Speaker 1: Ready, get ready for it May twenty five, allegedly, according
Speaker 1: to that thing we call a calendar, and this is
Speaker 1: the Ocelli effect. Now we're working on a brand new
Speaker 1: platform when it comes to communication with guests and all
Speaker 1: that good stuff, and hopefully sound is all good. I
Speaker 1: guess we'll find out later. I know the sound will
Speaker 1: be okay, but will it be as as it was
Speaker 1: and as it has been for the past I don't
Speaker 1: know decade that I had Skype in the mix. We'll
Speaker 1: find out pretty soon. Anyway, working on teams. I have
Speaker 1: one of my familiar guests though, and glad that he
Speaker 1: sorted it out, because a lot of people have had
Speaker 1: problems with the transition. But anyway, do you want to
Speaker 1: hear about this? Nah, Let's talk about something else, and
Speaker 1: let's get into the thing that seems to be on
Speaker 1: everybody's mind everywhere. Wars, rumors of wars. People are at war,
Speaker 1: there's a tariff war. Nobody's even talking about the war
Speaker 1: on drugs. But people keep talking about the possibility of
Speaker 1: a civil war in the United States. What about the
Speaker 1: war in Gaza? What about the war you know Israel?
Speaker 1: Is it? This? Is it that? How about the ceasefire,
Speaker 1: the war? Is it a war? Actually? Special military operation
Speaker 1: going on in Ukraine? What about the removal of the
Speaker 1: foreign enemies and all that good stuff. Wait a minute,
Speaker 1: that's deportation nation. That's more of a domestic thing. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: hold on. Plenty of wars to go around, plenty of
Speaker 1: rumors of wars, And just when you thought maybe you
Speaker 1: understood all of what was happening, here comes cashmir once again.
Speaker 1: Who do I have with me? Larry Hancock, who is
Speaker 1: the author on a great many books, by the way,
Speaker 1: that occupy a large bit of space on my shelf,
Speaker 1: but I recommend them all. Who knows which book we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to refer to tonight. Maybe we'll have to
Speaker 1: talk a little shadow warfare. Perhaps we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: talk a little surprise attack. Maybe we're talking creating chaos.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Stay tuned because it's wars and rumors
Speaker 1: of wars with Larry Hancock. Go to larrydsh Hancock dot
Speaker 1: com and check out his blog and check out what
Speaker 1: he's thinking about, what he's written about. I obviously want
Speaker 1: you to get his latest book, which is The Oswald Puzzle.
Speaker 1: But guess what we're not talking Kennedy assassination tonight, Larry,
Speaker 1: How you doing, I'm.
Speaker 2: Doing okay, Chuck. And I've got to say from your
Speaker 2: your synopsis there, chaos kind of leaps to the fray.
Speaker 2: Hell yeah, that's that's where we all are.
Speaker 1: And I saved it for last because I'm sorry, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to talk about Putin, who plays a prominent
Speaker 1: role in the book creating chaos. But uh, but what
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to talk about the realistic situation, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, we we've had the supposed Seaspire, We've had
Speaker 1: the actions going on, and then the amping up of
Speaker 1: what action going on in Ukraine, attacks in cities where
Speaker 1: it wasn't before. Seems like Seaspire actually meant redirect your fire.
Speaker 1: And did anybody take a pause? Maybe they did? Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, what's happening in Gaza? Like I said,
Speaker 1: I can't even keep track of it all at this point.
Speaker 1: But then India and Pakistan, two nuclear powered nations staring
Speaker 1: down the barrel at one another as they actually do
Speaker 1: on a daily basis. Kashmir a continuous problem as far
Speaker 1: as I don't know the past since I've been alive.
Speaker 1: Maybe longer, I mean, and isn't it apropos because after all,
Speaker 1: Pakistan came into existence about the same time that Israel did,
Speaker 1: about a two year difference. I think, what was it
Speaker 1: forty seven and forty five or somewhere in there, in
Speaker 1: the late nineteen forties, both Pakistan and Israel became nation states,
Speaker 1: right if I got my history correct. But anyway, pay
Speaker 1: no attention to that. Let's get back to the hot wars,
Speaker 1: the Cold Wars, and the lukewarm of what's happening. And
Speaker 1: people are talking about it like we're about to go
Speaker 1: into World War three or turn to a civil war
Speaker 1: here at home, one the other or both, and we
Speaker 1: also have a tire of war happening. Larry, how do
Speaker 1: we snap this all into context and get I don't know,
Speaker 1: rational about it and avoid hyperbole? What do you think?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think one of the things it does come
Speaker 2: back to terminology to a large extent, and you can
Speaker 2: really get carried away if you don't, if you're not
Speaker 2: rugorous about that. I mean, we can look back at
Speaker 2: the so called world wars and bottom line, world war
Speaker 2: means exactly what it says. It means a participant or
Speaker 2: a group of participants fighting in you know, venues all
Speaker 2: around the globe. Now, did world wars happen? Are they
Speaker 2: a new thing? Did they start with World War One? No?
