'm looking for a job. they said, oh, have you ever worked at a bank before? i said, no. they said, do you speak german? i no.

i said, do you have a work permit which is required to work in germany? i, i don't. and they said, why don't you just come down and talk to us? and they hired me. they hired me. and that was my, my second ticket. the first one was getting to europe. second ticket was a where i could support myself and stay in europe. i, i was almost 20 when that happened. and so that was the beginning of a very interesting, a very interesting life, i might say. i working in the bank these men were coming in. americans, there was a group of them. every two weeks they'd be down in our lobby and i got to talking to them because if you're overseas for any length of time. you start of looking for americans just to chat with. and i started dating one. his name was and a year and a half after i met him i married him and switched ireland which

is the las vegas europe. you thought it's all mountains and cheese and those cows with the bells. but behind that facade. god, there was a very slick process. you could get married. everything translated, everything stamped. i do the ring and out the door, like in the morning, there's a line of people doing that. so. so john and i got married. here goes the clicker. it worked. these are my wedding photos. and no long white dress. no all the. all the acute trademark of an american wedding missing my little white mini dress is what i got married in. and that volkswagen beetle, which is brand new, we paid 1500 dollars for it that was our going away picture and off we went we went we went to italy as well. john kaser was a an interesting man. he had grown up in europe, his

dad was a diplomat with state department. he spoke fabulous german. he ski he'd like a ski champion because he went to school in switzerland and that was part of their afternoon lessons skiing one day and tennis other. he was really good at both. so there i was a married lady and now i'm 20. the next that happened was we ended up going back home, what's called home leave. you have to check in to cia every once in a while. they don't want you out there for any long period of time. they're afraid you're going to go like native or in france or something. so every two years you would come back home. we went home on a ship. the ss united, the fastest, most luxurious ship that was afloat at that time. and we went first class and everyone in first class is looking at us like, well, just a minute, you belong here. you're too young. you don't look rich enough.

so john invented this, that he was this famous deejay from california. all these rich old people, they didn't know they didn't know, by the way, john did not dance. my new husband did not dance, but i did. so i the dance contest on the ship right here. this is my proof. took him home to wichita to meet my. ose are my sisters. that's me. that's me. kind of in the middle. that's my dad's which he chicken fat. you can see perfect color and it's just, you know an idea there four sisters jennifer in the red shirt had escaped. she went to aspen. the other two were too young to escape, but they were watching us closely. they were already making a plan plan. i ended up working for the cia as contract wife. and it was this odd catch. if you're overseas if you're

married overseas, you can come aboard the cia they still do a security thing. but not huge. and they will give you secretarial duties. so i started working at cia as a secretary. now i have to tell you, i'm a very good secretary. they kept promoting me and promoting me to the point i was working for the director, the office. it was about a thousand people in that office. i was working for the boss and i was bored out of my mind. this is in downtown dc and i could see the smithsonian castle building from my office and i mentioned to my boss i was thinking about going and talking to them about a job because i didn't think what i had was a job job really wasn't that much work. and my boss said, hold on, don't leave. we are we do some photography

courses in the office and i know really like photography and i did, i was an avid amateur photographer he said take some of our courses. so now i should have just tell you for a moment about this office that i was working in. it was the q of cia, just like q and james bond. we were cia hq, we were the technical arm of the intelligence community, not just cia, primarily cia. we were composed of physicists, chemists electrical and mechanical engineer, all kinds of people, really fine grained technical skills that you don't bump into very. we could create make almost anything if it didn't exist, but our officers needed it. we would invent whatever it was for them. it was a fascinating place work. and i really liked it a lot. i took some of those photography

courses the first photo course i at the cia, the very first one they sent me to a landing strip outside d.c. there's a little twin engine plane. they've the doors off so you can see through plane and there's a harness in to sit in and kind of swing it was my harness and was a headphone is my headphone they gave me a 35 millimeter camera. this is all film with the thousand millimeter, which is about that long. and when you put that on the camera body that that wants to move and stabilizing your lens in order to get a good crisp picture. that's what i was about. learn while riding in an swinging in the harness with it, with the headphones on. it was called airborne platform mms and it was a day that i'll never forget. it was just really wonderful afternoon we some geese over here flying with we're going out

over the chesapeake i said how low. how low we go we were if i stuck my toe out it would have been it would, it would have been wet anyway i segway into a career in photography at the cia. i was no longer secretary but i didn't go into the big jobs i in to the dark rooms because i was a woman. that's where they were just they were they were sure where i ought to be. and this picture is back in frankfort, a second assignment. i'm taking some of some concealment devices we had made. we have to make instructions, whoever is going to use them and. i'm taking the pictures for the instructions. this is how this is how you open this briefcase case that has a compartment so well hidden in it that you go through any immigration in the in the world. they will never be able to find it. but if you had my pictures, you would know how to do it. so so working in photography at cia was nothing like what you might think the cameras, the

commercial cameras. that that was not what we did this is a camera in the cia. it was this probably a new version of it. this was an ink and ink pen that had a you know, it was it was like one of those big, fat, juicy pens that cost $800 that really executives would like to have in their so everyone would know how successful they were. but one had a camera in it in to the ink. so while the pen would still write an upper left hand corner, that a cylinder that camera is inside of that cylinder. so you have to stay with me here. look at the pen in his hands and know that inside of the cylinder is a film cassette some of you will remember kodak's little yellow and black film cassettes. ours was so that it fit inside the camera that was inside the pen. and there was a piece of film

that's about that long. it's about eight inches long. and what developed it, it would have 100 tiny black dots on it. and each dot was a page of text eight and a half by 11. so you could take a lot of photos of a lot of documents with this. this was one of our best tools during the cold war because we gave it to our most our our assets. who had the access. so imagine today that someone walks into putin's office with little notepad and his pen and he's talking to putin and he is writing down, okay, i got that i'll call him, i'll do this. putin either picks up a phone looks away someone, comes in. our guy with the pen all he has to do is hold the pen up over the document and with one touch sign made no noise take a picture of the minutes of the meeting or the agenda for the

meeting. what's going happen? that's what we were after. one of the people at work used to disagree with me and say those pens weren't that great. we had cash, had all these satellite systems up there. we had pictures, everything. i said, yeah, but that's today all those satellite pictures. they're now, my pictures were tomorrow. what are they planning? are they going to do? what are they getting ready to do? i say this over and over. our purpose was to collect intelligence on the plans and intentions our enemies and get it back. washington, dc what they planning? what are they going to do? what is putin going to do? what's china going to do next? what's that north korean with those those missiles that nuclear, what are they planning, what they want to know and. these cameras were one very, very good way to find out. now, i didn't do just photography you don't do just one thing in most and at cia you

certainly don't so i spread out the systems i was working i was training foreign assets in an electronic communication encrypted electronic communication in russia and this will come up again and again. it was so dangerous for the people working for us if they were caught, they could be killed. they probably would be killed. and their families have a terrible, terrible time. it was so dangerous that we didn't meet face to face with them unless we had to. we did what's called personal communications. that's what the encrypted electronic was. you dial a shortwave radio anywhere in russia and you just hear this voice just strings of numbers and knew your time. you knew your day you dial to the right frequency and you'd hear groups of five numbers a

pause, groups of five numbers. they do it three times and you drive down and then then you would go find your walnut or whatever had concealed your one time pad in. i like the walnut because it's gives a good sense of size and you take out your one time pad, you listen to the numbers in the radio. you transpose them and you'd be able to read your message. that was one of many ways. we communicated with our agents. it's very, very secure. now you're thinking so you communicated with dead rats. now we did. we didn't communicate with them, but we the sign says we used rats. i would say that the taxidermists had taken care of the rats. that's how i would put it. they were very tidy. when we finished they had velcro on their on their stomachs. this is an unfinished taxidermy rat and we hide all kinds of things in them.

