Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and
Speaker 2: listeners liking Yeah now the most aggervated noise and in
Speaker 2: a media sixteenth day.
Speaker 3: Of July twenty twenty six, allegedly according to that thing
Speaker 3: we call a calendar. And I'm live a little after
Speaker 3: nine pm, actually about quarter after nine pm if you're
Speaker 3: sitting in the Eastern time zone, but most of you
Speaker 3: will be catching this via the podcast, so it's kind
Speaker 3: of irrelevant what time it is, but I assure you
Speaker 3: it was recorded on a Thursday, and it is the
Speaker 3: sixteenth day of July, again according to that thing we
Speaker 3: call a calendar. So what am I doing tonight live
Speaker 3: on my stream? I'm speaking to Larry Hancock because I
Speaker 3: should have spoke to Larry last night on Wednesday like
Speaker 3: we usually do. Uh, but my internet was not stable
Speaker 3: so we couldn't quite connect last night, and Larry elected
Speaker 3: to come on tonight. So I'm really grateful. And why
Speaker 3: am I extra grateful? Well, in real time, we're actually
Speaker 3: going to cover something, and for background reading and further research,
Speaker 3: I would urge you to consider one of Larry's many books,
Speaker 3: which I keep on my bookshelf. But even if I
Speaker 3: sell a lot of my JFK books coming up, Larry's
Speaker 3: books are going to stay with me, folks, My kids
Speaker 3: are going to inherit those just saying, and I advise
Speaker 3: you to do the same. I have every one of
Speaker 3: Larry's books, one version or another, behind me on my bookshelf,
Speaker 3: and Creating Chaos is definitely the one that I would
Speaker 3: point you to for tonight's discussion. Now why we're going
Speaker 3: to talk a little bit about what the President is
Speaker 3: talking about right now, but also the general idea what's
Speaker 3: actually going on. And Larry's really going to lead this discussion.
Speaker 3: That's the way it is, because the President is speaking
Speaker 3: about the Save America Act voting all that, and yeah,
Speaker 3: so I'm going to just kind of hand it over
Speaker 3: to Larry. Of course, check the links in the show
Speaker 3: notes too. I'll see if I can remember to put
Speaker 3: Creating Chaos as a book link, but if not, you'll
Speaker 3: have a link to Larry's blog, which means you can
Speaker 3: find all of his books, etc. And I advise not
Speaker 3: only that you get the digital copies if you like,
Speaker 3: but physical copies of Larry's book are definitely welcomed additions
Speaker 3: to any educated bookshelf. Anyways, let's just educated bookshelf. That's
Speaker 3: kind of funny. Imagine that your bookshelf has a diploma,
Speaker 3: but you don't. Anyways, Larry, first off, how you doing tonight, sir?
Speaker 1: I'm really fine, Chuck, Okay.
Speaker 3: Now here's the thing. Why am I bringing up creating Chaos?
Speaker 3: Quite often we talked about Putin actually regarding creating chaos,
Speaker 3: but that's not tonight's focus at all. But the methodologies
Speaker 3: that are in there, the idea the political spheres of
Speaker 3: influence and how one can conduct combat in them or
Speaker 3: around them or with them might more accurately be the
Speaker 3: topic of discussion tonight. Or maybe I'm wrong. What do
Speaker 3: you think now?
Speaker 1: I think one of the things that strikes me, and
Speaker 1: you mentioned creating Chaos, one of the things that I
Speaker 1: was very interested in when I when I tackled that
Speaker 1: book and the research for it, was to try to
Speaker 1: really explore the alternatives. You know, how how do adversaries,
Speaker 1: you know, experienced, professional, proficient adversaries with very you know,
Speaker 1: stat well established intelligence groups, how do they do political warfare?
Speaker 1: And the president tonight appears to be focused on China
Speaker 1: in particular, and China using technology to subvert the actual
Speaker 1: elections process he has says he's going to be going
Speaker 1: into detail on that, but subverting the elections process on
Speaker 1: the back end, apparently inside those have been claims that
Speaker 1: he's been making for some time that somehow they've managed
Speaker 1: to hack or penetrate the polling systems of various places.
Speaker 1: Is not not upfront, not with the voters, but after
Speaker 1: on the back end, with what's been registered. And and
Speaker 1: I think one of the things that strikes me is
Speaker 1: that's that's actually not the real well established danger in
Speaker 1: political warfare. People people are smarter than that, you know,
Speaker 1: the people that have been playing this game for ages,
Speaker 1: doing things like using influencers, using comproment, using compromising. But
Speaker 1: the point is that there there are a couple of
Speaker 1: different ways that they do political warfare around the process,
Speaker 1: around the electoral process, and and this is vote voting.
Speaker 1: Interference on the backside really is relatively minor to what
Speaker 1: we've see in historically. Historically, the big gains, the big
Speaker 1: plays are to a to place influencers and to obtain influencers.
Speaker 1: And these these are people that are insided administration already
Speaker 1: or inside a party, or inside inside the process to
Speaker 1: use a financial means to use, compromise, to to use
Speaker 1: basically to gain control and make your view repeated by
Speaker 1: these people. It's the same game we play today with
Speaker 1: influencers of all stripes. But yeah, because was just going
Speaker 1: to stop you that who gets so lit.
Speaker 3: Right, I was just going to stop you right there.
Speaker 3: Because one, here's the word influencers, and in the current
Speaker 3: uh you know nomenclature if you will, that's got to
Speaker 3: do with mainly people online who are convincing you to
Speaker 3: buy stuff or convincing you to get involved with a
Speaker 3: brand or particular business or something like that. In its functionality,
Speaker 3: it's the same thing. But you know, but I could
Speaker 3: be selling you soda and be an influencer. I could
Speaker 3: be selling you sneakers or a particular brand of facial wash,
Speaker 3: whatever it might be, and and be an influencer by trade.
Speaker 3: But there are political influencers that existed long before you know,
Speaker 3: this internet culture and so on again, and function the
Speaker 3: same thing. But most people would say, oh, what you
Speaker 3: mean just those social media people? No, not just them,
Speaker 3: but could include them also, right, No, that's.