Speaker 2: They did not. You know, the American Revolution happened to
Speaker 2: have occurred during a world war between two empires, French
Speaker 2: and British. You know, the the creation of global empires
Speaker 2: really laid the foundation to be, you know, to fight
Speaker 2: around the globe. You know where there it was four
Speaker 2: territories in India and chinamantegration. French fought for territories and
Speaker 2: basically imperial rights in India and China throughout the South
Speaker 2: Seas in Latin America. So we we literally had world wars,
Speaker 2: but you had to have global reach, you know, your
Speaker 2: your combatant had to have global reach. And that when
Speaker 2: the empires went away, that that sort of faded out
Speaker 2: until we we we enter the state of alliances and
Speaker 2: packs and whether it was you know, the alliance that
Speaker 2: brought about World War One. So that's global warfare. Global
Speaker 2: warfare means just that you've got parties, whether it's an
Speaker 2: empire fighting another empire or an alliance fighting another alliance,
Speaker 2: all the way around the globe. That's not what we're
Speaker 2: seeing right now, and quite frankly not what we're likely
Speaker 2: to see. What we're seeing are wars around the globe.
Speaker 2: I'm mad around the globe by different parties for different purposes,
Speaker 2: you know. And one of the reasons why you're probably
Speaker 2: not going to see the world war thing again is
Speaker 2: because of atomic weapons, because you know, moving to that
Speaker 2: scale of warfare amps up things. So I think the
Speaker 2: first is a definition of terms chuck, and that's the
Speaker 2: to separate world war from world wars well.
Speaker 1: And it is difficult because the nuclear armed nations is
Speaker 1: an issue at all times. Right there are people that
Speaker 1: are desperately afraid of or leary of, say Iran becoming
Speaker 1: an armed nation with nuclear weapons. At the same time
Speaker 1: we have India and Pakistan. They're both nuclear armed nations
Speaker 1: as far as I know, I mean, I know, they
Speaker 1: don't have the largest arsenals or whatever, at least last
Speaker 1: time I checked. But then again, is anybody checking on that?
Speaker 1: And they are constantly at odds with one another over
Speaker 1: this region called Kashmir, which now we have new action there,
Speaker 1: or at least that's what they're reporting to us in
Speaker 1: the news, and it is a huge population in India. Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, there's also a rather large contingent of
Speaker 1: economic warfare have on the planet. So you know, there's
Speaker 1: different things going on here. Right. There's the and like
Speaker 1: I say, the tariff war there that Trump has launched,
Speaker 1: but also there's been economic warfare for a long time forever, really, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, so the struggles are there. There are imperial
Speaker 1: entities out there. They're not quite as prevalent as they
Speaker 1: once were, it seems like. But there's multiple fronts all
Speaker 1: over the place. I mean the US right now, Yeah,
Speaker 1: go ahead.
Speaker 2: I was going to say that again. You talk venues.
Speaker 2: You know, one is weapons oriented hot war combat. But
Speaker 2: in terms of actually world war quite frankly, we are
Speaker 2: now in a world war economically, right, and the United
Speaker 2: States started it. You know, there's just no doubt about
Speaker 2: that because we have engaged with it in the nations
Speaker 2: around the globe. This is not it is US basically
Speaker 2: moving to economic warfare. Whether you like it, where you
Speaker 2: don't like it, you could classify that truly as a
Speaker 2: world war. It's not just US engaged with China, just
Speaker 2: US engaged with Canada. It's basically US engaged with everyone
Speaker 2: who trades with US, So in that sense, I would
Speaker 2: amp that one up to say, oh, yeah, okay, this
Speaker 2: one really is a world economic war.
Speaker 1: Right, So world economic war is a given, and we
Speaker 1: do have hot shooting events going on in various places,
Speaker 1: but it's not on as many fronts or between large
Speaker 1: alliances and empires like it was in the previous quote
Speaker 1: world wars, right. I mean, I'm asking these questions. I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to press you on it. I'm literally looking
Speaker 1: at this going, well, how do we classify this because
Speaker 1: there's a lot of shooting going on. You know, again,
Speaker 1: I mentioned Gaza, I definitely mentioned in Ukraine. I definitely
Speaker 1: want to mention Yemen and the various other places. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of places that the news doesn't touch
Speaker 1: too where we find out later well, you know, for
Speaker 1: the past two years there's been this going on and
Speaker 1: that going on, you know, and it just suddenly comes
Speaker 1: up the moment, say a few US troops get killed
Speaker 1: in in action when they had not been killed in
Speaker 1: the previous eighteen months of conflict. You know, stuff like
Speaker 1: that goes on as well, and there's a couple of
Speaker 1: disruptions where some governments have been overthrown, even in the
Speaker 1: past few months. Nobody's paying attention because we're arguing about
Speaker 1: the price of eggs and things in the US. But
Speaker 1: that's still happening too, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: And there's I mean, and it makes the news for
Speaker 2: one day and then it goes away. There's as much
Speaker 2: fighting going on in North Africa, and it's at an
Speaker 2: amazing level. And fighting that's going on with jet combat aircraft,
Speaker 2: advanced military weaponry. You know, that is going on between
Speaker 2: nations on the African continent, which actually in some sense
Speaker 2: scaled up. It's not at the level of Ukraine and Russia,
Speaker 2: but certainly at the moment it would be far greater
Speaker 2: than the exchanges that India and Pakistan are having in
Speaker 2: terms of fatalities, certainly in terms of collateral damage civilian deaths.