money, film developer for. a secret writing system. i medicine for their kid that they couldn't in moscow. whatever they needed, whatever needed. you can get a lot of stuff in a dead rat. this this has doused with pepper sauce and that's wrong they were doused with tabasco a good american product. and we did that because no one in the world will pick up knowingly pick up a dead rat. that's why we chose them. an animal? well, a dog would a wolf would. but once they had it in their and that tabasco went to work, they'd run off howling and wouldn't pick it up again. so my work became a traveling person. i was traveling around introducing people to some of the possibilities with photography, how use that pen, how to use a lot of other concealed things. i saw online today. just one of those things on facebook and it said the east

germans have figured out how to put a camera in a bra so i'm looking we already knew how do that we did that more than once but i decided that the east german bras are prettier than than the american that we used. so i'm traveling around europe teaching people, bringing stuff to them, picking up stuff them. and every once in a while stopping in a bar for some more of that german beer. this is not german beer, but they had german beer in the bar. the never say never again bar something a lot of people might not realize. we were working in an area that was trying to fool the kgb all the time. our biggest problem was in moscow and it was surveillance following us endlessly. their goal was just as just to shut us down to to get us in

such a such a strangulation embrace that we could not collect because they were everywhere and they almost succeeded in doing that. but we came up with some new tools that never knew about they know about them now, i just would love to hear them talking about the cia's use of, you know, have a lot of things in this country that are unique. us, we have hollywood, which is we have the stage in new york city, and we have a group of people out in l.a., not the magicians much we weren't interested in the magicians. we were interested in the magic builders, the people whose whose profession is to deceptions and to create illusions that you even staring at you cannot figure out what they're doing, how they're doing it. are they doing it. you see david copperfield fly

overhead. i did. and i know man that built the process that allows to do that flying your eyes tell you he be on wires everything looking for that little arc of a swing and then none of that. they took it all away. he's simply flying. when i saw him, he flew into plexiglass box on a big stage. it was a big box. it must have been 20 feet long. and then he's flying around in the box, they bring out a lid and they put the lid on the box and then there were like six ladies in tap shoes and sequins, bikinis and their tap dancing on top of the box. and he's still flying in the box. and i mean, it was just was it was wonderful to observe this. well, we wanted build some deceptions and illusions of our own. and so what we up doing is we

hired some of these magic builders and for the entirety of my career we worked with these people specifically against the kgb in moscow, although we used some of their ideas, of their tools elsewhere. we started out trying to make called aack in the box, a jib for surveillance purposes. it was to be a pop up dummy. it'd in the passenger seat. they trail behind you in cars. they're usually not next to you. they're never front of you. so we knew we needed to to build something where our passenger could exit the car and, the dummy would pop up. it doesn't sound too hard well. here's how we went about it. we went to al's magic shop down on 16th street in washington, dc, and we bought a sex doll. it's plastic. i didn't know our. party doll. you do have other names. we bought one. we said two of our young

engineers to buy it there so embarrassed we sent them back to buy six more later and they said they said later they said we will go back to that store. but what we only wanted the top half and we we tied that off and we got a briefcase and we put the doll in the briefcase and we got two canisters of compressed kind of small on each side and we closed it all up and there was a button and you push the button and she's going to spring up. we sent it to eastern europe, a quiet place. one of our wives took it out for test drive and she's driving down the road and nobody's around coast is clear. and she hits the button. well, the first one, what happened was it, exploded in her car because. the compressed gas was so cold that it froze her plastic

goodness and she shattered and the wife almost had a wreck so it's funny to tell it. it wasn't funny. it happened. and we decided that was no good. so we changed it around a little bit. the second one that we fielded test drive it, it went up okay. it looked it was good if you were behind in a car. you just see this of a figure. but what happened when you push the button for it to deflate it did this thing that those when you drive by a car dealership sometimes and you those things waving so she's she's doing that and she it would have taken her a half an hour to get back to so that wasn't it either we ended up we two we took our idea to the magic builders and it took them like a week and just did this incredible scissor mechanism that you hit the button, she zap, you hit the button and down. it's very light it's quite portable.

you can put it a briefcase. you can put it in a woman's purse. the last time i saw it was in a birthday cake. and that birthday cake is in a book. it's called the billion dollar spy by dan hoffman. and it's the opening chapter of his book how using that jib or that dummy it starts out in a birthday cake allowed. our chief of station to get to one of the best agents we had and i it was an it was an eventful evening. so they did all kinds of things for us. they some big things for us. this is last summer. i was visiting one of them and he took my picture all to the five of me. okay, so the traveling things changed because i spent a summer the subcontinent, they won't let me say where you all know where the subcontinent is. i loved it out there and came

back washington and told them that i would like an assignment out there. i would like to live there, and then i would travel from that place. and they said, well, there's no there's no photo job coming up. they said, there's a disguise job coming up. so here i am in the middle of my career i and i switched i switched my specialty. this is not a smart thing to do. you know, you build up all this knowledge and this experience and you've proved kind of to the guys, yeah, you can do this. and then you say, well, i want to go do that. so first husband said, i don't know. anyway i went out there. it was my assignment this overseas tour was my assignment and my husband was my dependent. he accompanied me. they considered him a househusband, which the worst term ever, because no man, no man's got to walk around with that label on him. my, my house husband, in fact,

was a full officer. disguise sized as a househusband. so. so he was he was okay with it. this was a trip we were going up to peshawar. we were worried that a russian member, when the russians were in afghanistan and some of you were a little young to remember that, but they were in afghanistan, we were afraid we were going to have a russian defector and we weren't sure what we would do with him, how we get him out of the country. so we we were exploring all the possibilities in that part of the which was really a pretty fun trip trip. and here's what we came with. this is the solution to that problem. to you, it probably looks a dolly that you'd find in any warehouse with a couple of cases of water could be coke cans, can be beer again, could be anything. it could be boxes of ibm paper.

but we wanted to clear bottles of clear liquid. it's part of the illusion when you look at it you think oh i see that's water it's a it's going to be heavy she's to when she's pushing this around she's going to have to kind of put some muscle because it's going to be heavy because that load but that's not what is at all it is a concealment device to put a russian defector in should he come across to us. and it's how we would get him out of our embassy. and then it became bigger, had these in lots of embassies. there was a thing where depending in really authority and countries, if a local citizen came in who shouldn't be there, they they'd wait outside with guns. they'd wait for him to come out. they knew that he would come out and they'd take him away. and this is how we got people out of those kinds of situations. this was good example of what we'd give the magic builders a

problem and they would give us a solution. so i told you that i don't talk about where i was, but they didn't. i couldn't show you pictures. so here's a picture of a place that i was i probably visited this country more than almost any other american ha. i was i was up there a lot, loved it there flying kites. these little monks there were so cute. me place is a picture that i didn't buy. i always thought if i go back, i'll the hat. but now i don't go back. so part of what i was doing as chief of disguise, because when i came home, they made me first deputy a disguise i didn't want to be the deputy and. then they made me chief a disguise. i didn't want that either. i figured if i had stayed there long enough, they would have had me running the cia because they it was catnip. the fact that i didn't care about being promoted, i'm just. i'm just kidding. i wouldn't have been doing that. but.

but it was the men were kind of irritated because they all wanted to be promoted. and i wasn't really working for promotion and then i kept getting promoted while. i was chief of disguise. we working so hard on mask technology and for the first years that i was retired, we didn't talk about masks. it was still considered secret. it is no longer secret. so i can folded into this conversation that we're going to have. we had always used hollywood double masks like brad think what's his name, the guy that did argo ben affleck. we had like the top half of their face and maybe a beard. and we could we could use those masks carefully because you couldn't get too close to them. they didn't really move, but they were effective. if if somebody is going by on a horse and it was supposed to be pitt, it looked like brad pitt. now, if you wanted to have lunch

with him, it look like brad pitt at all. we said we were trying to get better. we were trying to something full face mask that moved that you could up here on this stage. and i could brief you and you would know that i had on a mask. now i know you're thinking she's going to take it off now, right? she's. and i wish that were true, but my mask it was in a cardboard box in the archives in the basement of cia headquarters. it's turning green. it's of no use to anyone anyone. so it also had to be fast on and fast off. you had to be able to put it on in the dark, in in in a parking lot with no lights, no. and then somebody was after you, you had to be able to take it off, squish it down into nothing and put it in your armpit. these were the design requirements. it took us almost ten years to come up with the first one. the first one turned me into an

african-american man. i looked pretty good. i gloves. i had a suit and tie. i, i looked all right. so i went into my office. director to show him and he said. oh, my god, this is just so good. good, so good. so we went and it to the director of the cia. he liked it and he said, we're going to take you to the white house. and i said, whoa, whoa, i can't walk into the white house pretending to be a man. i mean, this looks great. yes, but but secret service, give 30 seconds with me and they're going to arrest me. so i said, let's let's just make me another woman. and that's what we ended up doing. and we did take it to the white house, took it to the white house when george h.w. bush was the preside. i wore the mask into office, the names that's webster on the far right. the beige coat is just sununu.