Speaker 1: A different game entirely. We're talking about people that are
Speaker 1: inside the system, that go into meetings with the president
Speaker 1: that go into meetings with advisors that help collect information. Basically,
Speaker 1: people that are in in positions to present information to
Speaker 1: decision makers, and you want those people to be filtering
Speaker 1: information to present your view. You know, this is a
Speaker 1: foreign adversary. You know, if I am, I want a
Speaker 1: favorable picture of Russia presented with inside the administration, I
Speaker 1: want a favorable picture of China. And when it gets
Speaker 1: down to detailed decision making, I want somebody in the
Speaker 1: room that's presenting supposedly factual information that represents the worldview
Speaker 1: that I want presented to the decision makers. That's the
Speaker 1: kind of This is not social media. This is actually
Speaker 1: somehow get into people, and I document extensively in the
Speaker 1: book on how this is done so that your view
Speaker 1: is presented as part of the decision making process. See,
Speaker 1: you really don't worry too much about who's elected. You
Speaker 1: look at who was elected and you find ways to
Speaker 1: get to them. Basically. Now it may be it may
Speaker 1: be real straightforward. Now you could drive them, you would
Speaker 1: offer them money, or you can set up business deals
Speaker 1: that are attractive to them. You can do campaign influence.
Speaker 1: One of the one of the major exposures at the
Speaker 1: moment that the President seems to be avoiding entirely is
Speaker 1: the fact that we've lost all control over the packs
Speaker 1: the political action committees in terms of where they're getting money.
Speaker 1: That they're huge amounts of money are going into influence legislation,
Speaker 1: not just not just on votes on individuals, but votes
Speaker 1: on policies, votes on laws, and we don't know. Tracking
Speaker 1: that money is impossible. I've been looking at it even
Speaker 1: in local elections and nobody could track it. It says
Speaker 1: if we thought the CIA was good at doing money cover,
Speaker 1: what's going on with these facts is just insane because
Speaker 1: that's that's open the whole avenue, the whole avenue of
Speaker 1: foreign influence within our political system that is being totally ignored.
Speaker 1: And I think the reason's being totally ignored, obviously, is
Speaker 1: because nobody wants to shut the door on these huge
Speaker 1: amount of moneys that are now being pumped into elections
Speaker 1: on the front end. So when I talk about influencing,
Speaker 1: you know, influences and really is not talking about social media.
Speaker 1: It's talking about getting the individuals that are already in place,
Speaker 1: making sure those people, you know, present information the way
Speaker 1: you want to present it recommendations, and they can be
Speaker 1: doing it. They can be doing it very sincerely. You know,
Speaker 1: if you court them correctly, you lead them to your
Speaker 1: way of thinking. In earlier decades, sometimes these people were
Speaker 1: called fellow travelers because they had been influenced to your
Speaker 1: way of thinking. You know, Russia is our friend, Russia
Speaker 1: is our ally, Russia is They simply want an economic relationship.
Speaker 1: So you want that voice in the discussions. And how
Speaker 1: do you get that voice. You you approach them, and
Speaker 1: you don't bribe them necessarily. You you present that information
Speaker 1: and a very convincing sincereiou standpoint and get them basically
Speaker 1: to your worldview. So this is the kind of influence
Speaker 1: we're talking about, not social media. That's another story entirely.
Speaker 1: But this is well documented and and and the fascinating
Speaker 1: thing is the way that we have dealt with that
Speaker 1: in the past is to have a very strong intelligence community,
Speaker 1: because the intelligence community has got to be in a
Speaker 1: place to track those kind of advisors, those people that
Speaker 1: are setting in meetings and and look at who's in
Speaker 1: contact with them.
Speaker 3: Well, all that, all of that having been said, though,
Speaker 3: Larry I would not discount the idea of people on
Speaker 3: social media who are exerting in influence over another population
Speaker 3: that's involved in this equation, which is the public. Right,
Speaker 3: So there is an element of that there where the
Speaker 3: public is involved in a feedback loop, or at least
Speaker 3: certain elements of it, in a feedback loop with some
Speaker 3: of the people in power. And if you have influence
Speaker 3: and you get you know, a handle here, a handle there,
Speaker 3: you can steer everything by having just a couple of
Speaker 3: handles in the right place, from the population to the
Speaker 3: people that are supposed to be representing them, etc. By
Speaker 3: the again, the modern constructs of social media and the Internet,
Speaker 3: don't you think.
Speaker 1: Well, I do check, but I think it's very important
Speaker 1: to differentiate, and I do this in the book with
Speaker 1: different chapters. Differentiate influence on the voter versus influence on
Speaker 1: the decision making. Right, Influence on the voter is one
Speaker 1: thing in terms of who gets selected or you know,
Speaker 1: what legislation gets opposed, what legislation get supported, and influencing
Speaker 1: the voter. Absolutely, social media major factor these days. Influencing
Speaker 1: the decision makers. Different story, different tools, different practices, and
Speaker 1: quite frankly, if I get people in a position to
Speaker 1: influence a decision maker, after the votings that occurred. That's
Speaker 1: really great.
Speaker 3: Well in some cases, yeah, But in some cases, here's
Speaker 3: what I've witnessed is that a great enough groundswell of
Speaker 3: complaint or support right from the general public has had
Speaker 3: influence on some of the so called decision makers right
Speaker 3: where they've had to back down from certain positions or
Speaker 3: abandoned at least going forward publicly with certain programs that
Speaker 3: they're trying to institute. Here, certain things that we're going
Speaker 3: to go forward, like, for instance, these massive data centers,
Speaker 3: which you know, hey, look this is going to be
Speaker 3: great thing, and we're going to hire ten twelve thousand
Speaker 3: people in your area, and all we got to do
Speaker 3: is pretty much take over a big piece of land
Speaker 3: you guys weren't even using anyway, you know, so on
Speaker 3: and so forth. When people push back because of a
Speaker 3: ground swell of a sentimentality which in some cases is
Speaker 3: organic and in some cases is being influenced by an
Speaker 3: outside entity pushing an agenda, right, these things do wind
Speaker 3: up playing a role also among the decision makers, not
Speaker 3: necessarily the real ones, but at least part of the
Speaker 3: middle management that I see.
Speaker 1: So it changes the difference there, Chuck as you're talking.
Speaker 1: I think that certainly occurs with local issues. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about national security, national you know, decisions that are made
Speaker 1: at the White House level, decisions that are made. Indeed,
Speaker 1: so no argument with what you're saying in terms of
Speaker 1: social media bringing pressure in regard to local issues. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the type of influence that affects national
Speaker 1: level decision making, and I think that is much more
Speaker 1: divorced from, you know, from downstream social media. That's you know,
Speaker 1: it depends who you managed to put in the room,
Speaker 1: you know, when the decision is made, who who's setting
Speaker 1: around that can can show. This is really called shaping
Speaker 1: is the technical term, and it's derived from shaping the battlefield.