Speaker 2: But because those nations don't have the visibility in the media,
Speaker 2: you know, you just periodically hear about that. So it's
Speaker 2: a fair statement to say that military combat is going
Speaker 2: on around the globe. It's just a matter of but
Speaker 2: it's one party against together again, that's the point I
Speaker 2: was trying to make. Yeah, they may be supported, this
Speaker 2: is it feels a lot more like the fifties and
Speaker 2: sixties where there were you know, you could look at
Speaker 2: the Congo, you could look at Angola, you could look
Speaker 2: at Latin America, and you would find revolutions and combat
Speaker 2: going on all around the place. This we had kind
Speaker 2: of drifted away from that at the end of the
Speaker 2: last century, and in the first part of the century,
Speaker 2: you know, there was a period of it just wasn't
Speaker 2: at this same level, It wasn't at this this widespread,
Speaker 2: and now it's back again, which almost kind of leads
Speaker 2: you to like, have we recycled back to where we
Speaker 2: were at the height of the Cold War, which was
Speaker 2: never really cold other than the fact that you didn't
Speaker 2: have nuclear exchange.
Speaker 1: Well, and there it is, right, why do people even
Speaker 1: care about Indian Pakistan clashing with each other over this
Speaker 1: area called Kashmir. It's got a long history. But the
Speaker 1: truth is, I think they didn't care so much until
Speaker 1: what was it ninete in the mid nineties, I guess,
Speaker 1: or late nineties, when all of a sudden there was
Speaker 1: sort of an announcement that hey, India and Pakistan both
Speaker 1: have nuclear weapons, and then it became wait a minute,
Speaker 1: they're constantly escalating hostilities between one another. Could it be
Speaker 1: that a smaller circumstance that is not a global one
Speaker 1: could be turned into one if people start to engage
Speaker 1: with nuclear weapons. And isn't that a worry because we
Speaker 1: hear about it all the time. We heard about it
Speaker 1: over Ukraine, We've heard about it. Well, we don't hear
Speaker 1: about it over Gaza, because in Gaza they're throwing rocks
Speaker 1: at the IDF and they're clearly outgunned there. But you know,
Speaker 1: what are you going to do? You're not looking at
Speaker 1: nuclear escalation, but everywhere else where somebody has the bomb.
Speaker 1: We got a problem here. I mean, even though Israel
Speaker 1: is a nuclear armed nation as well, we're not worried
Speaker 1: that someone else might engage with them in that just yet.
Speaker 1: Oh wait a minute, that's why they're worried about Iran.
Speaker 1: And there we go. Right, it's the potential versus the
Speaker 1: actual possibility of escalation in something that's really a limited engagement,
Speaker 1: and right.
Speaker 2: Limited nuclear warfare makes the difference. I think that's that
Speaker 2: that takes us back to mutual assured destruction. You know,
Speaker 2: when both the United States and the USSR had twenty
Speaker 2: thousand megaton class weapons, you know, insanity is right on
Speaker 2: the horizon it's it's self destruction. When when Pakistan and India,
Speaker 2: or Iran in Israel or somebody might say, well we
Speaker 2: can Putin is saying weekly, I mean literally, Putin is
Speaker 2: saying over and over again, it's Oria's senior political people
Speaker 2: that we could use one or two nukes on Ukraine
Speaker 2: and settle all of this. You know, it's just at
Speaker 2: some point they're going to force us to do that.
Speaker 2: You know, that's that's not mutual. It's your destruction. That
Speaker 2: that's where temptation sets in, you know, And and what's
Speaker 2: to stop that? Who Nobody has stepped up and said, well,
Speaker 2: right now, nobody is stepping up and say if you
Speaker 2: do that, you're done because we will respond. We can't
Speaker 2: trust you. You're too much of a threat. You know.
Speaker 2: So there are now people in position of using a
Speaker 2: limited number of smaller yield nuclear weapons. It's tempting to
Speaker 2: do it because if you do it, you just immediately
Speaker 2: won you know, like we've got like you know, Israel
Speaker 2: is going to say, we've just got to settle this nonsense.
Speaker 2: Now is the time to use them where front before
Speaker 2: Iran gets them in quantity. Uh, you know, temptation sets
Speaker 2: in at a level now that's way beyond, way below
Speaker 2: mutual assurured destruction. That's the most worrisome thing.
Speaker 1: And what's funny is I'm reminded very much of a
Speaker 1: lecture I once attended. Believe it or not, Robert McNamara
Speaker 1: was at NYU and was giving a lecture on matt
Speaker 1: mutually a short destructive deterrent, you know, the concept of
Speaker 1: it and how it was going to play out in
Speaker 1: the very near future. And what's funny to me is
Speaker 1: I'm seeing what McNamara actually was giving lectures on what
Speaker 1: we're looking at today in a weird way, like he
Speaker 1: was very much prognosticating about the circumstance we find ourselves
Speaker 1: in currently where we're getting close to a time when
Speaker 1: I think there will be limited nuclear engagements and then
Speaker 1: knows where that'll go, because the larger nations will look
Speaker 1: at it and say, now, do we contain this or
Speaker 1: do we get involved? Do we just let them radiate
Speaker 1: their part of the planet, or you know, there are
Speaker 1: various options that come up here for the nations with
Speaker 1: the larger arsenal arsenals, let's say, right, and that becomes
Speaker 1: a whole other topic that thankfully we have not actually
Speaker 1: faced that scenario yet.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think the ugly underside of MAD was the
Speaker 2: fact that it did work. It worked for a couple
Speaker 2: of decades, and then it almost didn't work because that
Speaker 2: someone had the bright idea or the fear, call it
Speaker 2: an idea, call it fear, whatever, that if you could
Speaker 2: execute decapitation strikes and literally break the chain of command,
Speaker 2: take out the leadership, you could eliminate MAD because you
Speaker 2: did away with the you know, the controls that would
Speaker 2: launch your counter strike, and there you could get away
Speaker 2: with it. Basically, you could cheat. If we can, if
Speaker 2: we can decapitate the adversary, we're clear, it's clean, there's
Speaker 2: going to be no matrixchange, and we won. They will
Speaker 2: be you know, remove the leadership and you're done. And
Speaker 2: the Soviets were extremely scared of that. In the nineteen
Speaker 2: eighties we found we found out a couple of times,
Speaker 2: uh and later in the nineties the first time they
Speaker 2: were scared when they learned about our stealth capability. And
Speaker 2: this we only learned after the fact because we saw
Speaker 2: found internal Soviet documents saying that they thought the whole
Speaker 2: point of our F one seventeen stealth fighter bombers was decapitation.