the next one is bob gates. the next one is brant scowcroft. and of course, george h.w. i took to the a folder of pictures him in disguise because. we had done stuff with him. he had been director of the cia. i said, i'll wait till you see what we'veot now. and he's looking around my like for a bag. i said, i'm wearing it. i'm just going to, just take it off and show it to you. and he said don't take it off yet. d he got up. he came over, he walked. he's looking. he didn't even know what he was looking for. he was just looking. couldn't see anything. sit back down. he said okay. take it off. so i did that thing which by the way is called today tom cruise peale. i'm a modest i'm not going to go after it, but it could have another name. and i'm holding it up to show

him, the hair, everything. it's just and it's light as a feather and it falls up in nothing. and i didn't put it under armpit, but and he really liked it. and everybody in the room liked it. and from a from a managerial point of view is my program at cia and i need more money for my program because this is going to cost us a bunch money. but having the president give it a nod wasn't a bad marketing ploy so. so i'm the first one to leave. that's why i said on the right as as as we briefed people left. i'm the first one out the door and right behind me is white house photographer who took this picture. and she said, what was that? i said, what she said, what did you do? i said, oh, i said, i can't talk about it. it's classified she gives me this look like lady, are you messing with me? it took her ten years to send me the photograph she was messing

with me. and when she said me the time i saw this picture, she had airbrush the mask out and left part of my in with finger sticking out. so it looks like i'm talking to the president of the united states like people come in my and they say wow that's a really interesting photograph of you. what were you saying to him? and i say, well, i can't talk about it. it's now they know they didn't know until now. this is colin powell coming into the office. we had worked with operation desert storm, with supported his people. we had done a lot of stuff him when he left, i told my boss, if he runs if he runs something, anything i will vote for him. what a man. and then the cold war was over. it was done. we won. nobody really knew what do tony

i tony mendez, my husband. we went to the greenbrier to celebrate it. we were feeling really good that we had had just the tiniest the tiniest part in ending that cold war. then they started the international spy museum. have any of you been anybody been to have you been to the new one? there's another one. a new one? yeah. we worked on that museum for three years before it even opened with mr. mott cleveland. it's his museum. it's going gangbusters. it's right now. they've got 17 of the james bond on display in one room. it is stunning. it's just don't even like cars, but it's just it's so beautiful. so even today, even after tony is gone. i spend a lot of time with talking to corporate groups, talking to school kids. actually, i come up to i come up to university of maryland in the

summer five times and talk to 1200 kids, 200 at a time. they got to spend a week each group spends a week in washington, dc taking a look at their government. and i suggest that they consider their future careers while they're we went to the oscars for argo so it's amazing there's absolutely now things just like being hit by lightning the odds of happening are so slim. here's tony who was never ever ever going to tell that story. he had to tell the story and after he did that, he kind of liked it. we i was invited up to new york by wired.com. wired.com is the story of argo was first written it was written as bait for hollywood. george clooney took the bait. that's why the movie was made. then they said back, we'll do

some more stuff. so i've done like four different videos up there with wired.com and they have gotten 23 million views. people really interested in spying. this is a picture one world trade center. we're doing wired video. that's my son jesse tony's son jesse. he had just done on the run out on the streets of manhattan at lunchtime with a film crew and. what that is is is it's it's idea that you can change you could use the crowd as part of your disguise you can literally walk down the street and just change while you're walking and the people behind they're going to lose you and they'll think it's their fault they'll never understand what you did. jesse came out of a out of it office in a suit and tie. what doesn't else? what kind end to this crowd? and he did this things.

he pulled his tie off because it was velcroed in the back, rolled it up, put in his pocket, grabbed his shirt, pulled it straight down because it was velcroed in the back and it have any sleeves because i'd cut off the night before reaches pocket pulled out one of those flimsy bags you get from the grocery put the shirt in the bag how did it go? he reached in another pocket, pulled out a beanie. he reached in a back pocket. guys out. he had his earphones on. he pulls them up puts them in. he's got his phone in his hand oh and now oh he had taken off his blazer. it was one of these and construct. so he rolled that up, put in the bag, pulled out another bag, put the first bag in the second bag and now you can that he's got full sleeve tattoos that i put on him the night before and just his ugliest watch ever saw. it's like it's huge. and so you've got this guy bopping down the street and his

beanie is ray-bans in his tats and his and the kid that in the suit and tie is gone. and no one blinked at what he was doing. and the film crew that we were showing this to so they could film it they couldn't film it because they lost him. they didn't know where he went. so it was it was it was kind of a win win thing. that was jesse's moment. he became famous with all of his friends because that the book is dedicated, ruth bader ginsburg. this is her kennedy center. i was there for an opera. she was there. nina totenberg was there. my i was a guest of someone when saw her, i started pulling out, you know, i'm i know how to do this. i got a little sequin purse in my phone. i'm getting it. and my friend said, no, no, ferris, don't you'll embarrass her. don't do that. i said, okay well, i took her picture and. that's that's is that's as good as i could as i could get it. but will tell you that when she was going to kennedy, you would

go you would take your seat. the opera house would dim the lights. everybody would be waiting for the music. and then the lights would come back up a little bit and everybody would turn. and here we come, ruth bader ginsburg down the center aisle with, an usher on each arm. and i mean, she was a little bitty woman, the whole opera house would stand up and cheer. she take her seat. they would deny it. and then the music would start. i thought, what a glorious way to to end your life. and this is for a cia gals. this is ruth. this is louise, our first superstar woman. she was bill secretary when the cia first began. and that's the end of my talk. and i think we have time for questions and we do. thank you. we've about 10 to 15 minutes for your questions. if you could.

the questions to this mike or to that mike over there, i'd be appreciate it. hi, love argo. i haven't read your book, but looking forward to it. how did you balance having to keep secrets and reporting with friendships? friendships were tricky when you worked for the cia. and my first husband told me about that, but i had already said yes to his proposal. so i any wiggle room left? what happens over time is you have friends outside of the cia and friends inside the cia, and you find that without a real thought process, you letting go of the outside leaders, the friend is back home who who don't understand where you are why you're traveling or what

you're doing and you're you're your cover story has to be so that it's really boring. nobody ever wanted nobody. my old friends never said, you know what? you what exactly do, you do. they just knew i for the military at point and i worked for the government another point so your original start fading away you make new friends inside the cia and everybody kind of gets it and we don't talk our jobs. but we understand that, you know, you could just suddenly be gone for a week and be back and and nobody's going like so you go although my first husband was he had we had a deal he had to bring back something to eat so he'd bring back a we'll have parmesan or a tray of baklava or, you know, i could figure out where he was. so you have this family. this family is formed inside of the cia. but the joke on you, because eventually someday you will

leave the cia. and when you do, there's this door they kind of clangs behind you. and now all of your friends that are still working there in, there, and all of those little inside jokes and all of the commonality, all that is now gone. and you you are an outsider and so you start separate from them and you then then then you have to confront either your original friends or your neighbors who've never, never known what you did anyway. and you have to confess and you have to. it's awful. and that's one of the not so good things about working for the cia is you have to you have to play that game. you must. so along that same line, how about your relationship with your family how did that change you can tell your family is at your discretion discretion

