Search for a command to run...

Timestamps are as accurate as they can be but may be slightly off. We encourage you to listen to the full context.
This episode of Tetragrammaton features a fascinating conversation with security specialist Gavin de Becker, author of "The Gift of Fear" and his new book "Forbidden Facts." The discussion ranges from his unique threat assessment methodology called MOSAIC to his controversial new book exposing government suppression of information on topics from vaccines to Agent Orange. (27:00)
Gavin de Becker is a security specialist and author who founded Gavin de Becker & Associates in 1978, providing protection and threat assessment services to high-profile figures and organizations. He developed the MOSAIC threat assessment system used by governmental agencies including the U.S. Marshals Service and Central Intelligence Agency, and has served as an advisor to three U.S. presidents. His bestselling book "The Gift of Fear" has shaped public understanding of violence prevention, and his latest work "Forbidden Facts" examines institutional suppression of information.
De Becker emphasizes that intuition serves as our primary protection mechanism, with the root word "inter" meaning to guard and protect. (67:55) He argues that intuition is essentially "knowing without knowing why" and represents the distance from point A to Z without stopping at all the letters in between. Rather than prosecuting our intuitive hunches with excessive analysis, we should accept them as an extraordinary resource that might be either unconscious thought processes or information received from the universe itself. Corporate America often dismisses intuitive decisions while applauding data-driven presentations, even when the intuitive choice proves correct and the data-driven one fails.
Contrary to popular belief, people who actually intend to commit violence typically don't issue direct threats beforehand. (40:36) De Becker's analysis of public figure attacks reveals that most perpetrators communicated with their targets in some way, but not through explicit threats. Those who write threatening letters are actually choosing words over actions, making them less dangerous than those who simply act. This insight challenges conventional security thinking and highlights the importance of assessing behavioral patterns rather than inflammatory language when evaluating real risk.
Traditional security arrangements often place protectors far from those they're protecting while allowing potential threats much closer access. (57:10) De Becker revolutionized protection by insisting that protectors must be as close to their client as the nearest member of the public. He criticizes the standard setup where a speaker stands 40 feet from their security team but only 10 feet from audience members. His approach involves building concealed protective positions adjacent to the podium, hidden behind banners or flags, ensuring immediate response capability without compromising the public appearance.
Being present is more valuable than being well-armed or numerous in protection work. (58:16) De Becker reframes potential distractions as calls back to the present moment rather than obstacles to focus. His team uses specialized nutrition (sugar-free energy bars) to prevent glycemic spikes that cause attention fluctuations. When protectors experience cravings, they're trained to use these sensations as signals to return to present-moment awareness rather than mental departure points. This philosophy extends beyond security work to general life improvement.
De Becker's research for "Forbidden Facts" revealed that many official "debunkings" come from private organizations masquerading as government agencies. (13:54) The Institute of Medicine, which has debunked connections between vaccines and autism, Agent Orange and health problems, and Gulf War syndrome, is actually a private organization whose director earns over $1 million annually. Their meetings, when transcribed, show more concern with messaging than science. This pattern extends across many contentious issues where powerful interests shape public perception through seemingly authoritative sources that lack genuine independence.