Speaker 1: It's it's used in the military. It's using warfare all
Speaker 1: that the tactics you used to shape the battlefield for
Speaker 1: your position, you know, to lead your view, your military action,
Speaker 1: the advantage. I'm talking about shaping decision making at the
Speaker 1: national level, not and that's that's that's much more personal.
Speaker 1: That's you know, who who picked what advisor for what purpose?
Speaker 1: You know, who's the national security advisor, who's the deputy advisor,
Speaker 1: or who's setting a justice you know, you know these
Speaker 1: are the people that are going to be bringing recommendations
Speaker 1: and data to the president. The interesting thing I noticed
Speaker 1: in monitoring the President's speech last night is presidents is
Speaker 1: now saying that his own appointees, the people he put
Speaker 1: in positions to provide information to his decision making, were
Speaker 1: wrong right in twenty twenty, you know, And that's that's
Speaker 1: kind of a fascinating thing, you know. But so no,
Speaker 1: I don't disagree with your point, but I would separate
Speaker 1: it between shaping shaping national policy and shaping local policies.
Speaker 1: He is kind of what I'm talking about at his point,
Speaker 1: separations or the Chinese don't aren't concerned about data.
Speaker 3: Centers, right, No, no, no data centers. I get it.
Speaker 3: But at the very least you can say, though that
Speaker 3: those other things that I was talking about not only
Speaker 3: shape local policy but also national rhetoric. For sure, not
Speaker 3: necessarily the actions, but it does change what you know,
Speaker 3: It seems to need to be addressed. What appears to
Speaker 3: be the priority, right from a public standpoint, this is
Speaker 3: our absolute priority, This is the most important thing. When
Speaker 3: that's not necessarily what all the energy is going into,
Speaker 3: that's not necessarily what the resources are going into the
Speaker 3: thing that's being represented in a rhetorical fashion, even the
Speaker 3: effort right now of the President to come forward and say, look,
Speaker 3: this is why I need this thing pasted. Whatever is
Speaker 3: about the rhetoric and public it's not necessarily about the
Speaker 3: actual functional priority. So you got to separate that too,
Speaker 3: don't you.
Speaker 1: Well, oh yeah, I absolutely I agree. And it's a
Speaker 1: very complex thing, and sometimes it gets down to terminalogy.
Speaker 1: What kind of political warfare you talking about? As you
Speaker 1: and I have discussed before, you know this in this
Speaker 1: an area where I'm talking about how you try to
Speaker 1: shape the decision making, whether it's local or national. Of
Speaker 1: course the other area, you know, and obviously China or
Speaker 1: Russia would like to shape our decision making in their favor.
Speaker 1: But there's an alternative to that, quite frankly, both of them,
Speaker 1: and in particular Russia. Although fascinating and looking at the
Speaker 1: commentary I've seen on the speech and the documents, it's
Speaker 1: all targeting China, no remarks at all about Russia. And
Speaker 1: the fascinating thing is, regardless of how much the president
Speaker 1: would like to ignore it, there's absolutely a strong case
Speaker 1: made for shaping having occurred in that election. From the
Speaker 1: Russian influencers. But another story there. I think what we've
Speaker 1: got to understand is, on the other hand, to some
Speaker 1: extent and maybe more in the Chinese at this point
Speaker 1: in time, there's the whole point of they don't really
Speaker 1: care about our decision making. What they would like to do,
Speaker 1: And this is a constant when you're trying to shape
Speaker 1: the battlefield is to basically stall your adversary, put them
Speaker 1: in a loop, fragment their decision making, stop things from happening,
Speaker 1: create create such confusion about what's going on, create which
Speaker 1: so many conflicts and dysfunction that you stall decision making
Speaker 1: period and you have people at each other's throats at
Speaker 1: all levels. And so there's an argument to be made
Speaker 1: that that sort of political warfare is just as important
Speaker 1: as shaping, in fact even more important the closer you
Speaker 1: get to any kind of escalation of events, because give
Speaker 1: a perfect example, if if you can, if you can
Speaker 1: create so much dysfunction that nobody passes a defense spending bill, great,
Speaker 1: great for them. You know, where where's all the where's
Speaker 1: all the money for the you know, we're expending gigantic
Speaker 1: amounts of smart weapons in uh Iran? Nowhere, where's the
Speaker 1: money to replace that. We're where all the things that
Speaker 1: that should go on to UH to elevate national security, Well,
Speaker 1: you can stall that just by getting everybody voting against
Speaker 1: each other. Creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt FUDD is the biggest,
Speaker 1: biggest tool that the adversary has. And and quite frankly,
Speaker 1: the argument's been made is the the more the more
Speaker 1: you fragment people over the election system. If you can,
Speaker 1: if you make everybody think that their vote doesn't count,
Speaker 1: that you know you can't, everything is open to question,
Speaker 1: then you stall stall the whole process. And quite frankly,
Speaker 1: that's right where we are right now in Congress at
Speaker 1: this point. So I have to make the argument that
Speaker 1: in terms of tactics of political warfare, fragmenting fragmentation is
Speaker 1: an important tool. Creating chaos is a really important tool
Speaker 1: regardless of who's elected to who do what, because it
Speaker 1: really doesn't matter who gets elected if you've screwed up
Speaker 1: the system so much the system is broken.
Speaker 3: In other words, sometimes it's even useful to just create
Speaker 3: the argument. It doesn't matter who is victorious in the
Speaker 3: debate that emerges from the argument, as long as you
Speaker 3: keep the argument going and therefore you stall any real action,
Speaker 3: which stalls, you know, not only but basically stalls anything
Speaker 3: positive that could be done. Sometimes it is simply for
Speaker 3: the sake of the argument itself, not necessarily about winning
Speaker 3: or losing the argument. This is, you know, again one
Speaker 3: of those things that people miss when looking at well
Speaker 3: I'm on this side, well I'm on that side. That
Speaker 3: doesn't solve the issue of there are sides being created
Speaker 3: and an argument that is being had in public which
Speaker 3: forestalls any solid decision making and undermines any decision that
Speaker 3: is made going forward, because you know, listen, if they're
Speaker 3: evil and they wanted to win, and then they win,
Speaker 3: there's going to be a percentage of people that think
Speaker 3: the evil guys won. I mean, it's just a guarantee
Speaker 3: that you've created an undermining of credibility and legitimacy to
Speaker 3: just about any decision being made by that mechanism. Right.