within the family. you can choose to tell people or not. my mother knew where i was, where i worked, and she was the whole time. but she's very discreet. woman my father, i told my dad where i work and him to be careful with that information. but could not be careful with it. he wanted to brag his daughter, but and it was it was, you know, you can't undo it. and i talked to him a couple of times and i said, i'm working. i'm still and he's he's like, i'm in wichita what? somebody is going to come here? i said, maybe, i don't know. but some people could be put in danger in. danger if if where i work was known. my dad never i, i wished i had not told him. it was just it was a bad decision on my part. but family was was like that didn't tell friends my best

friend. it's in this book my best friend while was working was a british girl. so i had to have her investigated because. she was my best friend and she was fine. she was dealer in foreign currency and then she knew i had some crummy job. the military, she felt sorry for me. she worked for my bank chase manhattan, and she'd make these $10 million mistakes call me and. oh, god, you're going to fire me. i just. i thought it was lira better, but in. and then after we retired we had 60 minutes came to one of our art shows, the whole film crew and liz, we sent a notice to everyone saying the media will be at our show, proceed accordingly. but liz didn't get the memo. she came down to surprise me and ran into that film crew before she ran into and they're like, well, what was it like having this good friend working for the cia all those years and she didn't speak to me for about a

year now? she speaks to me. but we are it'll never be best friends again because i lied to her those years and she was she was english. she was foreign. i mean, there was it's part of the deal. so there's so many, you know, tv shows and movies that center around spies. you mentioned impossible killing eve black. and i'm curious for you, which of those movies and tv shows and pop culture do you feel is most accurate to maybe your cia experience or someone else who knows cia experience? i love that question. i watched americans really hard. i liked someone clap. oh, yeah that was good. and the fbi guy next door. oh, my god, that so right. the thing i didn't about the americans was and i bet it was

movie stars. carrie. carrie russell. is that her name? her disguises? they just kept changing her hair. she's so pretty she's just so pretty. and then now she's got brown hair, and and then the next week, she's got red hair. she's so pretty. it just was a new hairdo. but he was brilliant. he was not he was not just putting on a wig. he was becoming the guy with that horrible hairdo and those little glasses. and he'd say, hello, martha i just i fell in love with that guy. oh, funny story. i was walking through the spy museum and his cubicles like it was everywhere. and a voice came out said, who's watching the americans? and i said, i am. and they said, washington post needs a review. it it's going to end like in three weeks. will you do the review. i said sure yeah. well i didn't realize that it had been on for what six years.

i canceled my life. i binge watch the americans endlessly endlessly and really studied it, wrote it. i wrote a really good review because i did like it and then i met joe weisberg was the creator and and we're on a zoom and. he's just saying, i really liked your review. i said, thank i really liked your show. and he says to what's the painting on the wall behind? because i'm in my office and it's big painting. i said, oh, that's tony's last painting because i didn't tell you my was an artist for his whole life, was a good artist. and joe weisberg, is that painting for sale? i said, no, it's mine. he said, could you make me a copy? i sure it's called a g. clay. i can have one made for you. he didn't say. how much is it? he said it to me. so it was $2,500. i never heard him. yeah. anyway, i'm selling art on the side. if anybody wants, sue me and

i'll. i'll make you such a such a deal. a bargain. but i did. i thought that show was. was the part about the kids. you got these kids running around and they know what you're doing. and and who are these people in the living room in the evening? we don't know. these people. who are they? what are you doing? and that's just so real. and the fbi neighbor was price list. joe weisberg worked for the cia and he really got it he you know where the where the hair or the trip wires are where the where where the danger is. i thought it well done. i was delighted to. watch that last chance. does anybody want to know i ever almost got shot. jonah? digitized sets. and the book? it's in the book, but mostly. mostly people not shooting at me, except for three times an hour. the mission impossible disguises like yours. are they?

but there's. there's a very realistic. but they're not real. they're cgi and. i mean, it's brilliant. it's the effects that they can achieve on a screen would would spur us onward. but we really had these masks that that part of the idea of them fitting under your your armpit was, like if they come around a corner and you have to make a move, you to just be able to do that. there's a man that lives in california who did in moscow. he took it off and he put it under a rock and he got away. so i talked him last year and i said, did you ever go back looking for it? did he said, oh, no, no, no. he said, they built a high rise. he said, my mask is a high rise in downtown moscow. there's a kgb museum. um, where what they call foreign finds when they, when they get our, whether it's disguise or electronics or whatever, they

put american spy stuff in the kgb museum, just like in the museum in d.c., we have a lot of russian stuff. we have that we captured. then we start copying each other we look at their cameras and we go, oh, that's nice. but we would change it. we would, we would do that. and then we'll make one of those and then they'll capture that it goes back and forth. it's fun. please help me. thank john mendez.

professor mark david hall joins us now via zoom he's the author of the just released book who's afraid of christian by christian nationalism is not a threat to america or the church. mr. hall good sunday to you. how do you define the term nationalism?

why? you have my own definition, but i think the important thing to begin with is how it's been defined. 2006 basically starting 2006, a steady stream, books started coming out, explain that there's this group of christians theocrats who want to take over america for christ and oppress literally everyone else except for white christian males. this is in the polemical literature by people like michelle ingersoll and kathryn stewart and julie, julie ingersoll, michelle goldberg, katherine stewart, andrew seidel. they make these claims. in 2000, 19 scholars came along and brought a bit more sense to the debate. but people like andrew whitehead and samuel perry defined christian nationalism as it stew of racism sexism. nationalism, people who want to bring christ and country and again oppress everyone except for christian males and. moreover, they argue that 51.9% of americans fully or partially embrace this toxic stew. and so this is a very scary phenomenon.

and if you listen to almost all the critics, one of the things i do in my book is i say no good reason to believe that more than a tiny handful of americans embrace this sort of toxic stew. so i redefined christian nationalism. what i mean by it are those americans who believe america was founded as a christian nation and who believe christianity should be favored above other religions that instance, christian prayer, be returned to public schools, contending is far less of a toxic phenomenon, a toxic ideology that it doesn't necessarily involve sexism, militarism, and that of thing, and yet that it's still a problem attic. and so i offer prudential constitu biblical and theological reasons for rejecting even this benign form of christian nationalism. how long has the christian nationalism, as you define it, how long has it been around in relation to what you say is this relatively new phenomenon and and how critics have just defined christian nationalism?

yes, i would say it's accurate trace my definition of christian nationalism back to the american founding and it's a little agonistic we could push it back to the earliest colonial settlement we had things like established churches and this sort of thing in virginia, the general assembly even told the anglican how to govern itself and then suddenly has been favored above other religions really throughout almost all of american until now. maybe when you get the mid 20th century. so it's around a long time, it's always problematic and i'm glad we've moved away from it. significant ways there. about 20% of americans who want move back to it, who want to return christian prayers to public schools, who want congress to declare america to be a christian nation. so it's still around, but it's a far cry from the handmaid's tale described by so many of the critics. your book is who's afraid christian nationalism. why christian is not a threat to or the church mark david hall. with us in this segment, the

washington journal, if you want to join the conversation, phone lines as usual, democrats 202748 8000 republican 202748 8001. independents. 02748 8002 andrew seidel is another author and one that i know you know well. you've debated in the past his book is the founding why christian nationalism is un-american. he spoke about christian nationalism last fall in event sponsored by the student union. and this is a little bit of what he had to say about christian is a political religion premised on the claim that the united states was founded as a christian nation, that we were based on judeo principles, whatever that vague phrase mean, and that we have strayed from that foundation. and they use the language of return of getting back to our godly roots to justify all

manner, oftentimes hateful, evil, public policy, think back to june 1st, 2020. this is when then president donald trump had peaceful protesters, gassed, beaten and brutalized with rubber bullets so that he could walk to church to pose for photograph with a bible. the point of that malignant stroll was to show that are a bible believing bible beating, churched nation, that we are a christian nation and anyone who disagrees should be beaten and gassed. the goal of christian nationalism is to or rewrite the constitution so that it creates two classes of people the right kind conservative christian and everybody else mark david hall on andrew seidel's comments and the goals of christian