Speaker 2: We could get in, take out their leadership, take out
Speaker 2: their command and control system, and we're done. And they
Speaker 2: they actually almost went to preemption and A four with
Speaker 2: a preemptive strike, thinking we were preparing to do that
Speaker 2: later on. They even looked at the possibility that we
Speaker 2: were going to use the space shovel for that sort
Speaker 2: of thing.
Speaker 1: And that was during a weird time when they were
Speaker 1: actually extremely preoccupied with the concept of Star Wars, which
Speaker 1: Reagan was talking about, and they thought we had gone
Speaker 1: further ahead in that program than we actually had, and
Speaker 1: they thought about preemptive strikes in order to deal with it.
Speaker 1: What's funny is in the late nineties, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you ever saw this movie, but I always find
Speaker 1: it interesting when Hollywood expresses some of these things and
Speaker 1: sort of puts them out there in a long movie
Speaker 1: form to sort of demonstrate certain things that are in
Speaker 1: the zeitgeist at the moment. And in nineteen ninety nine
Speaker 1: a movie called Deterrence was released. Do you ever see it?
Speaker 2: That one doesn't ring a bell it?
Speaker 1: Kevin Pollock plays the President of the United States, So
Speaker 1: there you go. That's exclusive way to look it. Up,
Speaker 1: because I'm pretty sure that's the only time he ever
Speaker 1: did that. But Kevin Pollock places president of the United
Speaker 1: States and ends up looking an American city because there
Speaker 1: was an accidental destruction of a Soviet or Russian city
Speaker 1: right by American nuclear weapons, and the only way to
Speaker 1: deter a full on nuclear exchange was for the president
Speaker 1: to turn around and sacrifice one of our cities. So
Speaker 1: we knoked one of our own major population areas to
Speaker 1: counter to balance the fact that there had been an
Speaker 1: accidental strike, which was another worry in various governments throughout
Speaker 1: the eighties, nineties and into the early two thousands, the
Speaker 1: concept of the accidental strike. You know, if you take
Speaker 1: people out of the loop and this and that there
Speaker 1: might be issues or you know, so on and so forth,
Speaker 1: what happens if pa drill goes live and things like this?
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that that actually that theme I'm looking at
Speaker 2: right up my bookshelf here, and that that was the
Speaker 2: scenario in a movie and a novel called fail Safe
Speaker 2: Too from the early sixties. That uh, the literally the
Speaker 2: president had to accept the destruction, and that one has
Speaker 2: not only had to had to accept the destruction of
Speaker 2: the American city where his wife happened to be at
Speaker 2: the time on a political campaign tour. But uh yeah,
Speaker 2: that's a that's a that's a scenario. And you know,
Speaker 2: not that all these scenarios have not been exploded by
Speaker 2: people thinking about them. But what the concerning thing right now?
Speaker 2: That's why I use the word temptation. You know, it's
Speaker 2: pretty clear that Israel is tempted to resolve its whole
Speaker 2: Iranian problem by decapitation with It's pretty clear that that
Speaker 2: would be a temptation for both India and Pakistan. It's
Speaker 2: certainly right now a temptation for Putin because he keeps
Speaker 2: threatening to eliminate the political political leadership in giv Right.
Speaker 2: I mean, the temptation that you can get away free
Speaker 2: and solve all your problems and not bear any pain
Speaker 2: for it is probably the most worrisome thing going right now.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is no longer mad, that's it's it's
Speaker 2: a temptation to use your weapons to solve all your
Speaker 2: problems and it's done. There's no more stress, no more tension.
Speaker 2: You do it all at once.
Speaker 1: And in the aftermath of that, right, theoretically, the trouble
Speaker 1: then becomes what are the other nations going to do
Speaker 1: about it? Then what can they possibly accomplish? Are they
Speaker 1: going to now decapitate you know the Russian government in response?
Speaker 1: Is that something? Well, nobody thinks that that would happen
Speaker 1: in response to the literal like say, if Kiev was nuked, right,
Speaker 1: would somebody turn around and nuke Moscow? You know, in
Speaker 1: order to balance out the sheet so to speak? Right?
Speaker 1: Probably not, and that calculation might come into play. Look,
Speaker 1: I can solve my problems and then I whether the fallout,
Speaker 1: sorry to use the expression politically, you know, on the
Speaker 1: world stage, what would that do? That would likely isolate putin,
Speaker 1: That would likely, you know, create a circumstance where you
Speaker 1: have a pariah nation temporarily, but at the end of
Speaker 1: the day.
