Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: Chilly effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com.
Speaker 3: And listeners is likely yeah, nowated in autia.
Speaker 4: Okay, minor variation on the original intro that was original
Speaker 4: about three four years ago, but hey, why not recut,
Speaker 4: re edit, and reuse. It seems like that's what Hollywood
Speaker 4: and TV is doing every single day.
Speaker 5: Anyway, Here we are.
Speaker 4: The o'celli effect, and it is the seventh day of
Speaker 4: January twenty twenty six, allegedly according to that thing we
Speaker 4: call a calendar, and I've already done a news snapoo
Speaker 4: for the day. But now we're going to get deep
Speaker 4: on the dive, if you will, with the guy who
Speaker 4: is the best man to survive if you want your
Speaker 4: sanity to do so, regarding sober analysis on guess what
Speaker 4: historical topics things that are in real time may be
Speaker 4: happening at the moment and history being made in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty six and maybe the tail end of twenty twenty.
Speaker 5: Five and the hangover of that's still happening.
Speaker 4: Because we're going to talk Venezuela with author, researcher and
Speaker 4: overall hell of a guy, Larry Hancock. Go to Larry
Speaker 4: Larry Hancock's word press site which you will see in
Speaker 4: the show notes attached to this show, and follow his
Speaker 4: blog over there because your blog is still perfectly live
Speaker 4: over on the word press site, right Larry.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I just made a post about an hour ago.
Speaker 4: Excellent, So definitely go over there and read it. And
Speaker 4: I highly recommend all of his books, and I do
Speaker 4: mean all of his books that have been released, and
Speaker 4: I am looking forward to seeing what the updated Oswald
Speaker 4: Puzzle is going to look like, which I think is
Speaker 4: due to be released like now or very very soon.
Speaker 4: Check on Amazon. I know you can pre order and
Speaker 4: keep up on that. God knows we need somebody at
Speaker 4: least giving us a healthy bit of information regarding the history,
Speaker 4: even if it's being made in real time. Who knows
Speaker 4: what book would we have to attach today's discussion to,
Speaker 4: Larry Gee, let me think a shadow warfare, surprise attack,
Speaker 4: created chaos. You know, all of these things might touch
Speaker 4: upon the current event subject for our discussion tonight.
Speaker 5: What would you suggest, though, if.
Speaker 4: Somebody wanted a primer or a primer on this, if
Speaker 4: you will, regarding the action that we're seeing, that's no
Speaker 4: longer plausible deniability.
Speaker 5: But anyway, it is what it is. It was what
Speaker 5: it was, And did.
Speaker 4: We just actually and the proverbial we being the United
Speaker 4: States government, did we just snatch as the president of
Speaker 4: a country, whether legitimate or otherwise, and then tell the
Speaker 4: vice president they were going to do what they were
Speaker 4: told or else? I mean, did that just happen in public?
Speaker 4: Or am I imagining things?
Speaker 5: Larry?
Speaker 4: Which book should we attack this one? Two of your
Speaker 4: previous writings? Sorry? Which ones?
Speaker 1: Two responses?
Speaker 3: Chuck On the first one, Shadow Warfare would definitely be
Speaker 3: the right book to give the backstory to what's going
Speaker 3: on now.
Speaker 1: There's no doubt about that. Give some perspective.
Speaker 3: I mean, what we're doing now goes on back much
Speaker 3: further than that.
Speaker 1: But Shadow Warfare I think does a good.
Speaker 3: Job of illustrating how what we're doing now is different
Speaker 3: than the other fifty two times we've done it in
Speaker 3: the last two centuries, because we continue to do the
Speaker 3: same things over and over again. It's just a matter
Speaker 3: of how we do them and how we describe them
Speaker 3: and how public we are with them. Well on your
Speaker 3: second point, actually, I think not. My best assessment at
Speaker 3: the moment is that we actually not we that the
Speaker 3: president did a deal with the Venezuelan administration. He did
Speaker 3: a deal with the Vice President of Venezuela to leave
Speaker 3: that administration in place and lay the groundwork for buying
Speaker 3: their oil and taking control of their oil and basically
Speaker 3: kicking to the kicking to the side the woman who
Speaker 3: we had helped get the Nobel Prize by saying that, no,
Speaker 3: she leads a democratic movement, but she's not really strong
Speaker 3: enough leader. So we need to say with the vice president,
Speaker 3: who will sign off the rights to us.
Speaker 4: Ah. Okay, so just keeping you know, for those of
Speaker 4: you keeping score at home, first thing is okay, fine,
Speaker 4: shadow warfare works, just fine. This is not unprecedented. That's
Speaker 4: the thing that bothered me throughout the reporting is I
Speaker 4: had to read over and over again how this was
Speaker 4: some sort of unprecedented situation, and I'm like, no, it's
Speaker 4: not if you actually know the history. What is kind
Speaker 4: of unprecedented in my mind is the WWE.
Speaker 5: Style scripting here.
Speaker 4: I mean this very much reads in the public anyway,
Speaker 4: very much like a storyline that you know, maybe somebody had,
Speaker 4: I don't know, missus McMahon, you know, give us a
Speaker 4: bit of I don't know, script consulting, maybe regarding how
Speaker 4: to write this. It was very weird because in short,
Speaker 4: Larry and just let me get over my stupid superficial
Speaker 4: look at it. Yeah, we see that. Okay, Maduro is snatched.
Speaker 4: He's being captured because drug boats and on his way
Speaker 4: over while he was still in transit, they started to spend. Yeah,
Speaker 4: but we need the oil too. Trump goes out, makes
Speaker 4: a statement and basically says, that's okay, we'll deal with
Speaker 4: the Vice president lady, and she's gonna do what she's told.
Speaker 4: She made a statement right after saying I don't know
Speaker 4: what you're talking about. We want our president back. Hey,
Speaker 4: you know, feigning at the very least outrage over the
Speaker 4: whole thing. We don't see any movement from anybody. But again,
Speaker 4: that whole strangeness with the Peace president, you know, being
Speaker 4: pushed for a prize by somebody else who won a
Speaker 4: prize and then dedicating it to him. That political theater
Speaker 4: went on, and in reality, what are we looking at.
Speaker 4: We have a foreign leader brought here. Now if a
Speaker 4: deal was struck with that administration, that's kind of fascinating.
Speaker 4: Would that be to simply assure the safety of Maduro?
Speaker 4: And isn't it interesting The hypocrisy of pardoning another narco
Speaker 4: state leader, like in very close proximity to this happening.