nationalism. so one of the things that i appreciate about andrew then of the freedom from religion foundation is he's crystal clear that he's not academic and his first book he writes that this is a polemic, this is not an academic study. and what he said there was some truth that certainly there are people out there who believe america's founded as a christian nation. and i think there is a sense of wanting to return. the question is, what do they want to return to. my guess and what i argue is that they really want to return to the america of the 1950s without the segregation. and i want to be clear about that. without the sexism. so in america, where you don't have drag queen story hours, we have teachers leading, children in prayer. they actually aren't christian prayers. they're usually written by state committees. and they go something like this, oh, god, please bless her. they help us to study hard and safe. amen. so, again, any monotheist could say that sort of prayer in most americans were monotheist. so is this sense of wanting to return something a golden age? i argue in my book that this is

ill and that there are actually excellent for getting the government out of the business, running churches, having teachers, lead prayer in public school, this sort of thing. andrew seidel goes on in his next book, american crusade to make this sort of bombastic kind of crazy arguments, frankly. for instance, he talks about home, the u.s. court has been taken over by white christian nationalists and evidence. he points to a number of cases where, in fact, for instance, the finds that a 25 foot cross a now in public land is constitutional and he says there it is christian nationalism, a christian being favored above others. one of the things he neglects to mention is you have two jewish justices. i'm elena kagan to stephen breyer in the majority and clarence thomas, although he apparently is is still a white christian national. so he's african-american and so the case submitted to the court says is not unconstitutional to a cross on public land. i go a list of cases, six or seven cases, where in all of

them you have elena kagan, stephen bryan breyer, ruth bader ginsburg agreeing that a christian symbol, a christian program, is constitutional, that philadelphia can't discriminate against christian organizations. and he just simply ignores all counter evidence, as he does with the court cases. find in favor of muslim plaintiffs, for instance versus arabs and abercrombie and french decision for instance. so we need to understand he's coming from a particular perspective as is boston these believe in a wall of separation between and state a wall that would somehow require a 1925 cross now on public land memorializing dead from world were one to be torn down or moved or decapitated. andrew seidel's organization freedom from religion foundation objected when ohio wanted to include a star of david in, a holocaust memorial. and if you think about the holocaust memorial very close to you in washington, d.c., there are all sorts of biblical imagery images and passages

throughout that memorial. andrew site elba, boston. believe all. of this must go their strict separation is coming from a particular perspective and i think that's fine. they have every right to do that. of course. but to say that just because someone world war one, eric cross, doesn't need to be torn down is a christian nationalism who a nationalist who wants to engage in hate and evil. i believe andrew seidel used those words right. i think that's just a leap. it's three steps too far. you mentioned, bob boston, he'll be joining us and talking with viewers in about 35 minutes here in washington journal. let me let you chat with some viewers plenty already calling in to talk you the book again who's afraid of christian nationalism and just published earlier this month. correct? correct. peter is sarasota, florida democrat. good morning. yes. who is afraid of christian nationalism? i would say members of every other religion and non believers certainly deserve to be afraid.

christian nationalism. andrew seidel booked. excellent. it goes into great detail but the book is entitled the founding myth goes into great detail about how and why the founders were strongly to america considered a christian nation or nation of any other religion keeping. a wall of separation between. church and state goes into great detail about it. the god ever mentioned in the constitution, the declaration of independence uh goes, against the king of england very strongly. and the christian religion states. it states in the bible, uh, you know, kings are to be obeyed and so forth and so on. that's exactly the opposite. what the declaration is doing, it was going strongly against king of england and putting on its own path. yeah, jefferson stated. thomas jefferson stated in the

treaty of tripoli. 1805, i quote the government of the united states is not in any sense founded the christian religion shouldn't be any more plain and obvious that thank you, mark david hall. well, thank you. i'm first of all, jefferson and the thing to do with the treaty of tripoli. andrew book is full of inaccuracies and falsehoods i reviewed and law and liberty i encourage you to go and read that review. you begin question or statement really with a claim that all sorts of americans are afraid of christian national some. this is somewhat of an empirical question so we can turn to recent pew studies. 2020 to 2024. and these studies find that in. 54% of americans have never heard the phrase christian nationalism. of those who have, well, a total percentage american population, 25% have a negative view of it. and 5% have a positive view of

it. so there seem to be precious few christian nationalists, certainly precious self-identified christian nationalist out there. this is bill in pennsylvania, republican. you're up next. yes. hey, you for taking my call. hey, uh, that fella said that our our country wasn't founded. do these folks ever go to, like, um, our state capitol buildings and see bible verses and the ten commandments that are that were put on there hundreds of years ago? i was just curious about that. and, and as far as i reading a book, i think the problem started when our country stopped reading the book, the word of god, a christianity isn't just for certain countries. as you read the word of god, god they extended mercy and grace, salvation to anybody, any nation that comes unto him. and according to this book, uh, we know the end of this book and that's what they're kind of getting scared of. like it not god is god. and if isn't the god of all, he

is into god at all. and god says that christ is going to come. we know where he's going to come to hot spot of the world over in folks read your bible. if you read the word of god all makes sense. you all see it coming. that's in pennsylvania. mark david hall did you want to jump in? sure. well, let me affirm that affirmation that one should read the bible. i think that's an excellent, excellent in my previous book in america, a christian founding, i make what i think is an excellent argument that america's founders were influenced by christian ideas or ideas developed within the christian tradition of political reflection. in many important ways. it led them to embrace the separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and most importantly, it led them to a robust understanding of liberty that protected americans. that's why they banned test religious test for federal office. one of my favorite documents from this era is george washington's letter to the hebrew congregation in newport,

rhode island, where he makes clear that this tiny little religious minority there may be 2005 --. and in north america at the time at the most. and he makes it crystal clear that they have the same right to worship god according to the dictates of conscience and act upon the religious convictions whenever possible. and it's a year by the time we get to the founding era in founders were influenced by christianity in certain ways, but they did not create a christian nation. that language is way too exclusive. it sounds. if the nation is made by and for christians that was never the founders intent. this is mark in albany, new york, independent. good morning. hi. how's it going? i to clarify that the guy from israel is not the true god they will yell way is, not the true god and christianity and judaism claim that yahweh is the true god and is not.

swami vivekananda to america. in 1889 and he spoke at the parliament religions. and you can look this up so mark to mark bring me to 2024 and this debate today on christian. and. so jesus wasn't the son of god, the son of god a concept they say if you step on the spiritual path, are considered the son of god, that is a concept that's not the real story, because god goes to infinity as the white light, you stood up, you got your point. mark, i want to come back mark david hall to the founders and their views on on religion and politics. what gets cited a lot is thomas jefferson's letter to the danbury baptists from 1802, in which he he states in that letter his views on the

separation of church and state saying the he wants to establish a quote wall separation between church and. what's your reading of of that famous letter. sure. jefferson has every right to his own views. of course, jefferson played no role in drafting or ratifying the first amendment. he was even in america at the time. the wall of separation if you think about it just for a second, as horrible metaphor to reflect the language of the first amendment establishment clause, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. that's a one way barrier. it's a restriction on congress. and through incorporation, the states in no way, shape or form can be viewed a restriction on religious americans on the church. the church has every right to speak into politics. so the civil rights movement led by the reverend dr. martin luther king, jr. absolutely appropriate and not a violation. the establishment clause. let me take a step back, though, if we go to that. i believe he his draft of that letter on saturday day on

sunday. thomas jefferson, then president of the united states, went to church services in the u.s. capitol building where he heard john leland, the baptist itinerant minister in an opponent of religious establishments, preach, and they regularly held worship services in the us capitol. jefferson is president permitted the war department building in the department building to be used for worship services as well and so whatever jefferson desired in his heart of hearts, he did not act as if there was a wall of separation. neither did james madison. neither did any the founders. this is completely a historic. the literal letter was ripped out of context when it first appeared in a court opinion in reynolds versus the united states and then unfortunately, it was used in a horrible historical from the perspective of supreme court opinion and since versus board of education, where the court basically the establishment clause requires, a wall of separation between church and even though the

