Counterintelligence Expert Talks about the CCP’s Red Tsunami
Via Rumble (Interview begins at the 6:10:00 Mark):
The interview between Casey Fleming and John B. Wells on Ark Midnight’s Intelligence Briefing centered on Fleming’s warnings about the scale and seriousness of the Chinese Communist Party’s long-term campaign to infiltrate and weaken the United States. The discussion revolved around Fleming’s book, The Red Tsunami, and framed the issue not as a future threat, but as an ongoing conflict that is already well underway. Throughout the conversation, Fleming emphasized that the United States is facing a comprehensive challenge that goes far beyond traditional espionage or economic competition.
Fleming explained that the CCP’s strategy is patient, methodical, and deliberately difficult to detect. Rather than relying on a single dramatic confrontation, the approach is cumulative, using countless small actions to degrade American institutions, unity, and resilience over time. These efforts span multiple sectors simultaneously, including technology, education, media, politics, infrastructure, and finance. According to Fleming, this persistent pressure creates a situation in which Americans feel disoriented, divided, and fatigued, often without recognizing the source of the stress.
A significant portion of the interview focused on cognitive warfare and information manipulation. Fleming described how social media platforms, entertainment, and news ecosystems have been exploited to amplify division and mistrust within American society. He argued that the constant flow of emotionally charged content has weakened critical thinking and fostered hostility between citizens, making it easier for external adversaries to influence public opinion without direct confrontation. Wells guided the discussion toward how these tactics affect everyday Americans, not just policymakers or intelligence agencies.
Fleming on front line
The conversation also examined the CCP’s use of economic leverage and infiltration through legitimate business and academic channels. Fleming outlined how investments, partnerships, and research collaborations can function as entry points for influence and technology transfer. He stressed that much of this activity occurs in plain sight and is often defended as normal globalization, even when it poses national security risks. Wells pressed Fleming on how these practices differ from conventional trade relationships, leading to a broader discussion about asymmetric warfare.
Fleming repeatedly returned to the idea that Americans are already on the front lines, whether they realize it or not. He explained that drug trafficking, intellectual property theft, supply chain dependency, and land acquisitions are not isolated problems, but interconnected elements of a larger strategy. The cumulative effect, he argued, is a nation that is bleeding slowly while arguing internally about symptoms rather than causes. Wells highlighted the urgency of this assessment by connecting Fleming’s analysis to recent geopolitical and domestic developments.
The interview also touched on institutional reluctance to confront the issue directly. Fleming suggested that political polarization and economic entanglements have made it difficult for leaders to speak plainly about the scope of the threat. He argued that denial and complacency are among the CCP’s greatest advantages, allowing infiltration to continue with minimal resistance. Wells explored how this reluctance filters down to the public, leaving many Americans unaware of how deeply embedded the challenge has become.
Despite the sobering tone, Fleming emphasized that the situation is not irreversible. He stressed the importance of awareness, education, and civic engagement as essential first steps. By understanding the nature of the threat, Americans can begin to demand accountability, resilience, and strategic clarity from their institutions. The interview underscored Fleming’s belief that the outcome depends on whether the public wakes up in time to recognize what is happening.
The discussion concluded with a broader reflection on national unity and preparedness. Fleming and Wells framed the issue as a defining test of whether the United States can adapt to a form of conflict that does not resemble past wars. The interview ultimately positioned The Red Tsunami as a warning and a call to attention, urging listeners to reconsider assumptions about peace, conflict, and the true nature of modern warfare.