Speaker 4: It's pretty wild, Larry. So, all I'm saying is this
Speaker 4: doesn't look quite the same on the surface as you
Speaker 4: would think it would appear if you really know what's
Speaker 4: going on behind the scenes, and yet it's not being
Speaker 4: done quietly. It's being done very much outfront. Unless I've
Speaker 4: lost my mind. I mean, let's begin with the beginning again.
Speaker 4: Not an unusual action to turn around and capture a
Speaker 4: sovereign leader, despite the fact that I think others would
Speaker 4: object to this if it was done by someone other
Speaker 4: than Donald Trump. I think there would be people right
Speaker 4: now in political power who would be making statements against
Speaker 4: this kind of movement. Why are we involving ourselves in
Speaker 4: the foreign affairs of well foreign countries, etc.
Speaker 5: Etc. But where should we begin unpacking this?
Speaker 3: Well, I think we have to address it in three steps.
Speaker 3: The first step is to look at forced rendition. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's the very first step. Is does the United States
Speaker 3: have the authority, the history, etc. To literally designate someone
Speaker 3: as a criminal essentially lay a case out in an
Speaker 3: American court, not in the court they live, lay out
Speaker 3: an injunction, get an injunction granted, and as a nation,
Speaker 3: grant itself the authority to go get those people wherever
Speaker 3: they are, regardless of extradition laws or not, regardless of
Speaker 3: the objections of any country where they happen to be,
Speaker 3: and literally state our law.
Speaker 1: Trumps your law.
Speaker 3: We don't care what your laws are, we don't care
Speaker 3: what your position are. We have made a decision in
Speaker 3: our country. This person has committed an illegal act which
Speaker 3: involves us in some fashion, and it's perfectly all right
Speaker 3: for us to do whatever we need to do to
Speaker 3: go get them. This could be an individual.
Speaker 1: We did a lot of that. We did a ton
Speaker 1: of that after nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: You know, that was primarily individuals in a host of
Speaker 3: countries overseas, black rendition, with CIA teams grabbing them up,
Speaker 3: taking them to interrogateation centers and actually never bringing legal
Speaker 3: charges against them, just grabbing them up and eventually ending
Speaker 3: up with them either dead or in Guantanamo. So on
Speaker 3: an individual basis, forced rendition is nothing new, because we.
Speaker 1: Just declare we have the authority to do that.
Speaker 3: However, we've done it at this scale before in Panama
Speaker 3: with Noriega we declared him a criminal with drug connections,
Speaker 3: went into the country, literally savaged its small military force,
Speaker 3: took him, did the same thing.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 3: So if you just leave it to forced rendition, you
Speaker 3: either have to say, you know, it's okay that the
Speaker 3: United States declares that its laws supersede everybody else's laws. Okay,
Speaker 3: if you take this position, this is nothing new. We
Speaker 3: just do it because we can't do it. What's different
Speaker 3: about this one is that we didn't. We literally and
Speaker 3: nobody's tallied up the numbers, and the media is not
Speaker 3: covering it. We destroyed a significant portion of the Venezuelan
Speaker 3: military that had nothing to do other than providing cover
Speaker 3: for the extraction force.
Speaker 1: But we we.
Speaker 3: Took out millions and millions dollars worth of their military equipment.
Speaker 3: We killed lots of people. That's beyond just getting Maduro.
Speaker 3: So we literally, you'd have to say we waged war
Speaker 3: on a foreign country in conjunction with the rendition. And
Speaker 3: we're certainly not going to offer any damages. We're not
Speaker 3: going to offer any apologies. We're just going to say
Speaker 3: it's all right that we destroyed equipment that you guys
Speaker 3: spent tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars on because
Speaker 3: we were enforcing our law.
Speaker 1: And that's just the way it goes.
Speaker 3: And that's you know, if you look at the military
Speaker 3: channels that I do, you can see the extent of
Speaker 3: the damage because if you looked at Caracas that it
Speaker 3: wasn't just Caracas, it was all over the country. And again,
Speaker 3: as a military buff myself, I understand why you do
Speaker 3: that to protect your own people. But if you felt
Speaker 3: you were forced to do it, you might just say, look,
Speaker 3: if you guys have cooperated this criminal, tell you what.
Speaker 3: We'll come down and we'll try and I'm going to.
Speaker 1: Third party, you know. But no, we didn't take that approach.
Speaker 3: We whether you like it or don't like it, and
Speaker 3: I think there's a general we didn't just do forced rendition.
Speaker 3: We did a broad scale military action and chewed up
Speaker 3: a lot of their resources to get them.
Speaker 1: And they're the first thing that you have to in
Speaker 1: your own mind say, was that lead right? Larry M
Speaker 1: don't legal within our system and we have and over again.
Speaker 4: Larry mute up for a minute and just relaxed because
Speaker 4: we're getting a little bit of weird interference. It seems
Speaker 4: like the internet signal is degrading, just a touch, and
Speaker 4: I just want to enter something into the conversation here
Speaker 4: and perhaps it'll stabilize while I'm talking.
Speaker 5: You know, what's.
Speaker 4: Interesting here is that it's undeniable that an act of
Speaker 4: war or warlike acts were committed here. That's a certainty
Speaker 4: that's publicly observable. But the idea that there should be
Speaker 4: no sort of retaliation because we were so super justified
Speaker 4: is one thing. But the weird thing to me is
Speaker 4: this again, I can't stand it. Like I said, it's
Speaker 4: like a WWE script. They are feigning surprise that this happened,
Speaker 4: when meanwhile, we watched military assets get maneuvered. People talked about,
Speaker 4: you know, these ships being moved into the Caribe, and
Speaker 4: people talked about there being a focus, okay, with some
Speaker 4: of our assets being deployed in such a way that
Speaker 4: in my mind, it was predictable that something like this
Speaker 4: was going to occur. It's just that the target, the
Speaker 4: chosen target of Venezuela, seems weird to me because of
Speaker 4: the let's call it the priority list. How is it
Speaker 4: that Venezuela is on the top of the priority list. Well,
Speaker 4: you know, the real answer is given to you in
Speaker 4: the new spin, which is, oh, by the way, it's
Speaker 4: not just about the narco state aspects of this and
Speaker 4: the government supporting drug trafficking. Oh no, no, no, it's
Speaker 4: not just that, but also oil. And there's no apology
Speaker 4: to that, There's no, it's unapologetically offered that oil plays
Speaker 4: a serious role here in assembling the motive for what
Speaker 4: is either an act of war or a warlife like action. Okay,
Speaker 4: if you want to get into the semantics battle here,
Speaker 4: and that is significant in and of itself, or again,
Speaker 4: am I crazy the fact that they're sort of like, oh,
Speaker 4: by the way, you know, it's not just about the
Speaker 4: drug boats, but also you know, these people with their oil,
Speaker 4: we got to deal with that, and.