Speaker 1: I think that's absolutely true. And I think this takes
Speaker 1: us back to something you and I have been discussing
Speaker 1: the last two or three sessions, the approach that's been
Speaker 1: and by the way, monitoring what's going on, the President
Speaker 1: has already stopped speaking, so this has to be one
Speaker 1: of the shortest addresses he's ever made. But the sense
Speaker 1: that I get, because I haven't had a chance to
Speaker 1: look at the documents, apparently the message that's been delivered
Speaker 1: is we're releasing a lot of documents to you that
Speaker 1: raise issues, raised questions, that raised doubt. You know, we're
Speaker 1: not We're not making the case. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: he did not. Basically, he said what he's done is
Speaker 1: released a lot of documents, and it's almost like you
Speaker 1: can reach your own decision.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: He thinks China interfered in the elections, but he did
Speaker 1: not call for any action against China or any you know,
Speaker 1: consequences for that. But one of the things that we've
Speaker 1: been seeing happening in the last several months is the
Speaker 1: White House approach has been to a release a lot
Speaker 1: of documents on several different things, political assassinations, UAPs, and
Speaker 1: just kind of toss them out to the world and
Speaker 1: let the world make its own decisions, you know, which
Speaker 1: means you and I and the public in general, we
Speaker 1: just go to a White House website and we read it,
Speaker 1: and based on our experience and our knowledge, you know,
Speaker 1: we reach the conclusion that we probably were preconceived, you know,
Speaker 1: like this is just feeding my pre because there's no
Speaker 1: analysis that goes with it. There's no profess you know,
Speaker 1: what's the context of the documents? We're the professionals. Where's
Speaker 1: the intelligence community who has the expertise to look at
Speaker 1: this stuff and really handle it? But that's not what's happening.
Speaker 1: Just he's taking all these things and throwing it on
Speaker 1: different servers. And to me, that's kind of like feeding
Speaker 1: the you know, throwing red meat inside the dog. Then
Speaker 1: you know, you just you don't take any responsibility for it.
Speaker 1: You just throw it out there. And what can that
Speaker 1: do other than create fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Speaker 3: Well, what it can do is present a buffet table
Speaker 3: to anyone that wishes to feed their preconceived notion. Uh,
Speaker 3: that's what it is. Yeah, right, it's like the buffet
Speaker 3: for feed your own conclusion, choose your own adventure, right,
Speaker 3: you know. And and there it is if you read
Speaker 3: and I found this with the documents on especially the
Speaker 3: political assassinations that were released as a plate. If you
Speaker 3: have a preconceived notion, you go in, you can find
Speaker 3: something to back it one way or another.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: They pretty much put it out there so that you
Speaker 3: can just strengthen your prejudiced position one way or the other,
Speaker 3: your preconceived notion, your uh, you know, look, pre prejudice
Speaker 3: means to prejudge, So yeah, your prejudged position. How else
Speaker 3: do I put it? I can't put it in another way?
Speaker 3: It's literally a buffet. You're not in the mood for salad. Fine,
Speaker 3: there's a you know, steak and you know, shrimp, cocktail,
Speaker 3: shrimp over here. You got it all day long. Feed
Speaker 3: your conclusion, and that's appears to be really the agenda
Speaker 3: of releasing things in this haphazard way. In my opinion,
Speaker 3: maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I think, and and you know, both of us,
Speaker 1: you know, I always say, but we're not you know,
Speaker 1: fervent establishment supporters, right, we're often critical is what the
Speaker 1: establishment does. But this there is a purpose for having
Speaker 1: an establishment, especially in people in the you know, in
Speaker 1: the intelligence community, the national security community, the people that
Speaker 1: have experience so and that they use tools and practices
Speaker 1: to objectively look at this stuff and make professional assessments.
Speaker 1: You know, I would be a fool to say that
Speaker 1: somebody with you know, twenty years experience looking at the
Speaker 1: guts of political warfare. You know, all the examples, real life,
Speaker 1: real world experience with it. Should not be the person
Speaker 1: looking at this and registering an objective, structured analysis of
Speaker 1: these documents. I would say the same thing about the UFOs,
Speaker 1: the political assassinations. There is a need for experienced professionals
Speaker 1: and objective analysis. And you know, we spend a lot
Speaker 1: of government money putting those people in place, right, and
Speaker 1: so why are we not using them? What we are
Speaker 1: doing is apparently letting them go as quickly as we can.
Speaker 1: And to me, that's a bit of a scary thing,
Speaker 1: even though I'm not necessarily an establishment guy, because then
Speaker 1: you have nobody to trust you. Just as you said,
Speaker 1: you've created a buffet. Everybody looks at it with different
Speaker 1: Larry's levels of experience and preconceptions, and the whole thing
Speaker 1: just gets worse. You have no resolution. You just like
Speaker 1: I said, you just feed the fud.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and there's a beautiful paral it's to happen, right.
Speaker 3: The fud once again is you know, go go ahead, Larry,
Speaker 3: what is fud again?
Speaker 1: Fear uncertainty in doubt.
Speaker 3: Fear uncertainty and doubt. So it's not Elmer Fudd. But
Speaker 3: it's fud. And the fun part here is that I
Speaker 3: see a perfect parallel in the media. The very same
Speaker 3: agenda is being implemented in the media in general, the
Speaker 3: establishment media, if you will. They've scrubbed away all of
Speaker 3: the supposed problematic people who were not being objective and
Speaker 3: replaced them with something else. And it's almost exactly what
Speaker 3: you just described there. Now. Of course, you know, faith
Speaker 3: or any sort of you know, feeling of trust with
Speaker 3: the mainstream media is something that I've clearly been working
Speaker 3: against for quite a while myself. But I mean it's
Speaker 3: obviously trending that way too. So the idea that they've
Speaker 3: sort of scrubbed again people that were objectively or vehemently
Speaker 3: going after certain things in favor of others, it's almost
Speaker 3: the same thing in mainstream media, in my opinion. Do
Speaker 3: you think about that at all?
Speaker 1: Here?
Speaker 3: Is that not part of the situation.
Speaker 1: I certainly what we've done is fragmented the news again,
Speaker 1: and you and I have talked about this. It's that
Speaker 1: we used to have, you know, newspapers or news outlets
Speaker 1: where you had news stories that were reported as factually
Speaker 1: as possible, and then you had an editorial page. Right,
Speaker 1: So you were at least led to belief to some
Speaker 1: extent that the factual part of the news was separate
Speaker 1: from the editorial. Now I'm not sure there is any
Speaker 1: separation at all. And and worse yet, you turn to
Speaker 1: the channel or the stream that matches your preconceptions, which
Speaker 1: even makes it worse. So yeah, and they just actually
Speaker 1: it is worse because they don't give you a buffet.