majority as they were claiming that permitted new jersey to fund or subsidize using busses to get to parochial schools. and this is one of the reasons they're establishment clause jurisprudence has been such a mess. and fortunately, over the last 20 years, the court has backed seriously away from ever son. and then. lemon and how has now a very sensible approach toward the establishment clause actually? why does the house and senate open their business every in prayer? this goes back way to the continental actually, and then the confederation congress is just consider what we do and if you go to 1788 is a confederation congress is going out of business. congress held a are we going to pay the chaplains we've had james madison is on record voting to pay the chaplains. the first federal congress comes around. james madison is on the committee that decides. okay what sort of legislation legislative chaplains are we going to have. this is 1789. so one of congress's first acts

is to select a chaplain for the house and a chaplain the senate. and we've had chaplains ever since. so this is just considered part of what we do in america. again, if the establishment clause required a wall of separation between church and state that would clearly be inappropriate. but what the first amendment does is, it prohibits an establishment of religion in no reasonable universe is selecting a chaplain who leads people in voluntary prayer and establishment of religion, which is why congress believe unanimously agreed to have chaplains in both the house and the senate. and we've done so ever since. and as you point out we do, too, today and other a few americans at places like the from religion foundation in protest and other americans united for separation of church and state. but does anyone worry about this? do you think it's a good thing. i think it's a fairly benign thing. wouldn't bother me if congress decided not to do this anymore. but i don't think it actually hurts most of anyone. and presumably these chaplains provide aid and comfort to

members of the legislature who are far from home. and if that's the case then i say more power to them. in wilmington, illinois, democrat. good morning. you're on with professor mark david greene. mark david hall, excuse me. thank you. the last time we talked religion, i was kicked off the air for saying that i thought religion it best belief in magic and gauche and at worst an excuse to use god to kill and commit genocide. and i was forced to go to church long after. i quit believing in god, but i'll go back to the ambrose bierce quote religion is the daughter of hope and fear, explaining the ignorance to nature of the unknowable and for all these people going out. shame know god is real and jesus is real. they do scare me because. they're just acting out of fear instead of logic. mr. hall yeah, well, there are people who hate religion and i'm very sorry if this young man was

scarred a young man. it's horrific. and i'm sorry to hear that this does well. many of the polemical literature, i think many of the authors of this polemical literature were at one time believers. they were somehow hurt by the faith. and so they had this view of christianity usually religion more generally, as this oppressive spirit, oppressive force. so if you read only one book, i would commit to you, andrew seidel, see the myth book, his hatred religion is just palpable and he engages in mockery of. the judaism of christianity. and i'm sorry for seidel that he felt hurt in this way. but but it does show where i think many these critics are coming from. how long have you been researching and writing about nationalism and what got you into topic? so i was flying home from a speaking engagement on january six 2021, and i and on layover i got a note, a reporter, an email actually saying, you comment on

the religious images among the rioters at the capitol hill, and this was the first i had heard of it. so i said yes, i'd be happy to do that. was horrified by the riot, but i said i'd be happy to comment on the images. and it took her about 20 minutes to send me images and i went through the footage i could find there were lots of footage you could go through quickly. and what i saw was a sea of americans flags, a sea of trump flags, it seemed, and no christian images. eventually she sent me some slides, tweets, images, a tweet that showed a woman who had a sign that said, like, god, freedom and liberty or something like that. she was at at the washington monument, which is 1.5 miles from the u.s. capitol. and she was not among the rioters. in fact most of the images had nothing to do with the riot at all. and those that were from the riot were ambiguous. revolutionary era flag said an appeal to heaven. and so i said to this woman, you might want to be careful with this narrative you seem to be crafting.

i don't see much by way of christian images among these images you sent me. she completely ignored me and came out with the story. the next day. christian nationalist have attacked u.s. capitol building and this was a narrative you saw throughout all of america. perry and others explicitly. things like this is this christian nationalist it gets. and so this just piqued my interest. and so i started reading everything could find about christian nationalism. most of my work is the american founding or about religious church state relations throughout all of american. and i was just shocked at this literature, most of it, as i've said, just is just polemical literature written journalist or aggrieved academic who clearly had axes to grind. and even the academic literature and was profoundly flawed. and what seemed me to be obvious ways. and so what i do in my recent book is i spend two chapters debunking this polemical literature, both the polemical literature and the scholarly literature that's critical of christian nationalism. of course, christians, after all this year, 16 years of attacking

christian national in 2022, they come out and embrace christian nationalism. now they want to redefine it and, insist it's not sexist and racist and militarist and that sort of thing. and i take at their word, but it just strikes me as a horrific idea. and then this leads the critics to say, look, here it is. here's evidence that christian nationalism exists. and so the book hopefully debunks all of that. and it gives a reasonable definition of christian nationalism. and yet i want to emphasize, i critique even this most benign form of christian nationalism. i think it's very bad idea to attempt return to teacher led prayer to public schools, whether christian or generic itself. make no mistake about it. i'm no fan of christian national ism really in any of its manifestations. story that got a lot of attention. is donald trump selling god bless u.s.a. bibles? what did you think about that and all the attention it got in the news? yeah, i it disgusting. i think he's a huckster.

i think he's always been a huckster on on on the prowl to make a buck. he keeps coming up with innovative schemes. and yeah, i think really he has no business doing that. i yeah. i believe the bible use for that is king james version and i'd be wrong about that. that's public domain version. you can get a version free. i believe you can get a printed version for like 399 on amazon. i encourage people to do that there's no need for a bible with song lyrics and constitution and pictures of america in it. let's read the word of god and. it's not there. to david in austin, texas independent. good morning. yes, i hope can hear me. i just had a question for your guests. firstly, i totally agree with the idea of reading the bible. i think it's a i think it's an awesome book. i also wanted to get your guests on the j edgar hoover the institution as proponent or

defender of white christian nationalism. your book says we don't have to be afraid of it if white christian nationalism. but when you look at this institution and how it's in the in the rise of white christian nationalism across the country. i just wanted to know if you had an opinion on how this organization has conducted itself in in support quote unquote patriotic ism and white christian nationalism. i just listen. thank you. yeah, thank you. so i just had a chance to read the gospel of j edgar hoover a month ago after this book had gone to press, or i sent it off the printers anyway. it is fascinating. and there certainly are ways in which during the cold war, especially american corporations and government entities, understood. i said in an existential battle. but year i mean the united of america. so the united states of america is facing communism. and so this certainly did include some folks who might

have had christianity's best interest at heart to emphasize the extent to which, look, we're americans. and part of what it means to be americans is to be christian. and so you had corporations pushing this. hoover pushed it. he had had retreats. were fbi agents would be bused off a government expense to hear from religious leaders and this sort of thing. it's in the 1950s, of course, that we had the words under god in the pledge allegiance or we had in god we trust to the money. i think this is understanding, annabelle, from the historical context. i don't think any of it is particularly laudable from a christian perspective, nor do i think most of it was harmful. to this day, we include the words under god in pledge we have in god we trust on our money. let me ask who is harmed by that? now, i know some people annoyed and some people have brought lawsuits saying this violates the establishment clause. but again, i want to continue and argue for this at great depth in a number of works. did america have a christian

founding included? the establishment clause does not build a wall of separation between church and state? if it did maybe a god we trust should come off the money. what the establishment clause says is that we are not going to have a national church just like england has a national. and by incorporation, we going to have state churches. so it would be inappropriate for the state of texas to say the baptist church is the state church for texas. we're going to tax everyone to it and to support the church, the baptist church and. absolutely inappropriate. right. but to have symbolic things like in god, we trust in their money, not constitutionally problematic. and i don't think it's particularly anyone. the gospel of j edgar hoover by lauren martin came out in february. mark david hall's book who's afraid of christian nationalism, came out earlier this month, and he's taking your calls. for about the next 15 minutes here on the washington on this sunday morning. this john in shiner, texas republican. good morning and on c-span and