Speaker 5: You know, and and Trump doing his.
Speaker 4: I call it the I don't know if I should
Speaker 4: say this with you on the show, but I will anyway.
Speaker 4: The warped mister rogers, we need good neighbors, okay. Explanation
Speaker 4: for why this needed to happen, this was essential, and
Speaker 4: how this rose to the top of the list on
Speaker 4: priorities is almost as weird as them reinjecting the maybe
Speaker 4: we should also take over Greenland at some point. Real soon,
Speaker 4: you know, discussion talking point back into the political discussion
Speaker 4: sphere publicly, you know, just this.
Speaker 5: Week where we're to that.
Speaker 4: Oh by the way, you know, we're still looking at
Speaker 4: take in Greenland, which almost seems like a threat if
Speaker 4: we're willing to do this, and we're probably willing to
Speaker 4: do something over there, even though the discussion so far
Speaker 4: has been we're looking to purchase it, you know. And
Speaker 4: I keep using this we thing and whose we we
Speaker 4: as again the administration the United States, because remember, like
Speaker 4: it or not, this is what represents you and me
Speaker 4: at the moment, So there is a we to it.
Speaker 5: But I mean, tell me.
Speaker 4: About that part of it, because it does seem different
Speaker 4: in that way that we now have a spin kind
Speaker 4: of being assembled in real time, and like I said,
Speaker 4: it feels like and maybe I'm crazy, but it feels
Speaker 4: like a WWF or WWE script that's being assembled with
Speaker 4: the same very sort of shallow reasonings. You know, we
Speaker 4: need vengeance, so we need to go back at the
Speaker 4: you know, the big boss man needs to pay for
Speaker 4: his crimes. You know, Maduro needs to be taken for
Speaker 4: his crimes. Like why did they snatch up Hiss? That's
Speaker 4: another weird one. You know, is she the emmel dea
Speaker 4: Marcos in this? You know, in this equation, there's a
Speaker 4: lot of open questions here. But one thing that's not
Speaker 4: open is that there's going to be a variety of
Speaker 4: choices here on the buffet table to justify what we've
Speaker 4: seen happen here, which is not normal, even though it
Speaker 4: is a regular occurrence in our recent and even far
Speaker 4: further flung history. Uh.
Speaker 5: But am I reading this wrong?
Speaker 4: Or I mean it sounds confusing coming out of my
Speaker 4: mouth as I say it.
Speaker 5: But I mean, am I confused? Or is this what
Speaker 5: I'm saying good?
Speaker 1: I think it's deeper than that, Chuck.
Speaker 3: I think Venezuela represented a target of opportunity and went
Speaker 3: up on the priority list because of the oil. But
Speaker 3: if you dig down at a deeper layer, what we
Speaker 3: have said, what the President has said, what the Secretary
Speaker 3: of Data said, literally is that under this administration, we
Speaker 3: have the authority to determine, especially in this hemisphere, that
Speaker 3: any particular nation that we see as a national security
Speaker 3: threat to us, and in other words, any nation that
Speaker 3: is not cooperative with us, we have the authority to
Speaker 3: do regime change, or we have the authority to do deals.
Speaker 3: I won't even call it regime change because one of
Speaker 3: the things that's going to emerge in Venezuela is we
Speaker 3: may not really be doing regime change. That may be
Speaker 3: a cover. There are a lot of people going around
Speaker 3: saying permit to Venezuela. Well, at this point in time,
Speaker 3: that's not what we've done. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 3: we turned down the woman that would have represented democratic government,
Speaker 3: and we appear to be doing the oil deal with
Speaker 3: the vice Predessident, who is a Maduro regime figure.
Speaker 1: Now clearly she's going to do some cleaning.
Speaker 3: House and make yourself look better. But the democratic condition
Speaker 3: a person is not the person that we're dealing with.
Speaker 3: Nor has anybody talked about new elections. So but let
Speaker 3: me let me cut back to the chase. The point
Speaker 3: is we have established a statement that now as within
Speaker 3: domestically everything is about national security.
Speaker 1: If the admin.
Speaker 3: H srince Cuba or Greenland or Columbia or whatever, then
Speaker 3: if we have the right, we've declared ourselves just like
Speaker 3: with an addition, our decision whether they want or don't want,
Speaker 3: doesn't matter. And all right, sorry she had a warfare.
Speaker 1: And I look.
Speaker 5: Okay, I'll tell you what we're gonna do.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna tell us I'm gonna take one more crick
Speaker 4: break here, and we're gonna come right back and continue
Speaker 4: with this discussion with Larry stick around.
Speaker 5: Guys, Complation to conversation, you are the effect.
Speaker 2: Decide is broken, Truto, Revelation to conversation must.
Speaker 1: Stop your lives.
Speaker 2: So show game effect, revelation, sam a devastation, revelation through
Speaker 2: conversation effect, you are the effect true.
Speaker 1: Conversation, Ramon stranger.
Speaker 5: Fact relations.
Speaker 1: Through conversation.
Speaker 2: Oh, show effect, revelation conversation gone, Shelly effect beyond this
Speaker 2: place somewhat and fearstror the shame.
Speaker 6: And yet the men of years finds it shall find me.
Speaker 2: On a braid.
Speaker 4: And that is not a freak debate.
Speaker 1: I charge with the scroll.
Speaker 2: I am the master of my fate. I am the
Speaker 2: captain of my soul. Joe Funny in fact revelation, the.
Speaker 6: Broma Kanda Horse continued cashing in and.
Speaker 2: Teach us about religion, keeping score at home.
Speaker 7: Who are people you'd like to see?
Speaker 1: Even by wolves.
Speaker 2: Dishrup dying soon the Cagles, my Taco Tips and his continued.
Speaker 7: GLF storming tour and winning a streak, says.
Speaker 2: God sparred him and decided a firefighter dies from me.
Speaker 5: A revelation con.
Speaker 6: The face.
Speaker 1: A fact you are the effect.