Speaker 1: They interpret it for you. By the way, that that
Speaker 1: that accelerated the process there, it's like the old editorial page,
Speaker 1: did you know. It's just we didn't just give you
Speaker 1: the factual part of the news and leave you alone.
Speaker 1: Now we sent you towards the editorial page. And we're
Speaker 1: not we're talking about professionals interpreting facts. We're talking about
Speaker 1: people who are writing editorials, which are essentially opinion pages,
Speaker 1: you know. So yeah, I would agree with you on there.
Speaker 1: And I just one last comment in monitoring the streams
Speaker 1: is that apparently the president's whole focus for the evening,
Speaker 1: which which is confusing to me because we all know
Speaker 1: that that he has been focused with his legislation on
Speaker 1: the people that are voting, you know, the downstream, how
Speaker 1: they vote. You know, who's voting, are they legal or
Speaker 1: you know? And and the front end of the voting
Speaker 1: process tonight was all about the back end. The fact that,
Speaker 1: you know, the electronic systems are vulnerable, they can be hacked.
Speaker 1: That's completely separate. It's like, where is there going to
Speaker 1: be another piece of legislation to discuss that. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I haven't looked at the Save America Act closely enough
Speaker 1: to see if it really what I read sounded like
Speaker 1: it was addressing the front end, not the back end.
Speaker 1: And what he's talking about now is the back end.
Speaker 1: So I don't think there's anybody who would disagree that
Speaker 1: electronic systems, you know, there's a there's an issue. But
Speaker 1: the fascinating thing is that that's very state by state,
Speaker 1: community by community. I've got a lot of exposure to
Speaker 1: it because my wife was very much involved in polling
Speaker 1: and in the voting process for years, and how it
Speaker 1: works here in Oklahoma is quite quite good and quite
Speaker 1: solid and very much disassociated from these kind of vulnerabilities.
Speaker 1: But so anyway, I just wanted to get that instance.
Speaker 1: I was monitoring what's going on, and once again, I'm
Speaker 1: confused because he seems to be talking about two different things.
Speaker 1: Worried about vulnerability on the front end, but talking about
Speaker 1: vulnerability on the back end, especially in regard to the Chinese,
Speaker 1: and apparently only in regard to the Chinese. And you'd
Speaker 1: almost kind of like, well, okay, if that's true, where's
Speaker 1: our formal protest, you know, is this an issue that
Speaker 1: he's going to take up and with meeting with z
Speaker 1: or where if we you know, how are we taking
Speaker 1: this to the Chinese for doing what do you apparently
Speaker 1: very strongly claims that they did, or at the very.
Speaker 3: Least bringing it in front of, like say, the UN
Speaker 3: and saying, hey, look, this is what's going on. We
Speaker 3: want a resolution saying that you really shouldn't try and
Speaker 3: influence other people's elections. You know, as silly as that
Speaker 3: might sound, that is the kind of resolution that might
Speaker 3: come out of the UN.
Speaker 1: I'm still just you and me. I'm still more I'm
Speaker 1: still more worried about that pack money. I'm still if
Speaker 1: you want to talk about what could shift elections and
Speaker 1: shift legislations, and literally if if you look at how
Speaker 1: much money is being fed into even the lower level,
Speaker 1: not national elections, but house seats, and at the state level.
Speaker 1: You know, just the amount of money that's untraceable that's
Speaker 1: coming into local elections is phenomenal. And I know even
Speaker 1: in my state people have tried to trace it and
Speaker 1: you can't trace it. I would be I would certainly
Speaker 1: be as equally as concerned about where that money's coming
Speaker 1: from and what the intention is as I am about
Speaker 1: somebody hacking the back end, because we have professionals who
Speaker 1: can deal with that. Right now, with the legislation that's
Speaker 1: in place, there is no tool that's available for black
Speaker 1: political donations.
Speaker 3: Well, there you go. It is about the dark money,
Speaker 3: and it is about the money in general that's in
Speaker 3: the election process. I mean, it's always been astounding to
Speaker 3: me that someone would pay, you know, one hundred million
Speaker 3: dollars to get a job that only pays one point
Speaker 3: six or whatever, you know, over the course of four years.
Speaker 3: Kind of seems like a bad investment. Oops, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: Maybe it's a good investment if you're making money another
Speaker 3: way besides that paycheck, you know. And that's the question.
Speaker 3: And I keep going over with every kind of representative
Speaker 3: we have, you know, I mean, how many times do
Speaker 3: we have to see that somebody goes into office in
Speaker 3: the Senate or the House or anywhere else it seems
Speaker 3: like now and increases their wealth, all the while taking
Speaker 3: a paycheck that is not representative of the wealth that
Speaker 3: they were about to collect. I mean, you know, am
Speaker 3: I crazy? No?
Speaker 1: No, absolutely right, It's it's amazing. I just there are
Speaker 1: many things like that where I just am left open mouthed,
Speaker 1: like what, let me repeat what I just heard? You know,
Speaker 1: tell me what's again what I thought you said? And
Speaker 1: does it make any sense to you? Well?
Speaker 3: Right, But I mean again, when somebody gets a couple
Speaker 3: hundred thousand dollars a year to do a job and
Speaker 3: they come out, you know, with ten twenty thirty one
Speaker 3: hundred million dollars of wealth, he kind of wonder, well, gee,
Speaker 3: I know what you got in your paycheck that doesn't
Speaker 3: account for this increase your wealth, So where did that
Speaker 3: come from? You know? Plus, they get a job which
Speaker 3: is usually you know, ten times what they were making
Speaker 3: as representative whatever, and they do that for a little while,
Speaker 3: and every once in a while they rotate back into
Speaker 3: the government to do other jobs. I mean, kind of
Speaker 3: interesting that nobody complains about that quite as much as
Speaker 3: it seems like they should. Every month.
Speaker 1: No one monitors their investments after the fact. It's it's
Speaker 1: kind of interesting. Will monitor their investments while they're in office,
Speaker 1: but then they're out of office and oh suddenly, look, wow,
Speaker 1: look at their income from investments and how well that
Speaker 1: worked out for them. I wonder where they got the
Speaker 1: money to make the investments, but that's not even part
Speaker 1: of the picture. So yeah, I.