this is i really appreciate the person chosen conversation we seem to be having about this made up crisis. i was watching joe scarborough this morning and he had someone it was his name older basically comparing the we the dumb maga people comparing trump to jesus in the hysteria. it's just absolutely beyond the pale. well, what this is really about is and you mentioned earlier about, you know, the government, there are two sources of power. we believe in god. the good are in labor rights and the creator, which is declared in a declaration of independence or the government and the democrats and are trying to do is remove any form of other religion besides government in the system. if you go to china or any combinations, what do you see? you see pictures of leaders here, united states. we have crosses on highways. so the only way to control the power is for the government to remove and to discredit it, to

rid of god in our public life so they can be the only our rights come from our creator government. and once the government says the government, your rights go from us, they can take it away. that's what this is really about. look out for the forest, for the trees. great conversation. thanks, mr. hall. well, there's a lot there and a just begin by pointing out that i agree. absolutely no rights come from god. hold these truths to be self-evident. that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and pursuit. happiness. those words were originally penned by thomas jefferson. they were revised a bit by congress, of course. jefferson is no orthodox, but this was just commonplace in the late 18th century, writes from god. that's why they're. very important. and yet. what was it a few weeks ago you had a journalist mocking people who believe rights come from god, saying this is evidence of christian nationalism. and then she goes to to

associate all sorts of evils. a parade evils with christian nationalists and me. if i believe that a movement that wanted to oppress every american except for white christian, even though i'm a white christian man, would be terrified. that would be horrific thing. there is just no good evidence in it. very much appreciate your listeners comment that this is the first sensible conversation. there have been other sensible conversations course, but almost all the critics use this language. literally give at least eight quotes like this christian national wisdom is an existential threat. american democracy and the christian church. christian nationalism is a threat to the government by the people. for the people. of the people. christian white. christian nationalism is the greatest threat to american democracy in the church. america. on and on people go, literally. some critics compared american christian nationalist, the people they think are christian nationalist to nazis and

fascist. this is just not helpful for our public discourse. and so part of the reason i wrote my book to say, hey, let's just tap things down again, maybe even get away from labeling people and just have a discussion about the important issues of our day, about the sanctity of human life, about religious liberty, about the border, about homelessness. and let's just talk about these issues without people and try to come in good faith and discuss of positives and minuses of different approaches we might take to these things and hammer out some sort of reasonable consensus solutions to them. they'll be so more useful than simply labeling people, christian nationalists and people on right engage in this sort of activity to. right. labeling folks as woke whatever else these labels are not helpful. you talk about how many people in america consider themselves christian nationalists and and differing opinions of what that is and you talk about labeling.

but can you kind of give us some numbers here or some percentage of americans to try to help us understand this? sure. well, if go by self-identification, people say they say christian nationalism is a good thing. that's 5% of americans. and even that figure is problematic for two reasons. first of all, some american is when they hear those words put together, they might just be thinking, well, i'm a christian and i'm a patriot, so i guess i'm a christian nationalist. and they might not embrace of this toxic stew of racism sexism, homophobia, ism, militarism, that sort of thing. on the other hand, it is certainly possible to be that you don't identify. i think almost no americans, close to zero americans would say i am a racist. probably a tiny fraction of 1% would. and yet there might be. and probably are more than a tiny fraction, 1% of americans who are accurately called racists. and so what social scientists do is they come up with various

attempts to measure a phenomenon that they that they then define. so whitehead and perry who are serious social scientists come with a definition of christian nationalism that really is a toxic stew. americans who conflate god and country, who are racist, sexist, homophobic, military. and they find that 51.9% of americans fully or partially embrace toxic stew. of course, they always go on to say, but not everyone who identifies as a christian nationalist through our scale is is a sort of evil person. and it really is pretty much an evil person. one of the strange findings in their study is 5% of african-americans identify or are labeled as christian nationalist, according to whitehead and perry. now what we see is the social science has gotten better pr a neighborly faith, especially in a great article by smith and adler have suggested whitehead and perry's figures are just grossly inflated by any measure. and so by coming up with far

more reasonable measures, we could go into the measures, if you'd like. i'd be happy to talk about the details of them. but by looking at far more reasonable measures, maybe we have 10% of americans who are christian nationalist adherents. this is this was found in a phone study, a very serious study, the everyday crusade, a neighborly faith came to a similar sort of conclusion. and what we find is that among these folks there are people who have views that are problematic. of course, all americans have views that are problematic, not literally all that many. so, for instance, of the 10% of americans who are labeled as christian nationals adherence, 9% think -- in, america have too much power. so that of smacks of anti-semitism. but unfortunately in a very sad about this, about 9% of americans overall think -- have too much power. and so this shows there's anti-semitism in, america, and that the christian adherents,

christian nationalist adherents share in the anti-semitism. it is interesting when you go to the next question, though, or the next possible. do you have a favorable -- view of -- in america, christian nationalist adherents, according to the study, actually are more likely to have a favorable view of american than are than average population. so when we dig down into this i think precious little evidence that are racist that in america there are people who gather to ensure charlottesville in 2017, i think are about 300 people who gathered this. this disgusts me, horrifies me. and i pray for these people, folks who believe that the white race is superior and should somehow be on top. these people. no one claimed those folks were christian nationalists. in fact, the true aryan nation types oftentimes don't like christian indy because of christianity's teaching that all are created in the image of god and must be treated with respect and dignity. so your true racist national laws oftentimes don't like the

christian faith or other religions, for that matter. so precious few embrace truly toxic stew. more reasonable measure of christian nationalism come in between ten and maybe 30%, depending on how you how you can slice it. by my measures, and i'd be happy to discuss how i got there. now, my estimate about 1% of americans this view that christianity should be favored above other faiths. and that's a view i reject. but it's a view that does not return to the days of jim crow or slavery or women being unable to vote. so the talks still described by white hannah perry and, many of the critics just exists but exist among a tiny fraction. 1% of americans, just a little over 5 minutes left with mark david hall this morning. profess ser regent university, author of the book who's afraid of christian lorette, has been waiting in cleveland ohio. good morning. good morning.

this is a real good conversation. morning. but if we're going all the way back to the founding of the country we came skip over slavery and when we look at the of people who are enjoying the fruits from that free labor i mean any country that had 100 years was the free should be number one and everything and then we at it bring it up to today we get sick and all of those religions all of every day you get a priest or a rabbi, somebody's going to jail for abuse the kids and then they want to come in and try to

regulate policy over people's lives and they don't want to pay pay. you live in homes, they eat reagan in some million dollars every week every, week it is just don't make any sense. mark david hall. yeah, so in my last book proclaim, liberty throughout all the land, i have a couple of chapters on the founders and slavery and the abolition list. i show that many founders were turning against voluntarily freeing their slaves, ending slavery in eight of the northern states, banning slavery in the north with territory. so when there was a recognition that slavery was an evil, horrible that needed to be ended and we were moving in that direction. fortunately unfortunately. eli whitney the cotton gin that made the production a certain sort of cotton profitable on the american interior south. and this led to a renewed lease on life for slavery, which

wasn't ended really the 13th, 14th, the 15th amendment. but then we had the horrible jim crow legislation that arose after that. so, yeah, race has been in problematic throughout american thank goodness for those founders that came to oppose slavery for usually for the christian convictions thank goodness for the abolitionist movement thank goodness for the civil rights movement led by the reverend dr. martin luther king jr and others. so i contend that christianity has actually been a very positive force for the flourishing of all human. so all of american history. but we live in a sinful world and there continues to be elements of racism that must be combated. there continues to be race, religious hucksterism, that really should be regulated better. and we should consider various tax policies and this sort of thing and we live in a fallen world. and i'm sorry do but i think christianity maybe the best answers to evolving world in which we live and just historically it's done a lot of

good in the united states of america. final 2 minutes here. can come back to the founders, specifically to the declaration of independence. what you quoted the declaration that famous line we hold truths to be self-evident that all are created equal, that they are by their creator with certain unalienable, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. is that a complete list of what we're endowed our creator for, or is that a sampling of the liberties? yeah, i would say it's a sampling and, you know, it's telling. think that, you know, lock keepers routinely spoke of life, liberty and property. jefferson used in his draft. the more broad pursuit of happiness. yeah, that we have a variety of rights that americans endowed with that all people are endowed with. let's clear about that. and these certainly in the most basic level, a right not to be treated adversely because of the color of our skin, the to be