Speaker 2: You are the effect relation conversation, but.
Speaker 7: No relation to.
Speaker 1: Conversation through conversation.
Speaker 2: All affect relation to conversation, conversation tell effect relation to conversation.
Speaker 7: As the pit from.
Speaker 2: Polk whatever, donating for my indokable soul in the contians circumstance,
Speaker 2: I am not wis no cry aloud a chance my
Speaker 2: head bloody?
Speaker 1: You the effect effect?
Speaker 4: Okay, so hopefully we're back nice, live and loud, and
Speaker 4: we've got a clearer connection now with Larry Hancock. And
Speaker 4: this is really important to be because I had asked
Speaker 4: the superficial question and Larry was getting into a deeper
Speaker 4: and explaining the difference here and what we're looking at.
Speaker 4: So please continue, Larry.
Speaker 3: Sure, Basically, to some extent, this is nothing new, and
Speaker 3: we talked about that. But what most people aren't getting,
Speaker 3: I think, is that we have returned to a position
Speaker 3: which we had kind of left since back in the nineties.
Speaker 3: We have under the current administration, we are making the
Speaker 3: assertion that the United States has the right to change
Speaker 3: any government that we feel is not cooperative, that we
Speaker 3: feel might be a threat to our national security. And
Speaker 3: when I say not cooperative, they have resources that we need.
Speaker 3: That could be Venezuela, it could be Greenland, they have whatever,
Speaker 3: whatever it is, whatever we manage to come up with
Speaker 3: and express our concern about, we gave ourselves the right
Speaker 3: to do it. Now.
Speaker 1: It's not that we didn't do that before.
Speaker 3: I can quote statements from John Foster Dulles in the
Speaker 3: fifties that literally say, you know, it doesn't matter if
Speaker 3: there's a country out there that had domessed that elected
Speaker 3: through standard democratic process, a government that we feel as dangerous.
Speaker 3: Maybe it's communists, Maybe that's kind of pastay now, but
Speaker 3: it's it's not a cooperative government. John Foster says, we
Speaker 3: have every right to replace it. Henry Kissinger in the
Speaker 3: seventies says the same thing. You know, it doesn't matter
Speaker 3: how that government.
Speaker 1: Came to place.
Speaker 3: It could be democratic, it could be Basically the fun
Speaker 3: thing is tree go bad due to the irresponsibility of
Speaker 3: its own people.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: So, we've seen this in any place from various South
Speaker 4: American and Central American countries talk about Yeah, we've seen
Speaker 4: it in Iraq even right where now our national security
Speaker 4: is threatened by the Iraqi regime, and well they have
Speaker 4: weapons of mass destruction, they're threatening us, so therefore there's
Speaker 4: our justification for going in. It's just really it's just
Speaker 4: kind of labeled a little differently, but it's more of
Speaker 4: the same.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's absolutely more of the same. It's just.
Speaker 3: Basically asserting that either your law or your your security
Speaker 3: trumps everybody else. I mean, and it's your decision and
Speaker 3: you can do it because you've got the power to
Speaker 3: do it. That just say, we can do it because
Speaker 3: we have the power to do it. And we've been
Speaker 3: in that position.
Speaker 1: This is part of the American tradition, like it or not, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, did we take Texas from Mexico? Yes?
Speaker 3: Did we take the Philippines. We've done this before many times.
Speaker 3: I think what is different about this.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like before or in time we're favorable
Speaker 1: to us.
Speaker 3: This is really a spin on that because certainly we
Speaker 3: would have had the opportunity to do.
Speaker 1: This with this lady who we helped to get the Nobel.
Speaker 3: Prize, who was all in and who offered her party
Speaker 3: and her supporters, and we're saying no, we're going with
Speaker 3: the like the remnants of the current regime because they
Speaker 3: actually control you know, we don't.
Speaker 1: This is shortcuts the whole deal. It's like, if.
Speaker 3: We can do a deal with the regime, we just
Speaker 3: have to get rid of the top guy, do a
Speaker 3: deal and get what we want. So Maduro is out
Speaker 3: and it looks like we're getting as the President said,
Speaker 3: we're getting. It actually only amounts to about three or
Speaker 3: four days production as the best I can see of
Speaker 3: oil that we're going to sell. And this is the
Speaker 3: fascinating thing. You could even this is sort of like
Speaker 3: plunder in the olden days. They're gonna it sounds like
Speaker 3: we're going to pay for it at market price, and
Speaker 3: then we're going to sell it and take the money,
Speaker 3: just like we took the money money from the oil tankers,
Speaker 3: and maybe we'll give it some of them back to
Speaker 3: them in some form.
Speaker 1: We don't know. But essentially we got what we wanted,
Speaker 1: which was not just Maduro. Maduro is.
Speaker 3: This is a way a quick way to get you know,
Speaker 3: the rendition was a quick way to get rid of him,
Speaker 3: show our power and essentially do a deal and check
Speaker 3: I'm going to give you the first the first take
Speaker 3: on this, I've invented a new word. Before we had deniability,
Speaker 3: now we have deal ability. With the current administration, it's
Speaker 3: all about deals, it really doesn't, you know. It's our
Speaker 3: interests come first, and we will do whatever we can to.
Speaker 1: Cut the deal.
Speaker 3: It works for us, just as we thought. I do
Speaker 3: think the President thought he was going to be able
Speaker 3: to do a deal with Putin because he was putting
Speaker 3: all sorts of economic advantages and investments.
Speaker 1: You know, that's the way we play it. You know,
Speaker 1: we're making a deal. It's good not to play. So
Speaker 1: what did we do today? Eight? Even though Russia said
Speaker 1: this is.
Speaker 3: Our tanker, we have authority over it, we officially legally
Speaker 3: declare and protest that do not stop it, and they
Speaker 3: sent us.
Speaker 1: So we got in ahead and took it.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 5: Well, the strange Yeah, the strange thing.
Speaker 1: That's a pretty big slap in the face from somebody
Speaker 1: who was just an Alaska.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well exactly and kind of not exactly the thing
Speaker 4: you might want a time right along with trying.
Speaker 5: To cut a deal again with Ukraine. Oh, by the way,
Speaker 5: that's still happening.
Speaker 4: You know, that's still a war in progress, even though
Speaker 4: they said they were close to a deal.
Speaker 5: Seems like a.
Speaker 4: Bad time to be aggravating putin when you've got them
Speaker 4: at the table for that.