Speaker 3: Mean, it's just like anyway, he getting a seventy five
Speaker 3: thousand dollars a year job, right, and I have that
Speaker 3: job for four years. You say to yourself, Okay, the
Speaker 3: math is very easy. He got paid three hundred thousand
Speaker 3: dollars gross, alrighty, then three hundred thousand dollars gross. But
Speaker 3: I finished that job at the end of four years
Speaker 3: with oh, I don't know, how about thirty million dollars
Speaker 3: in wealth. That math makes zero sense unless and then
Speaker 3: they go, well, you know, insider trading is legal in Congress,
Speaker 3: and yeah, but even so, it doesn't account for the
Speaker 3: absolutely astounding game, you know. I mean, plus they get
Speaker 3: a retirement with that too, you know, like say Congress
Speaker 3: people or whatever, they've got their pension, now they've got
Speaker 3: you know, healthcare and so on and so board, hell
Speaker 3: of a racket, Larry, I gotta say, I mean, yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I need to insert sense. We represented this as
Speaker 1: being a live stream. Apparently what's being positioned now is
Speaker 1: that basically the premise that was made tonight is that
Speaker 1: chinaventually bought, stole or hacked data from eighteen states and
Speaker 1: they use the voted data to conduct illegal voting somehow.
Speaker 1: So you've got they didn't hijack it on the back end.
Speaker 1: They hijacked it and then are placing illegal votes into
Speaker 1: the system. This is this is not so much illegal
Speaker 1: voters voting in the system, it's somehow using illegal voter data. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I guess this is the new incarnation of
Speaker 1: the like the old you know, dead people voting.
Speaker 3: We'll see. Now that becomes my ultimate question about this,
Speaker 3: which is, okay, fine, let's just say I accept your premise, okay,
Speaker 3: that there's these you know, falsifications and you know, changing
Speaker 3: of data, remote control voting, whatever influence over the number
Speaker 3: of votes, how they're counted, or the votes themselves. Let's
Speaker 3: just say I accept that premise. Now, during that same
Speaker 3: time period, some of your people won two So one
Speaker 3: would say, gee, if the legitimacy of your opponents is questionable?
Speaker 3: Is not the legitimacy? See what year was this that
Speaker 3: he was focused on tonight, did you?
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty twenty?
Speaker 3: So obviously he's saying that only during the election where
Speaker 3: he was not elected president. Right in the past.
Speaker 1: Three right exactly?
Speaker 3: Was there a problem? So there wasn't one before and
Speaker 3: then in twenty four there wasn't one after, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And they did it so effectively in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: that they lost, but then somehow they forgot to have
Speaker 1: to do it in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so what happened? You know what I'm saying? Like,
Speaker 3: in other words, only the only time that any of
Speaker 3: this influence or manipulation or security issue is valid is
Speaker 3: when their party lost. I mean, am I seeing things
Speaker 3: or not?
Speaker 1: There's only fraud if I lose.
Speaker 3: Right, Okay, there's a good way to put it. There's
Speaker 3: only fraud if I lose. But you see, if I win,
Speaker 3: then it's legitimate. Right because if there was illegitimacy and
Speaker 3: an established pattern of influence being exerted wrongly on the
Speaker 3: election in twenty twenty, you mean to tell me it
Speaker 3: disappeared by the time twenty twenty four came around, and.
Speaker 1: Of course only the Chinese are smart enough to do this,
Speaker 1: and they don't like me. There's nobody that likes me
Speaker 1: that's smart enough to do this. My supporters aren't good
Speaker 1: enough to do it. Wait a minute, I just you know,
Speaker 1: this could go on forever and loops.
Speaker 3: Well, because if you say anything about you know, Putin,
Speaker 3: then they go Russia hoax, Russia hoax. And that's it.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, because all right, let's not relitigate that.
Speaker 3: But the point is that it's just that. That's the
Speaker 3: fascinating part to me is if I win, it's okay.
Speaker 3: If I lose, then obviously it was because everything was
Speaker 3: compromised one way or another. There were dead people voting,
Speaker 3: there were illegals voting, there were you know, so on
Speaker 3: and so forth. Right, So I don't know what to
Speaker 3: make of that except okay, you can. You're legitimate if
Speaker 3: you win, but illegitimate if you lose. That sounds like
Speaker 3: the no lose scenario that is often offered by many
Speaker 3: an authoritarian in many parts of the world is that
Speaker 3: you know, look, I won the election. I won, and
Speaker 3: they stick by it. But if they lost, they say
Speaker 3: they cheated, they paid people.
Speaker 1: It's a fair election. If I got ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the vote, and if I didn't, there's a problem, right, And.
Speaker 3: You know, how is it that, even being on his side,
Speaker 3: it's not recognizable here that that's what the pattern is?
Speaker 3: I anyway, you know pattern recognition, it's it's one of
Speaker 3: those things that just you know, continue is to cause
Speaker 3: problems for what it is you want to believe is happening.
Speaker 1: But I still say, for our dialogue, what I recommend
Speaker 1: people to do is step back to the broader context
Speaker 1: and what you worry about, and put things in put
Speaker 1: things in perspective, and realize that if people are really
Speaker 1: and he's talking about foreign adversaries, this is not local stuff.
Speaker 1: He's talking about Chinese talking about foreign adversaries to the
Speaker 1: US that are somehow manipulating our political system to project
Speaker 1: their agenda. And I guess what I would propose to
Speaker 1: everyone listening is there are a lot of ways to
Speaker 1: do that. There are a lot of ways to do
Speaker 1: that in the elections process, but also a lot of
Speaker 1: ways to do an outside election process. And as we've
Speaker 1: talked during the evening, just voting itself is only one
Speaker 1: aspect of that. The dark money is another aspect of that.
Speaker 1: The social media influence is another aspect of that. The
Speaker 1: covert shaping type influence is another is part of that.
Speaker 1: And if you don't look at if you're not looking
Speaker 1: at all of them, you're not really getting the full
Speaker 1: picture and you can easily get diverted. And I think
Speaker 1: that's kind of what I'm seeing in this, is that
Speaker 1: it's diverting from some of the the shaping things of
Speaker 1: who's making recommendations and who really got their mind share
Speaker 1: at a very high level national security level. And the
Speaker 1: dark money is another major factor that if there's going
Speaker 1: to be a Save America Act one, there ought to
Speaker 1: be a Save America Act two that deals with the
Speaker 1: dark money. And if you didn't do both, then you've
Speaker 1: got an agenda.