Speaker 2: Then what that was the problem that the alliances were
Speaker 2: supposed to solve. I mean, you can look at the
Speaker 2: downside of the alliances, which led to World War One,
Speaker 2: but you can look at the f side of the
Speaker 2: alliances because they were developed just to address that particular problem.
Speaker 2: If Ukraine were NATO, this would not be a problem,
Speaker 2: would not be an option. There's no alliance that extends
Speaker 2: to Israel. There's no alliance that extends to Iran. There's
Speaker 2: no alliance that extends really to India and Pakistan. I mean,
Speaker 2: they have partners who supply them weaponry, but China is
Speaker 2: not going to step in to support Pakistan. Russia is
Speaker 2: not going to check you know. That's drifting away from
Speaker 2: these alliances. In one way, you can say, oh, well,
Speaker 2: this is good. Things are much better now than when
Speaker 2: we had NATO and SETO, and they never accomplished anything anyway.
Speaker 2: But then when you think about it a little bit longer,
Speaker 2: it's like, well, maybe they did accomplish something, because when
Speaker 2: they were in existence, we didn't. Nothing that bad really happened.
Speaker 1: Well, it created a systemic understanding of restraint, right, and
Speaker 1: also protection both of them simultane right, So there was
Speaker 1: protection for the lesser nations so that they wouldn't be decapitated,
Speaker 1: and there was restraint on the side of the larger,
Speaker 1: the bigger boogeyman who had the weaponry because there would
Speaker 1: be serious consequences. I mean literally, I think people don't
Speaker 1: quite appreciate the idea that if you attack one nat donation,
Speaker 1: it is supposed to be taken as an attack on
Speaker 1: all and if that's the case, I mean, sorry, that's
Speaker 1: like street level gang mentality. You know, you attack one
Speaker 1: of us, you've attacked all of us, so we will
Speaker 1: behave and respond as if you attacked all of us.
Speaker 1: That's the kind of thing that makes most people step
Speaker 1: back and not want to take the extreme measures. So
Speaker 1: but without those alliances or the unaligned nations that have
Speaker 1: their own centers of power, but also many partnerships on
Speaker 1: many different levels, what does this mean? It makes it
Speaker 1: much more difficult to navigate, right, it.
Speaker 2: Does, and it sort of like makes you step back
Speaker 2: and think a little bit. It's sort of like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: we did all of those things during the quote unquote
Speaker 2: Cold War. We had, we had alliances, we had you know,
Speaker 2: we made the rules very clear. You even had a
Speaker 2: United Nations that would send in peacekeepers, and at one
Speaker 2: point there was this idealistic thought that you know, peacekeepers
Speaker 2: were backed up by a larger force and so on.
Speaker 2: You know, nobody's talked about peacekeepers anymore for like this decade,
Speaker 2: for the last decade. So there are all sorts of
Speaker 2: these things that occurred during the Cold War that we
Speaker 2: now go, well, we didn't need any of that, We don't.
Speaker 2: We can give all of that up and nobody seems
Speaker 2: to stop and thought about the fact that it actually worked.
Speaker 2: There was no nuclear warfare, there was no globe. It's like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: we're like, are we smarter now? Are we brighter now?
Speaker 2: Are we less combative? Are we less political? Did we
Speaker 2: suddenly get better so that we didn't need all of
Speaker 2: those safeguards? I don't think so.
Speaker 1: No, I don't think so either. And that's the amazing
Speaker 1: thing here is as much as you could say, look,
Speaker 1: the UN is like kind of a worthless organization, what
Speaker 1: do they actually do? Let me tell you something real
Speaker 1: quick an anecdote anyway, And this is not just for you, Larry, obviously,
Speaker 1: but the point is I knew people who worked for
Speaker 1: the UN and were present in what they used to
Speaker 1: call Yugoslavia right during a very rough time there. And
Speaker 1: you know when they drove a truck and wore outfits
Speaker 1: that denoted them as UN personnel. Okay, not even peacekeepers,
Speaker 1: just people that were there to do jobs on behalf
Speaker 1: of the UN, even military elements that were perfectly willing
Speaker 1: to kill women, children, burn down villages, commit war crime,
Speaker 1: they would not point a gun at somebody in a
Speaker 1: UN truck because they didn't want the backlash from that
Speaker 1: because they had a fear of that. Even in a
Speaker 1: war torn almost chaotic, I mean genocides going in multiple
Speaker 1: directions war zone, nobody wanted to point a gun at
Speaker 1: the un guys. Right, That's something I heard from guys
Speaker 1: who drove trucks, who were just bringing supplies from place
Speaker 1: to place. They got paid pretty well to do it
Speaker 1: because they were non combatants. They were unarmed in Yugoslavia. Okay,
Speaker 1: not exactly something that somebody does, you know, safely usually
Speaker 1: at that time, right, But they did it because they
Speaker 1: knew they had the invisible armor of no one is
Speaker 1: going to want to shoot at us, no one is
Speaker 1: going to want to kill us or blow up our truck.
Speaker 1: So we feel confident we can drive through a war zone. Okay,
Speaker 1: why do I bring that up? Because those types of
Speaker 1: alliances that created that sort of circumstance I don't think
Speaker 1: exists anymore. What are your thoughts on that.
Speaker 2: I don't think certainly they fragmented. The alliance exists, and
Speaker 2: I think that the point is the alliances can exist,
Speaker 2: and we're seeing I mean, we're seeing NATO reform itself.