Speaker 5: But let's put that aside, you know, the actual mechanical deal.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is propaganda, right, There's no deal at least
Speaker 3: not even in the card, so it wasn't a factor.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 4: Well see, that's the thing though, is if you put
Speaker 4: it out there as something that's happening, whether it is
Speaker 4: or not, you know, it looks pretty bad strategically.
Speaker 5: And here's another weird part about this.
Speaker 4: The United States government is not going to do this,
Speaker 4: you know when it comes to the oil and making
Speaker 4: this marketable and everything else. Right, this is going to
Speaker 4: require a private enterprise of some type to deal with this. So,
Speaker 4: you know, I'm thinking, just because it makes the most sense,
Speaker 4: that the previously active assets of Exon Mobil would be
Speaker 4: the ones that have the you know, the easiest access.
Speaker 4: They've already got inroads with Venezuela. They've already got connections
Speaker 4: there because Exon Mobile up until what about fifteen years ago,
Speaker 4: dealt very heavily with Venezuela.
Speaker 5: Publicly.
Speaker 4: So is this, you know, a deal being made on
Speaker 4: behalf of the United States, but through the arm of
Speaker 4: Exxon Mobile. And doesn't that now make le you know,
Speaker 4: the Rex Tillerson time at the State Department look a
Speaker 4: lot more interesting, you know, because here we go, You're
Speaker 4: going to actually need people to handle this and put
Speaker 4: it into the market, right, So I mean, it's going
Speaker 4: to have to be handled by somebody who does this,
Speaker 4: and as far as I know, the Navy or the
Speaker 4: Air Force doesn't have refineries.
Speaker 1: Sorry, go ahead, maybe or maybe not.
Speaker 3: At first it kind of looked like that, and it
Speaker 3: looked like Chevron was going to be the big player.
Speaker 3: But the oil companies themselves are pretty smart. And the
Speaker 3: oil companies the kind of equipment and machinery, intechnician it's
Speaker 3: just heavy oil since it was nationalized. So you would
Speaker 3: be asking, here's one of the things when you do
Speaker 3: regime change or whenever you do a deal like this,
Speaker 3: it's sort of like how long is it going to last?
Speaker 1: Is there going to be?
Speaker 3: It have been through this many times, and they're pretty smart.
Speaker 3: So what I'm seeing so far is the oil companies
Speaker 3: are pushing back and saying we'd love to have the oil,
Speaker 3: but capital investment, you know, is the US government pay
Speaker 3: for that.
Speaker 1: That would be one possibility.
Speaker 3: Most people don't realize that the President has already used
Speaker 3: US money to buy into three or four private companies
Speaker 3: that the US now has a stake in in areas
Speaker 3: having to do with strategic minerals and technology. The US
Speaker 3: is investing and nobody's tracking it. Absolutely, we're we're putting
Speaker 3: money into those companies. How that's going to work, how
Speaker 3: the money is going to be tracked, where the profits
Speaker 3: go to, totally not transparent. So it could be very
Speaker 3: possible that he would create another oil consortium. But now
Speaker 3: it looks like it may have come up with even
Speaker 3: a brighter approach because if right now the US to
Speaker 3: it's not he can do a deal. Whether he just
Speaker 3: think gets a regular shipment every month or so if
Speaker 3: several days World carriers or you know, Chevron oil carriers
Speaker 3: or whatever, what the what the Venezuelans produce it, we
Speaker 3: don't care if they you know, it's free and clear.
Speaker 3: When it gets on the water, we pay. That's no
Speaker 3: investment required with that night. So it may end up
Speaker 3: being come some about how things are going to work,
Speaker 3: or are kind of like his early remark, they all
Speaker 3: compans are pretty sharp about the right.
Speaker 5: Now, do me a favor. Mute up again and hang
Speaker 5: out for a second. You do me a favor.
Speaker 4: Mute up, Mute up, and hang out for a second again,
Speaker 4: try and build up compression, because there is yet one
Speaker 4: more element here that I think, you know, I would
Speaker 4: love to hear you address, because nobody in their reporting
Speaker 4: or alleged analysis is addressing this at all. And that
Speaker 4: is the precious metals element of this. Because what I
Speaker 4: noted is they also said, you know, not only are
Speaker 4: we going to be able to capture this, but there's
Speaker 4: going to be a deal for like precious metals in general,
Speaker 4: almost like not described, not quantified in any way, shape
Speaker 4: or form.
Speaker 5: But you know some precious metals are probably in this
Speaker 5: equation too, but pay no attention to that. That is
Speaker 5: a big deal that no one is going to track
Speaker 5: or quantify.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's going to be like the all cash
Speaker 4: part of this business, where you know, no one is
Speaker 4: going to be able to, you know, properly be able
Speaker 4: to do an audit on this in the aftermath of
Speaker 4: the deal and the transaction. I think there's a lot
Speaker 4: of precious metals here that are gonna get moved because
Speaker 4: Venezuela is also rich in some of those resources, not
Speaker 4: all of them, but they also have you know, pretty
Speaker 4: good mineral riches in again, precious precious metals.
Speaker 5: So on top of the oil, we have the precious.
Speaker 4: Metals that I think are gonna be sort of ad
Speaker 4: pay no attention to that, that's incidental, but I mean
Speaker 4: that's gonna be a lot of well a high number,
Speaker 4: a good amount of what this transaction might be made
Speaker 4: of too, where the oil is almost a cover for that,
Speaker 4: I'm thinking because the fact that nobody's even asking the
Speaker 4: question of how much what are we looking at here?
Speaker 4: What is the potential for it? You know, what is
Speaker 4: the exchange going to be? Like are the Venezuelan people
Speaker 4: gonna gain anything from those precious metals? Like zero questions
Speaker 4: are being asked about precious metals. I mean, have you
Speaker 4: noted that as well? That it's sort of like, yeah,
Speaker 4: this might come along with it, but you know, pay
Speaker 4: no attention to any of the details. This is about
Speaker 4: oil and the drugs, And pretty soon I think they'll
Speaker 4: forget to even mention the drugs because I think that
Speaker 4: was a smoke screen to begin with. That makes no
Speaker 4: sense to me that Venezuela is a high priority drug trafficker.