free, the right to worship, god accorded a conscience. but i'm certainly open the development of human rights. and this is really what we've seen in human rights discourse as get into the 20th century. maybe our rights well beyond what what are what mostly negative rights as they're conceived in the american founding. and perhaps they should include positive rights as well. a right to an education, for instance, and that the government might have some some obligation to make that we were able to attain that right. in other words, we don't just simply lead people free to say, okay, get an education you want or not if you want, but the government may in fact reasonably be to have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that people are educated. mark david hall is the of the book who's afraid of christian? it came out at the beginning of and we appreciate your time this morning i'm going to quickly ree

bios to jennifer strong, who's moderating this fireside chat with frank mccourt around his brand new book, actually officially out tomorrow, our biggest fight. just going to read their bios and. also, i have a quote about the book from none other than bruce springsteen, who's actually come back to asbury park. you're looking at that where he had to start. i'm going to read the bios and then i'll bring them both up on stage. jennifer strong is producer and journalist based here in new york. she is the creator of several top science and technology podcasts for newsrooms, including propublica, the wall street journal and mit technology review. her latest show launched last

year, and i believe this conversation should also on shift. so do check that and a previous conversation that was also on her incredible podcast, check out shift. also frank mccourt, who we're having this chat with to celebrate our fight. don't forget our biggest fight outcome from court is civic entrepreneur and executive chairman of mccourt global along with for our partners for today the founder and executive chairman of project liberty, which is a far reaching effort to build an internet where individuals have control over their data, a voice, and how operate and more access to the economic benefits of innovation. he's also the author of as you see it, our biggest fight reclaiming liberty, humanity and dignity in the digital age. so please give a round of applause to both of them during coming up. but you're really going to start it before frank and jennifer.

i want to set the stage. yeah, one vote because. you know, i wish we had born to run or something like that we could cue, but we'll get that for time. so a lot of great comments that you'll see if you go to our biggest fight a dot com one of them that really struck me was from bruce springsteen because he love bruce springsteen. he calls it a timely call to arms of the inherent dangers of our digital revolution and a manifesto for a new way forward. it's essential reading for our times. please give it up for frank mccourt. jennifer strong. thank you. all right. thank you everybody. thank you so much for joining us. and congratulations on the book. yeah, thank you very much. you know, in it you say internet is broken. it doesn't have be that way. let's start with that first bit. how do you think the is broken? well, it's broken because we had this awesome piece of technology was you know created that was

decentralized and empower for individuals and it held so much promise and about 20 years ago, everything changed you know, instead of it being a decentral ized, human centric internet, it became a very much a centralized and autocratic and surveillance based internet. you know, it because of the apps, the big apps that showed up and started to just scrape our data and use it in ways that some were decent. i suppose many were not very harmful as as we're learning more about it and, and there's just a a lot of harm that's being done and we wouldn't allow any utility or infrastructure to as much harm as this is doing without, you know, saying enough is enough in and let's just fix this. do you mind to spell out the harms from where you sit? well, let's all what we could spend the rest of the evening talking about the harms. right. we, we're not blind. right. we all, we all see them.

we feel them. we know that they're now. we are we are benefiting now from the research that's proving them and these harms being talked about. now, often. but let's let's talk about the ability to a functioning democracy. right. you know that's that's kind of hard right now mean borderline not governable so that's a harm let's talk about civil discourse wouldn't it be nice just to be able to have conversations and be able to kind of come to some kind of consensus and and friendly agreement on things instead having, you know, school committee meetings that armed police information, you know, which civilized advances based on our ability to to gain knowledge and to build out knowledge and what facts are and what truth is. and right now, we've taken step giant step backward because of missing disinformation. so we have a very, very polluted

ankara ecosystem and their most importantly of all. and one thing that david didn't mention, i'm father of seven children, the harms to children that are being right now, which is this is not speculation, this is real, it's happening. and any of you with children or that are watching know what's happening to a whole generation that's being preyed upon by this technology. right there. it's an addictive technology. and i'm talking about social media primarily. that is really brains and really stealing adolescent from kids. like why it's it's a how we sit back and watching a whole generation become anxious and and depressed and have thoughts. suicide. i mean, these statistics are alarming. so there are a few harms right there but. we can fix this and to call out the infrastructure of the

internet is itself has always been decentralized so really you're talking about the web here when we talk about centralized internet. well i'm sort of so i'm talking about you know, the internet when it began in and as we know it, roughly 1983 with the adoption, some simple thin layer protocols. so in this case, it was tcp ip which which connected devices, and it was designed and built as decentralized communication system. when our government was concerned, centralized telecommunication system, we had in the fear that it might be disable by at the time the soviet union and if it could if could disable a centralized hub of we would be without communication so they asked universities and to get involved to build a decent communication system again.

1983. these devices adopted this protocol. we had the internet. you decentralized, powerful, awesome. 1989 i think that's what you're to, which is the web, that's timber chris lee another thin layer protocol http hypertext protocol that we all adopted. and now we had the data linked up so devices and data now. one footnote here, we are still an ip address on the internet right. we're not a person. you're not on the internet. your device is on the internet. so this was a devices, machines and then data. so but still. in roughly 20 years ago began the app age and the app age changed the intent of the internet and how it operates.

and so now we entered a central a phase of the internet where the game was now that this data has been freed let's build machines right at the operating as platforms that can gather the data as fast as we can and centralize it aggregate it and then we'll figure out how to commercialize it. and so now that's when things got off the rails and. so it's it's really the the the user as we know it now, which very app centric and app driven that's changed the original intent of the of the men women who created the internet and the worldwide web. all right. throughout the book, you say when we hear the word data should actually hear the word personhood. can you unpack that? what does that mean. well? well, it means as this app age upon us, the the these apps

ended up collecting the information they could about each of us. right and it the term that most of you are familiar with is they began to you know, collect our personal information, our social graphs and it is the became the the real holy grail of the business was to to really map us so create human mapped network of of all of us and not just our relationships and where we shop or, where we physically are, but everything we do and and in kind of our behaviors, our preferences and now there's enough information on each of us to predict will react to certain and how we can be triggered into certain behaviors.

so now it's gotten to the point of being a predictive tech that understands and is making judgments about our personality and our emotional makeup. so it's we're way, way beyond, oh, isn't this cool? i can go buy something and have it delivered to me tomorrow. this is now very predatory exploitive technology and it's in it's what it's exploiting is us our information in the point i make in the book along with michael casey and i saw him earlier so that you are michael and it was a great pleasure to work with you on this michael is that when you begin to understand that what valuable to these platforms is our social graph information that's our data it's just an abstract thing it's everything about us.

we're not talking about a hundred or a few hundred attributes about us. think tens and hundreds of thousands of attributes about us all collected. and that's what is the value, let's call it, of of this aggregated data. and i would argue that this is a value that should be here for society. and what we need to do is, i believe is is add another thin layer protocol which puts us in charge of the internet. so we own and control our data and by owning and controlling our personal information, our social graph, we own us right. now, you don't own you you don't own you you don't own your own by the these large platforms because they have they they they know everything about us.

so how would that. well if you think of of these relatively thin layer protocol as i referred to one connected the devices, another connected the data. imagine one that connects us. so it's a a thin layer protocol developed by project liberty two gentlemen braxton, william harry evans for the brain brains behind it that would if adopted at scale, would connect all of us. so for the first time we would actually a social internet or a socially internet one where we were in charge. so imagine an internet where and by the way, this is built in and used along tcp ip and http. it's not like you throwing one internet out in your building another. you're you're actually creating

a a very core layer protocol that amends how it works changes it works and actually puts us at the center. so an internet where where we are verifiable individuals on the internet, it's just not a complete chaos where anybody can be anybody. you can be as many people as you'd like can be a machine spewing out information and that imagine that there's integrity back in the internet where we are identifiable human beings. you can only be one person you can control what you reveal about yourself, but you can only be one person in your social graph is portable. the apps are interop operable. so imagine a internet where the the the new apps are clicking on our terms of use for our data. we're not clicking on the terms of