Speaker 2: There's no doubt about that. NATO is rebuilding itself largely
Speaker 2: without the US, and NATO has the potential for becoming
Speaker 2: the sort of military force that can, you know, can
Speaker 2: conduct massive retaliation, because what you're really talking about, Chuck,
Speaker 2: is the armor that you're talking about is if we
Speaker 2: shoot at that truck, there will be massive retaliations. In
Speaker 2: all honesty, you got to be you got to be
Speaker 2: forthright about it because the people, especially in the Balkans
Speaker 2: and that sort of thing, as you said, were motivated
Speaker 2: by a lot of different things, including religious fanaticism. And
Speaker 2: the only way you really stop that is you let
Speaker 2: them know that it's not worth the effort, right, It's
Speaker 2: not worth the cost. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.
Speaker 2: But we gave that away with the UN. We gave
Speaker 2: that away with the UN when the structure that was
Speaker 2: inventioned post World War two evaporated. You know, when when
Speaker 2: everybody when when people can veto military action, then you
Speaker 2: just gave it away. Nobody ever dreamed that the United
Speaker 2: States would not have the United Nations would not have
Speaker 2: overwhelming military capability to put down the sorts of things
Speaker 2: that occurring now, Like, okay, we're not going to talk
Speaker 2: to both sides we're just going to squash both sides.
Speaker 2: And literally that was the assumption the UN don't stop.
Speaker 1: The UN would be imagined almost like a bouncer coming
Speaker 1: into any brawl and would say, you know what, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna sit you on this side of the bar. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna sit you on that side of the bar. And
Speaker 1: one thing we're gonna do is put a stop to
Speaker 1: what's happening here.
Speaker 2: Just yeah, just stop. That's it.
Speaker 1: Stop.
Speaker 2: We're not we have no interest in this except stopping it.
Speaker 2: And it's it's funny. We're now back in the mode
Speaker 2: where you can hear the US President talk about uh
Speaker 2: Pakistan and India and it's make a statement about well
Speaker 2: we just we just stope they stop soon, and it's like,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, that is not the reality of human
Speaker 2: nature that you know, people that start a fight don't
Speaker 2: just never necessarily stop with good sense and restraint. Would
Speaker 2: be nice to think about that, but uh so that's
Speaker 2: that's a long way from and I think part of it,
Speaker 2: quite frankly, is the people that form the u N.
Speaker 2: The people at the end of war were too We're
Speaker 2: very realistic about power and combat, and you know, they
Speaker 2: knew they had seen it and they were really really
Speaker 2: motivated to stop it. And uh, we're distant in time
Speaker 2: from that now, it's that part, that part faded out.
Speaker 2: So now that's why the UN really no longer. It's
Speaker 2: amazing when you think of the fact that I grew
Speaker 2: up hearing about UN peacekeeping missions that were at least
Speaker 2: nominally effective for periods of time, and that that's not
Speaker 2: even proposed anymore.
Speaker 1: Well, no, And I wonder how much of that is
Speaker 1: based on the change of attitude regarding the United States alone,
Speaker 1: and how much of that is based on the fact
Speaker 1: that we now have fragmented alliances as opposed to these
Speaker 1: massive groups that came to get in the past. See
Speaker 1: those massive groups, some people would say that was the
Speaker 1: cause of the global wars. Right, that was the cause
Speaker 1: of the global wars because there were these massive sides
Speaker 1: and you could draw a huge line, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: at one point, I remember reading about an account and
Speaker 1: history where the Pope, because you know, the Pope has
Speaker 1: been in the news lately, the Pope literally drew a
Speaker 1: line to divide the world between Portugal and Spain, right, right,
Speaker 1: drew a line on a global map to say this
Speaker 1: is yours. And this is yours. I know that's hard
Speaker 1: to imagine, but at one time the empires of each
Speaker 1: were large enough that that consideration was serious. My point
Speaker 1: is that there's no longer an empire large enough to
Speaker 1: make that consideration worthy. There's no longer alliances large enough
Speaker 1: to make that consideration worthy. So now it's become increasingly
Speaker 1: more complex, and it is everything is on a smaller scale,
Speaker 1: but it's made the action really come to life on
Speaker 1: a wider scale. How much of this is like the
Speaker 1: United States's faults or the current uh, you know, the
Speaker 1: current administration's fault or the past few administration's faults regarding
Speaker 1: the US, or is this just condition of the planet.
Speaker 1: This is how things have gone. This is human nature
Speaker 1: evolving or devolving, depending on how you want to look
Speaker 1: at it. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 2: I think too. I mean the fact that you started
Speaker 2: out with wars and rumors of wars, that's human nature. Yes,
Speaker 2: I mean that you cannot pick a spot in history
Speaker 2: where that was not true. It was just a matter
Speaker 2: of where it was and how big it was. And
Speaker 2: you know that that's that's just the nature of the beast.
Speaker 2: If you if you want to go into that. That
Speaker 2: leads me back to my cultural anthropology. But uh so
Speaker 2: that part, the part that really is interesting is how
Speaker 2: much that is that has been traded for political influence.
Speaker 2: Let's let's get back at the UN as an example
Speaker 2: of that. As we were just talking, when the UN
Speaker 2: was formed, the thought was, as you described it, it's
Speaker 2: just it's there is a force to stop wars. No
Speaker 2: good guy, bad guy, just stop it, okay, because we've
Speaker 2: just been through all that. We don't want to see
Speaker 2: it again. So we need something that just when they start,
Speaker 2: we stop them with whatever resource we have. And that
Speaker 2: was Korea, I mean quite frankly as an example of that.