Speaker 3: Well, not only that, but I would urge people to
Speaker 3: remember that simply because one is our ally does not
Speaker 3: mean that they are disqualified from participating in this game
Speaker 3: as well. Even a country that's supposedly going along with
Speaker 3: our agenda, et cetera, et cetera, can have an aggressive
Speaker 3: spy program, an aggressive influence program. To let's just say
Speaker 3: the simplest explanation to maintain that alliance, you know point,
Speaker 3: which would be a benign thing to do. But on
Speaker 3: the other hand, we may maybe their ally but not
Speaker 3: necessarily on board with everything they want to do. So
Speaker 3: maybe exerting influence in this way could get us to
Speaker 3: at least the public to consent to siding with them
Speaker 3: even more as an ally, et cetera. So it's not
Speaker 3: as though only the adversaries, if you will, that are
Speaker 3: foreign are in on this game. Our alleged allies are too.
Speaker 3: I often point out that Israel is you know, okay, fine,
Speaker 3: there are allied there are allied there ally, but they're
Speaker 3: also one of the most aggressive spy programs being conducted
Speaker 3: on the United States is by our ally. Israel, even
Speaker 3: in terms.
Speaker 1: Of shaping prolific. Yes, sorry, and I don't mean shaping it.
Speaker 1: I mean, but you have to be honest. In terms
Speaker 1: of gaining influence within our decision making system at the
Speaker 1: higher levels, they're extremely successful. You know, there are lobbies.
Speaker 1: There are foreign lobbies. There have been, you know, and
Speaker 1: some of those lobbies are visible and some of them
Speaker 1: are not. But yeah, your allies, that's a very good point.
Speaker 1: Your allies have their own interest and they even if,
Speaker 1: as you said, if it is maintenance, you know, it's
Speaker 1: kind of like I need to sustain our relationship because
Speaker 1: it's positive to me, and maybe you're thinking it's got
Speaker 1: a little less positive for you. You know, maybe the
Speaker 1: money that you're giving me, the technology that you're giving me.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a really good deal, and maybe it's
Speaker 1: not as good a deal for you, but it's still
Speaker 1: a good deal for me. So yeah, absolutely, shaping is
Speaker 1: something that your allies. There's no doubt that your allies
Speaker 1: do that. Everybody does it to the It's not just
Speaker 1: to us, this is this is to their other allies too.
Speaker 1: This is just basically political warfares goes all the way
Speaker 1: to back to Mickey Avelly. You know, this is the
Speaker 1: way nation states play with each other, that everybody is
Speaker 1: using these tools for their own agenda, sometimes bring negatively,
Speaker 1: but sometimes just to sustain.
Speaker 3: Right now, I think that's just one of those things
Speaker 3: that you know, people got to not disqualify immediately, well,
Speaker 3: this person's our allies, so they can't possibly want to
Speaker 3: influence our elections. That would be a really poor fallacy
Speaker 3: to uh, you know, to add to the context here,
Speaker 3: you don't want to do that, because you're going to
Speaker 3: disqualify a whole lot of players in the game and
Speaker 3: not even bother to look at them if you just well,
Speaker 3: I'm only gonna look at the adversarial nations. So I
Speaker 3: would say, don't only look at the adversarial nations. Although
Speaker 3: you know, again they may have more reason to do
Speaker 3: certain things, it doesn't mean that our allies are not
Speaker 3: also conducting the same types of operations. That's all. So
Speaker 3: with all that in mind, and with what's being you know,
Speaker 3: uh said, And of course we'll have the initial spin
Speaker 3: on the president's remarks tonight, and then we'll have the
Speaker 3: uh you know, I slept on it a day's spin,
Speaker 3: which keeps happening every time it gives one of these
Speaker 3: major speeches, you know, where we'll get one element of it,
Speaker 3: and then by tomorrow morning somebody will be looking at Yeah,
Speaker 3: but here's the other thing you kept bringing up that
Speaker 3: had nothing to do with the headline and so on, right,
Speaker 3: I mean, that's going to come up next. And obviously
Speaker 3: I don't expect you to have that in hand just
Speaker 3: yet because you were watching that partially while we were talking.
Speaker 3: But you know, here we go again. Does the rhetoric
Speaker 3: match the action. That's another thing here. You know, because
Speaker 3: he can give a hundred speeches and talk about what
Speaker 3: he wants to do, it doesn't mean that there's any
Speaker 3: action being taken to accomplish it, or in some cases
Speaker 3: just the opposite, you know, Uh, motivation could be applied
Speaker 3: to the actual things that are going on in real time.
Speaker 3: Meanwhile this piece of rhetoric is delivered. So there's that
Speaker 3: part of the game as well. Larry, am I being
Speaker 3: too confusing about this or no?
Speaker 1: I think the point what I what I've seen so far,
Speaker 1: and you say people will go back through it. But
Speaker 1: even some of the comments that have been made so
Speaker 1: far is that he has said that the White House
Speaker 1: is going to be posting documents right that certain suggests
Speaker 1: China was overtly consciously stealing data for the use in
Speaker 1: manipulating the election results. Now he doesn't say how they
Speaker 1: actually did it. Apparently he's just talking about they stole
Speaker 1: the data, that they're getting voter information. And now, obviously
Speaker 1: if that's really true, there are two levels to that.
Speaker 1: One is they have bad motives because they stole the data.
Speaker 1: So did they just steal the data and not do
Speaker 1: anything with it, and so your inferences that they have
Speaker 1: evil motives or did they do something with it? And
Speaker 1: in either case, where are the consequences you know, if somebody,
Speaker 1: if someone is making such a strong case that there
Speaker 1: should be consequences for anybody. I mean, you're if you
Speaker 1: think this is a real problem for their voting, then
Speaker 1: you need to be able to track who's doing that
Speaker 1: and act when you find it. And if you don't
Speaker 1: act when you find it, if there are no consequences,
Speaker 1: what's the point in the whole thing?
Speaker 3: Right? Fair enough? So, Larry, how would we tie a
Speaker 3: bow on this one? So I can get done with
Speaker 3: you here, you know, in less than an hour. But
Speaker 3: I do appreciate the fact that we talk to you
Speaker 3: about once every two weeks and you guys never know
Speaker 3: exactly which topic we're going to cover, but you know,
Speaker 3: you get some good guesses there. And obviously look to
Speaker 3: the show notes. There's going to be a couple of
Speaker 3: reference links as well as a link to Larry's work.
Speaker 3: And again, based on tonight's topic, I would strongly suggest
Speaker 3: creating Chaos as a piece of required reading to go
Speaker 3: into this a little further, to look at the history anyway,
Speaker 3: and get an idea about you know, the context, what
Speaker 3: actually is happening now, what would be the historical context
Speaker 3: of it? Anyways, Larry, you'll probably be writing about this
Speaker 3: as well on you blog, right.