Speaker 4: I mean, if you were worried about national security and
Speaker 4: high levels of drug trafficking, why wouldn't it be, even
Speaker 4: according to their own propaganda, that we were focusing on
Speaker 4: places like Mexico directly because there you have a narco state,
Speaker 4: you know, happening all the time. You have officials of
Speaker 4: all sorts from the government literally being assassinated, you know,
Speaker 4: constantly in Mexico. There is a power struggle between what
Speaker 4: some people would call narco terrorists and other people would
Speaker 4: call the cartels. That is happening in real time constantly
Speaker 4: in a nation state that borders us. Talking about a
Speaker 4: national security issue, you know, well beyond the guys coming
Speaker 4: in to take your jobs, you got a serious issue
Speaker 4: here right on the border. That's not the priority Venezuela is. Well, why,
Speaker 4: I guess because you know there's oil and oh, precious metals,
Speaker 4: but pay no attention to that. It seems to me
Speaker 4: as though this is just a I mean, I hate
Speaker 4: to put it this way, but it looks to me
Speaker 4: like just a grab for resources that is being justified
Speaker 4: in you know, like reverse engineering the justification afterwards where
Speaker 4: they tried to cut a deal. They couldn't get the
Speaker 4: right deal. So now they used a bit of pressure
Speaker 4: and renditioned this guy brought them here on an indictment,
Speaker 4: you know, in a foreign land, which again is not unusual,
Speaker 4: but is also allegedly not the way we're supposed to
Speaker 4: conduct business, right, and yet here we are. What is
Speaker 4: your thoughts on these seemingly like ignored or under analyzed
Speaker 4: aspect of this being the precious metals and minerals and such.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get it again, to get back to the core,
Speaker 1: and it's different.
Speaker 3: We're talking about precious metals on the order of copper,
Speaker 3: gold medals. We're not talking about the rare metals minerals
Speaker 3: that are that we need in semiconductors and electronics, two
Speaker 3: different things. So for Venezuela, it truly would be metals. Okay,
Speaker 3: But this is very much in line with some other
Speaker 3: things that are happening in the administration, for example, the
Speaker 3: Dodge fiasco, where it happened there's no tracking, there's no reporting.
Speaker 1: You call back and say, well, what did that actually save.
Speaker 3: And everybody goes, well, we don't know because those people
Speaker 3: are all gone.
Speaker 1: At the beginning of the administration.
Speaker 3: The President talked about a new office that was going
Speaker 3: to be set up to track all of the teriffs
Speaker 3: that were being collected, how those were being distributed, and
Speaker 3: to show the benefits of that. That office has not
Speaker 3: been established yet, just he didn't even set it up yet.
Speaker 3: As I said before, there are already several major government
Speaker 3: investments in different areas that nobody knows how they're going
Speaker 3: to be tracked. He just signed an executive order saying
Speaker 3: the money would be spent and we would buy into
Speaker 3: those companies.
Speaker 1: What do we buy into?
Speaker 3: What percents the taxpayer getting. I've seen nothing about those deals,
Speaker 3: So I would say this is going to what rule
Speaker 3: really if we face the facts and you can either
Speaker 3: like it or love it, because I know there's some
Speaker 3: people who are going to love it.
Speaker 1: We are back to gun diplomacy. We basically, especially in
Speaker 1: this hemisphere.
Speaker 3: Literally saying we have the power and we're willing to
Speaker 3: use it. At Venezuela to Columbia, to everybody like, if
Speaker 3: you don't give us what we want, do the deals
Speaker 3: we want, be supportive.
Speaker 1: We don't care how you do it.
Speaker 3: It could be behind us on screens, it can be
Speaker 3: in front We just want to do the deals that
Speaker 3: we want to do, and if we can.
Speaker 1: You're good. Otherwise we send the gunboats in.
Speaker 3: That's how we played the agriculture game a century ago.
Speaker 3: Now we're playing it for oil metals. The only variant
Speaker 3: that's going to be fascinating is Ruvio obviously wants to
Speaker 3: take out the Castro regime.
Speaker 1: What in the world excuse we're going to find to
Speaker 1: do that, I don't know, but clearly he wants to
Speaker 1: do it.
Speaker 3: But to cut to the chase, we've just moved back
Speaker 3: into a model that we had in the eighteen hundreds,
Speaker 3: and we were good with it. I mean, I can
Speaker 3: show you the legislators, the correspondence, the articles. You know,
Speaker 3: if somebody raises a fuss with one of our companies
Speaker 3: and one of our deals will take them out with
Speaker 3: however much forces need it.
Speaker 4: Right and yeah, in the first half of the why
Speaker 4: really quickly, in the first half of the twentieth century,
Speaker 4: we also dealt with this where gunboat diplomacy effectively was
Speaker 4: being you know, transacted, let's say, on behalf of the
Speaker 4: fruit companies and the sugar companies in the same area
Speaker 4: of the world, right, you know, it isn't just about
Speaker 4: drugs and importation that way. I mean, you're talking about
Speaker 4: stuff like that. I mean, this is literally part of
Speaker 4: what fueled you know, various Cuban upheavals and various other
Speaker 4: South and Central American upheavals again in the first half
Speaker 4: of the twentieth century, where you have you know, sugar
Speaker 4: companies and fruit companies. I mean literally, this is why
Speaker 4: military action was taken.
Speaker 5: And we saw that, I mean.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and we played it with everybody. We played it
Speaker 3: in Cuba. Everybody so care really what your politics are.
Speaker 3: We care what our degree of influence is.
Speaker 1: In Cuba.
Speaker 3: Everybody knew that Batista was corrupt, like Noriego, like Maduro.
Speaker 1: He's corrupt, you know, everybody knows that. And he gets
Speaker 1: to the point.
Speaker 3: Where his own people are so upset about it that
Speaker 3: he's going to change. Well, we sent a senior level
Speaker 3: presidential advisor down to talk with him, not to say
Speaker 3: that he should just leave, to tell him who he
Speaker 3: needed to hand off power to, who we knew would
Speaker 3: cooperate with us, so we could essentially, you can clean
Speaker 3: house and you can do a reset.
Speaker 1: Everybody will be happy, and.
Speaker 3: This is our guy, you know, so we're not the
Speaker 3: thought I you know, it would it would be interesting
Speaker 3: to think of us as, you know, the policeman.
Speaker 1: For the world. Know that that's not it in reality.
Speaker 3: You know, it would from one perspective, it would be okay,
Speaker 3: if you want to use all that power, go be
Speaker 3: the policeman.
Speaker 1: We're not policemen for the world. We're just policing the world.
Speaker 3: But the reality is that we are just simply putting
Speaker 3: our interest first. And you have to be honest about
Speaker 3: that and say that a great percentage of.