Speaker 2: But in Korea, the only reason that even worked in
Speaker 2: Korea is because when the vote was taken at the UN,
Speaker 2: the Soviet ambassador was protesting by not being around to
Speaker 2: take the vote, and the vote happened. That's now we've
Speaker 2: moved into the point where you know, it would have
Speaker 2: almost been impossible to think of the US vetoing a
Speaker 2: resolution this aimed at even criticizing military action. But we
Speaker 2: have seen that in the last few months in regard
Speaker 2: to Israel and Gaza in Palace.
Speaker 1: You know that.
Speaker 2: We used to think that it's all the Soviets. The
Speaker 2: Soviets will stop the UN from taking any reasonable action.
Speaker 2: It's no longer just the Soviets. Pretty much anybody on
Speaker 2: the Security Council can do it, and most recently it's
Speaker 2: been the US. Why we're doing it is just would
Speaker 2: appear just to be pure politics, but it's certainly not
Speaker 2: in line with the ideals that were involved in founding
Speaker 2: the UN. And I think this reaches into almost all
Speaker 2: the combat we're talking about. It's no longer we're no
Speaker 2: longer taking the position. The US is certainly not taking
Speaker 2: the position that we're just against wars.
Speaker 1: Stop it.
Speaker 2: You know, if somebody attacks somebody else automatically, they should stop.
Speaker 2: Is it? Is it even saying to think that we
Speaker 2: now do not acknowledge that Russia attacked Ukraine and we
Speaker 2: can't say that in the House of Representatives or in Congress,
Speaker 2: or the President can't say it. I mean, how political
Speaker 2: can that be? We can't even acknowledge the facts of life.
Speaker 2: And in regard to warfare.
Speaker 1: Yes, they invaded, well they didn't really start it because actually, yeah,
Speaker 1: I know that that is a mind bender for sure,
Speaker 1: But how much of that is caused by us, and
Speaker 1: how much of it are we being influenced by it
Speaker 1: at this point. The idea that you know, at one time,
Speaker 1: like you said, we might have been interested in being
Speaker 1: the world's policeman, right, that whole thing. Everybody got really angry,
Speaker 1: angry with that after a few decades. You know, we're
Speaker 1: not supposed to be the world's policeman. We shouldn't be
Speaker 1: involved in everybody else's problems. This is not our issue.
Speaker 1: We need to stay out of it. Going to an
Speaker 1: almost isolationist but not really but almost isolationists when it
Speaker 1: comes to, you know, the idea of engagement in a
Speaker 1: military sense, but you know, engaged in every other way
Speaker 1: across the planet, like you said, totally at war with
Speaker 1: the entire world at this point economically. But when it
Speaker 1: comes to you know, military actions, say, look, you know
Speaker 1: what we're going to kind of just stick to our
Speaker 1: own business here and stay out of it because this
Speaker 1: isn't really us. And besides, you know, Putin had to
Speaker 1: do what he had to do, and that's not necessarily
Speaker 1: who started it at doesn't matter, you know, And I
Speaker 1: know I'm being mocking here, but I mean, what am
Speaker 1: I supposed to do? With this, we're not the world's police.
Speaker 1: I get it, And yeah, even I was aggravated with that.
Speaker 1: Why are we off on adventures and other parts of
Speaker 1: the world when we're not tending to our own problems
Speaker 1: at home? I get that sentiment. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: are these things not going to come back taunt us
Speaker 1: later that we didn't decide to play bouncers sometimes? You know, Uh, it's.
Speaker 2: Sort of it's sort of like insurance. Well, I mean,
Speaker 2: first off, when we're talking about the level of you know, uh, combat,
Speaker 2: and the globe is much smaller than it used to be.
Speaker 2: You know, nobody is safe from any other power. Given
Speaker 2: the the advent of the types of missiles, the type
Speaker 2: of I mean not just nukes, forget it like that.
Speaker 2: You you could conduct decapitation these days with long range
Speaker 2: strike missiles. Uh, and it doesn't even have to be nuclear.
Speaker 2: So the thought that you're that you can fool yourself
Speaker 2: by saying, oh, we can ignore the threat from the
Speaker 2: rest of the world, it's just silliness. If even the
Speaker 2: president with this new gold Dome system is it's like, Okay,
Speaker 2: we have to protect ourselves from anybody from anything at
Speaker 2: any time, and we're going to spend an unlimited amount
Speaker 2: of money on that. We're tripling our defense budget. You
Speaker 2: know that that does not say to me, America first,
Speaker 2: you know, we can isolate ourselves in the world. You know,
Speaker 2: maybe maybe we're only isolating ourselves because we were making
Speaker 2: ourselves so militarily, but that clearly that this you're not
Speaker 2: isolated from the world. If you have to talk about
Speaker 2: a gold dome defense system.
Speaker 1: Well that's it was one of the most intelligent, you know,
Speaker 1: attempts that Zelensky made to try and speak during that
Speaker 1: you know, really weird White House meeting where you know,
Speaker 1: Trump saying you don't have many cards. I've got all
Speaker 1: the cards all that's going on, and Zelensky looked at
Speaker 1: him and said, you know, those oceans you think protect
Speaker 1: you like they used to, that doesn't quite work that
Speaker 1: way anymore. He tried to make that point. It got
Speaker 1: drowned in the rest of what was going on there.