Speaker 1: Yes, I definitely will once. As you say, it's the
Speaker 1: sort of thing that you know, you get, you get
Speaker 1: asked about. But it takes what while to jail, got
Speaker 1: to look at those documents, got to look at the
Speaker 1: response to the documents. Actually, given what I've just heard,
Speaker 1: it actually calls for a whole new look at that
Speaker 1: legislation because if if this case is being made that
Speaker 1: you need to pass this legislation, then does this legislation
Speaker 1: really support the presentation that was Will it solve the problem?
Speaker 1: Does it? Because you're actually talking about legislation to deal
Speaker 1: with a crime, right, this is it? You know, it's
Speaker 1: there's there should be there should as we talked about consequences,
Speaker 1: It's like this, does the legislation really take it seriously?
Speaker 1: And if the legislation doesn't with it the criminal aspects
Speaker 1: of it, then the legislation is faulty.
Speaker 3: And the other element that to be considered there along
Speaker 3: that line of thinking is, look, let's just say there
Speaker 3: is nefarious purposes and whatnot. Is that something that was bought.
Speaker 3: Is that influence pedaling that occurred here, which becomes yet
Speaker 3: another issue, and is that being dealt with in this legislation.
Speaker 3: That's a major question. Let's just say you find that
Speaker 3: someone sold out the information to China right now, they
Speaker 3: have committed an act that has violated the security of
Speaker 3: our elections, possibly our national security far as I remember,
Speaker 3: that would be a criminal act if anybody assisted you know,
Speaker 3: the outside adversary to get access to things. That's an
Speaker 3: issue and we've seen that come up various times in history, right,
Speaker 3: So is that being addressed in the legislation? Yeah, major question.
Speaker 1: No, I'd certainly love to see someone address this legislation.
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure. I'm content literally evaluate this legislation
Speaker 1: in terms of the claims that were made of a
Speaker 1: crime being committed, and does this legislation is it sufficient
Speaker 1: to deal with that? If not, don't pass it as is,
Speaker 1: because you're just wasting your time. But that's kind of
Speaker 1: the way I would wrap it up.
Speaker 3: There you go. So we wrap this up with Larry Hancock.
Speaker 3: Once again, I highly recommend his blog and all of
Speaker 3: his writings and strongly suggests that even if you have
Speaker 3: the digital copies you got your kindle or whatever set up,
Speaker 3: I strongly suggest you get the physical copies of the
Speaker 3: books I have. They're on my shelf, all of them. Okay.
Speaker 3: And recently I had people again where I was trying
Speaker 3: to sell books in this or not books really I
Speaker 3: was selling photographs, but people were asking about my books.
Speaker 3: And one of the first lines I have to give
Speaker 3: them when they ask, is yet, the Larry Hancock books
Speaker 3: are going to stay on my shelf regardless. So no,
Speaker 3: you can't have any of those, but you know, acquire
Speaker 3: them for yourself elsewhere, please do right, But anyway, Yeah,
Speaker 3: so that's the way it goes. Larry, I thank you
Speaker 3: again for spending this time with us and going over
Speaker 3: this issue, because again something else in real time. See,
Speaker 3: it's not all just the historical examination long after the
Speaker 3: fact with Larry, like in the case of the assassination
Speaker 3: over sixty years ago. Right, No, it's not always that.
Speaker 3: Sometimes it's the analysis of things going on today and
Speaker 3: the behavior of the national security state as well as
Speaker 3: the behavior of the state in general regarding these things,
Speaker 3: reacting to these things, etc. This is another great element
Speaker 3: to Larry Hancock's writing, and again I strongly recommend all
Speaker 3: of it. There is not a book among them.
Speaker 4: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 4: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 4: the context of the times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 4: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 4: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 4: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 4: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 4: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 4: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 4: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 4: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 4: island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 4: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 4: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 4: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 4: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 4: up against. For more information, The Warstate dot.
Speaker 2: Com revelation through conversation.
Speaker 3: Irish and seciliation.
Speaker 1: You the first double nigga I ever.
Speaker 3: Met in my life.
Speaker 2: Oh Chili dot com dot com. Do you like history?
Speaker 2: Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why
Speaker 2: the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast
Speaker 2: Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen
Speaker 2: before that'll open your eyes to events that led up
Speaker 2: to this. Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation
Speaker 2: Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one.
Speaker 2: Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the
Speaker 2: Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 5: Nuclear Holocaust.
Speaker 3: You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 5: Think of nuclear weapons.
Speaker 3: And other things like lots of you know what uranium
Speaker 3: is right?
Speaker 5: Bad things things are done up with uranium, including some
Speaker 5: bad things. Nuclear holocaust. You know what uranium is right,
Speaker 5: Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 4: You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 3: They just think of nuclear.
Speaker 5: Reponies and other things like lots of you know what
Speaker 5: uranium is right? Things things are done with uranium, including
Speaker 5: some bad things, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear holi Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust,
Speaker 5: nuclear Holocaust, nuclear holow.
Speaker 6: Won't do one, alum won This is the colony A
Speaker 6: man talk here Sidekicking Missus, Sidekicking Crazy in the Crack Home,
Speaker 6: Won Bone Uncle the podcast One Bone Uncle, the podcast,
Speaker 6: Get the Phones, Crack Street.
Speaker 4: Cree.
Speaker 6: Podcast, Wanting, Wanting, Wanting Uncle, the podcast Get the Drinks,
Speaker 6: Nothing Boys, Shout Out, show Boos, Wanting, Want It Uncle,
Speaker 6: the podcast, Crazy Accidents, Heady Crack Room Uncle the podcast
Speaker 6: No More Government Tower, Government Towers Over Uncle the podcast
Speaker 6: Comedy Conversation Uncle, Uncle, Uncle, Tell Sideki, Stop telling you
Speaker 6: what goes No Uncle Podcast, Want, Want, Wanted Wanting, Don't
Speaker 6: Curse It Uncle the Podcast.
Speaker 7: I want them to appreciate the incredible job we're doing.
Speaker 7: You are doing your job, the likes of which has.
Speaker 3: Never been done before.
Speaker 7: You're gonna have mental depression for people.
Speaker 3: You're gonna have large numbers of suicides.
Speaker 7: Take a look at what happens in a really horrible
Speaker 7: recession or worse. So you're going to have tremendous suicide.
Speaker 7: But you know what you're gonna have more than anything else,
Speaker 7: drug addiction. You will see drugs being used like nobody's
Speaker 7: ever used them before, and people are gonna be dying
Speaker 7: all over the place from from drug addiction. I want
Speaker 7: them to appreciate the incredible job we're doing.
Speaker 3: Sounds brace bo