Speaker 1: Our population are quite happy with that. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to say it's a majority.
Speaker 3: It's like, if it's making us money and we're doing good,
Speaker 3: that's you know, if it was good for general motors,
Speaker 3: it was good for the US.
Speaker 1: That's a fifty slogan, right, And.
Speaker 4: What we have here is rhetoric that basically says, when
Speaker 4: you take away all the coded language and the propaganda
Speaker 4: of pro America raw Rah, when you take it away,
Speaker 4: what it comes down to is, these are the policy
Speaker 4: enforcing security details for corporate America that are going to
Speaker 4: go down and make sure that the deals get done
Speaker 4: so the corporate America continue used to thrive.
Speaker 5: This is what the bottom line is.
Speaker 4: And like I said, that was with the sugar companies,
Speaker 4: that was with the fruit companies, so on and so forth.
Speaker 4: This is literally the model that we had again you know,
Speaker 4: about one hundred years ago. Forget about the eighteen hundreds,
Speaker 4: but one hundred years ago.
Speaker 5: Of course.
Speaker 4: This is almost the reason why you saw people like
Speaker 4: George de Morrinshield's trying to get involved with Haiti and
Speaker 4: you know, jute farms and things like this, because he
Speaker 4: thought maybe that was a future, you know, something that
Speaker 4: was going to be backed up by the US government.
Speaker 4: And certainly we backed up Batista, you know before Castro
Speaker 4: came in, because he did what corporate America wanted. Also
Speaker 4: just so happened to do what the mob wanted regarding
Speaker 4: casinos and stuff. But it was, you know, open season.
Speaker 4: It was any business is good, I don't care. We'll
Speaker 4: do business with everybody. Is the way Batista was. As
Speaker 4: long as his pockets got lined, it was all good.
Speaker 4: And what we're trying to do now is put more
Speaker 4: Batista's place. Is what it looks like to me, except
Speaker 4: now in Venezuela and anywhere else that it looks like
Speaker 4: it would be advantageous to turn it around for or
Speaker 4: on behalf of corporate America Or am I misreading.
Speaker 5: That, Larry.
Speaker 1: Now? I think and one of the no, I don't
Speaker 1: think that's mystery.
Speaker 3: The almost wish it was okay, because you know, there
Speaker 3: were periods of time when we like to view ourselves
Speaker 3: as ethical and moral, and we're replacing dictatorships with democracies, right,
Speaker 3: we're feeling good about that.
Speaker 1: Right, But if you go back and look at the reality,
Speaker 1: you don't look at what people say, you look at
Speaker 1: what they do.
Speaker 3: I can take you back to Guatemala, Nicaragua, Brazil, Argentina.
Speaker 3: In many instances we helped overthrow regime and we work
Speaker 3: with surrogates, you know, democratic you know local people that
Speaker 3: were progressive, democratic, wanted a different regime. Okay, they would
Speaker 3: come into power, they would stay in power for three years,
Speaker 3: four years, whatever, and then there would be an ultra
Speaker 3: right revolution against them, and usually led by the military.
Speaker 1: And the military would take over.
Speaker 3: And you would say to yourself, well, self, if we
Speaker 3: were here for the democracy, certainly we're going to try
Speaker 3: to get rid of that military. Military. No, No, because
Speaker 3: the military always loved to work with us. They would
Speaker 3: deal with us, and so we might we might create
Speaker 3: you know, a democratic revolution and put a democracy in power.
Speaker 3: But we never sustained the democracies we supported, as in
Speaker 3: Brazil and several we supported the generals and the military
Speaker 3: and the regimes that would cooperate. We I can't think
Speaker 3: of any instance when we actually other than you could
Speaker 3: say in Cuba, but they were communists.
Speaker 1: That's another story, you know, where we actually.
Speaker 3: Spent lots of time, having money and effort in and said, okay, see, Ia,
Speaker 3: there's a hunter in control of the country and they're
Speaker 3: corrupt and they're doing bad deals, but we're selling them weapons.
Speaker 1: I want you to go overthrow them. I don't think
Speaker 1: we ever said that.
Speaker 4: So basically, what happens here is that the will and
Speaker 4: well being of the people of those countries is really coincidental.
Speaker 4: If it so happens that we support it so long
Speaker 4: as our people are in command and in control, so
Speaker 4: that we've got the right people to make deals with
Speaker 4: for their resources and their well their resources, you know,
Speaker 4: And that's it. That's the bottom line, and it's just
Speaker 4: that clear. Anyway, I urge everybody go over to you know,
Speaker 4: the the WordPress site for Larry Hancock, which the link
Speaker 4: will be in the show notes here and follow up
Speaker 4: on this. I have a feeling Larry that you and
Speaker 4: I will get together again in two weeks and have
Speaker 4: a continuation of this discussion. But outside of the fact
Speaker 4: that now we have what did you call it now?
Speaker 4: It's not deniability, it's deal ability, So we have plausible
Speaker 4: plausible deal ability is the new term. But outside of
Speaker 4: plausible deal ability, Larry, what else is there to really,
Speaker 4: you know, put here as a punctuation on this discussion tonight,
Speaker 4: because plausible deal ability is a hell of a thing.
Speaker 4: But beyond that, is there anything else to add?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there's another way to judge this. I
Speaker 3: think a step back, and that really kind of wraps
Speaker 3: it up. For decades and decades and decades, we had
Speaker 3: a continual, essentially battle between the State Department and the CIA,
Speaker 3: where the State Department in the military.
Speaker 1: For those of us who went through Vietnam, you know.
Speaker 3: There was always a battle but what the State Department
Speaker 3: wanted to do because they were basically following a local
Speaker 3: national charter like what's best for the nation, and they
Speaker 3: got into constant fights.
Speaker 1: With state with military, state with CIA.
Speaker 3: That was just The interesting thing is, now that's not
Speaker 3: going to happen because if you look at this, you know,
Speaker 3: look at our.
Speaker 1: Mister Rubio, he's all for this.
Speaker 3: So the good news, I guess at least, is finally
Speaker 3: we got State Department lined up with the military and
Speaker 3: the CIA and everybody's on the same page.
Speaker 1: Except when he goes up and say that positively enough, you.
Speaker 4: Did, you said it perfectly positively. And the only thing
Speaker 4: that's confusing is that he goes on Meet the Press
Speaker 4: on Sunday and they straight out asked him because you know,
Speaker 4: the very simple explanation of we're now going to run Venezuela.
Speaker 4: They basically went and said, because Trump had implied that
Speaker 4: it would be Rubio and all those State Department people
Speaker 4: that would be in charge of Venezuela from now on
Speaker 4: on Meet the Press, they basically said, so are you
Speaker 4: like running Venezuela now? He didn't really know how to
Speaker 4: answer that, too, well, like are you running Venezuela now?
Speaker 1: That was because Trump did say that.
Speaker 3: He looked behind them on the podium and said, you know,
Speaker 3: the secreator fence, these guys are going to be running.
Speaker 1: Venezuela and it's like, Okay, uh, what do I do next?
Speaker 1: What have I do tomorrow? So that that was a shock,
Speaker 1: that that is a that is a quandary.
Speaker 3: So maybe they're on the same maybe they're in the
Speaker 3: same book, but not quite on the same page yet
Speaker 3: A good point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm just saying a few details to be worked
Speaker 4: out for future consideration, maybe, like who's actually.
Speaker 5: In charge and who you're going to tell the world
Speaker 5: is in charge.
Speaker 4: But otherwise the the actual efforts here and everything else
Speaker 4: are being streamlined, and it does appear as though there
Speaker 4: is cohesion and coherence in the strategy now, right, So
Speaker 4: State Department is not battling ci A while trying to
Speaker 4: implement their agenda and vice versa.
Speaker 5: We now have them at least working together. So there
Speaker 5: you go.
Speaker 4: There's the positive spin, if you will, of what it
Speaker 4: is we're looking at. But does this bode well for
Speaker 4: our future? Larry, I mean, and now I am onto
Speaker 4: our as in you and we and me and you
Speaker 4: you know, does this bode well for the US? Or
Speaker 4: does this make us you know, once again the gangster
Speaker 4: nation on the planet? Or am I again you know
Speaker 4: reading hyperbole into this?
Speaker 5: What do you think?
Speaker 7: Now?
Speaker 1: I think what it does. It does restyle the US,
Speaker 1: And in the last twelve months we have restyled the US.
Speaker 3: I grew up in an era which was called the
Speaker 3: era of the Ugly American because we were overbearing.
Speaker 1: We were, you know, after World War Two. We have
Speaker 1: more military power, we have the A bomb, We can
Speaker 1: do whatever we want to do. We can go to
Speaker 1: your countries, you know. The it was almost like entertainment.
Speaker 3: There were movies made ugly because we were just viewed
Speaker 3: as being, you know, obnoxious, overbearing. You know, our ways
Speaker 3: the only right way. Why why aren't all you people
Speaker 3: speaking English? It's our language. Why aren't you speaking.
Speaker 1: That's that's where we are again.
Speaker 3: And now that didn't work out too well in the
Speaker 3: long run, and almost none of our regime change worked
Speaker 3: out too well in the wrong. But quite frankly, to
Speaker 3: be honest, it's usually it usually lasted long enough serve
Speaker 3: somebody to make a lot of money and somebody to
Speaker 3: you know, maintain a position of power for two or
Speaker 3: three years, won a few elections, and so it's very
Speaker 3: it's not a it's not a long term strategy. I
Speaker 3: guess you would have to say, gunpoat diplomacy is a
Speaker 3: tactic more than a long term strategy, and it works
Speaker 3: well for a time. But you know, we've It's not
Speaker 3: we're the only ones that have done it. Basically, everybody
Speaker 3: that's had an empire, British, Russian, French have gone through
Speaker 3: that phase. It's just that they've kind of come back
Speaker 3: in it, out of it. Well we're going back into it.
Speaker 5: Well, there you have it.
Speaker 4: I mean, so we have the short term strategy as
Speaker 4: opposed to the long term plan and you know, will
Speaker 4: that will that pan out? Well, I guess we'll have
Speaker 4: to stay tuned and see again. Check out Larry Hancock's
Speaker 4: word press blog. I advise that you read all of
Speaker 4: his books anyway, But for tonight's purposes, here we go.
Speaker 4: I would say shadow warfare. I think that was the
Speaker 4: first one I said. It was either that or surprise attack,
Speaker 4: but either way, both of them highly recommended. But specifically
Speaker 4: for tonight, maybe shadow warfare is best, even if we're
Speaker 4: not actually casting too many shadows, because everything's just being
Speaker 4: done in broad daylight.
Speaker 1: There it is.
Speaker 4: Gunboat diplomacy and plausible deal ability. So thanks again, Larry,
Speaker 4: appreciate you for stopping in, and maybe in two weeks
Speaker 4: hopefully we'll have something else to talk about. But I
Speaker 4: dare say there may be a continuation of this topic,
Speaker 4: and who knows what else might happen in the meantime,
Speaker 4: because twenty twenty six just started, and I have a
Speaker 4: feeling it's.
Speaker 5: Going to be a rocky year anyway. Hopefully it's not
Speaker 5: for you listening.
Speaker 4: I am merely o'celly, you guys who support this network
Speaker 4: and support the show and all that you are indeed the.
Speaker 6: Effect revelation through conversation In Denial.
Speaker 7: Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks by Larryhncock. Secret
Speaker 7: wars became a staple of US covert operations and are
Speaker 7: still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover
Speaker 7: off many of them, using new files. It exposes things
Speaker 7: about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever
Speaker 7: written about before. It shows why it really failed and
Speaker 7: why the United States did not earn from it. It
Speaker 7: also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations
Speaker 7: with more success. This is the book that puts what
Speaker 7: some want to deny into the light. In Denial, Secret
Speaker 7: Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larryhancock. For more information,
Speaker 7: go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your
Speaker 7: copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 5: In Digital Physical.
Speaker 8: Force, The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great
Speaker 8: national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency
Speaker 8: in the context of the times and reveals never before
Speaker 8: published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would
Speaker 8: not have been assassinated if he had been president two
Speaker 8: hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context
Speaker 8: of the Cold War and the rise of the national
Speaker 8: security state.
Speaker 1: Before World War.
Speaker 8: II, the United States was a continental republic. In the
Speaker 8: decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such
Speaker 8: as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but
Speaker 8: knew that there were short range missiles on the island
Speaker 8: armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because
Speaker 8: they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led
Speaker 8: to a Third World War, and they wanted to go
Speaker 8: to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals
Speaker 8: why and will show you what President Kennedy was up against.
Speaker 8: For more information, The Warstate dot Com
Speaker 5: Dot Com Radio