Speaker 1: But I think people miss that, and I'm sorry, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not necessarily a fan of Zelensky's, but that was
Speaker 1: one of the most intelligent statements that he tried to
Speaker 1: make during that circumstance.
Speaker 2: Whether you like it or not, there is a global
Speaker 2: economy because there are global resources, whether there are mineral
Speaker 2: I'll escape from the fact that there is a global economy.
Speaker 2: You can't do everything inside any one nation anymore. That's
Speaker 2: just the reality our technology in terms of communication, transportation,
Speaker 2: that sort of stuff. Global security issue, you know, you exist.
Speaker 2: So I'm not saying I'm a globalist, But the point
Speaker 2: is you have to acknowledge that there is no more isolationism.
Speaker 2: Even though that sounds lovely and wonderful, I'm not going
Speaker 2: back to, you know, eighteen ninety, it's just not going
Speaker 2: to happen.
Speaker 1: Well. So, and as you said, the world is a
Speaker 1: smaller place than it once was as well. I mean,
Speaker 1: just logistically, you can now be hit by something rather quickly,
Speaker 1: like you said, not just nuclear weapons, but I mean
Speaker 1: there are various ways that you know, again, those oceans, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they provide a little bit of an obstacle, but not
Speaker 1: as much as they once did. When it comes to,
Speaker 1: you know, somebody deciding they wanted to strike let's just
Speaker 1: say the continental US. It's a lot more doable nowadays
Speaker 1: than it was a few decades ago.
Speaker 2: And they don't even have to strike the continental US.
Speaker 2: The bottom line is if you look at the technological infrastructure,
Speaker 2: I could I could do an e MP surge and
Speaker 2: bring the nation to its knees without you even knowing
Speaker 2: who is guilty. Right, that's that. All I've got to
Speaker 2: do is set off the right weapon at the right place.
Speaker 2: There's just so many points of attack. I mean, the
Speaker 2: fact the fact that we are now in the process
Speaker 2: of essentially doing away with our cyber defense system is
Speaker 2: amazing and agonizing because we're just exposed on so many
Speaker 2: other levels. But without going into that, trying to go
Speaker 2: back to a point that you made in the beginning, Chuck,
Speaker 2: I think what shifted over time is we do I
Speaker 2: blame it on the United States? No, I don't. But
Speaker 2: what you have to acknowledge is the United States for
Speaker 2: decades took the position from a political standpoint that we
Speaker 2: were against war, we're against combat, where against conflict, and
Speaker 2: the State Department would take that position universally, and that
Speaker 2: was the official American position at the same time that
Speaker 2: we were conducting political warfare and deniable military warfare. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's so many occasions we've discussed that I document in
Speaker 2: on my books that the State Department was saying one thing,
Speaker 2: and the CIA was doing something one hundred and eight
Speaker 2: degrees opposed to that, and the President was very aware
Speaker 2: of both of them. Right, yeah, you can't play that game.
Speaker 2: You screw yourself up. I mean, if you play that
Speaker 2: game gets it gets inside your own head. And to
Speaker 2: some extent, I think that's what happened to the US.
Speaker 2: We played that game for so long, and it's to
Speaker 2: some extent we still try to play it that you lose.
Speaker 2: It's a foundational problem. That's a new term I really like,
Speaker 2: is foundational. It's sort of like, no, at least when
Speaker 2: you came out of World War Two, you had one
Speaker 2: state of position. I'm against warfare, you know, but if
Speaker 2: I'm against warfare, I can't cultivate warfare. As soon as
Speaker 2: we started doing that, we did ourselves in and I
Speaker 2: think that's led us to where we are now, where
Speaker 2: it's almost like we're trying to revert to saying I
Speaker 2: don't want to be involved in any of this. Right,
Speaker 2: it's better that I isolate myself and you can't accuse
Speaker 2: me of anything. I just it's not my problem. You
Speaker 2: guys can all kill yourself and it's not my problem.
Speaker 2: And that way I don't have to take a position
Speaker 2: in life. Is very simple.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that doesn't take into account the fact that
Speaker 1: even if other people decide to, you know, go to
Speaker 1: war with each other, there will be resonant effects because
Speaker 1: we are interconnected with me seemingly everything on the planet.
Speaker 1: Guess what, There's going to be effects. Even if two
Speaker 1: nations decide to, you know, get into a squabble now
Speaker 1: and one decapitate the other, eliminates the other, absolutely wipes
Speaker 1: the other off the planet, there's going to be consequences
Speaker 1: for us one way or another. So there's no way
Speaker 1: we're going to be unaffected at this point.
Speaker 2: So so here, it's not like we have Thomas Jefferson's
Speaker 2: agricultural economy as the backbone of our nation anymore. That
Speaker 2: was good times, but no more.
Speaker 1: There was a time when we could be in isolationist nation,
Speaker 1: but now I think that's kind of an impossibility. So look,
Speaker 1: here's the thing that we've danced around for forty five minutes,
Speaker 1: And now I'm going to go to the hard question here,
Speaker 1: which is there is the temptation and there is again
Speaker 1: the hyperbole out there of we need to be worried
Speaker 1: about this coming, we need to be worried about that coming.
Speaker 1: What in your estimation, though, are the real dangers that
Speaker 1: are coming up on us quickly, probably faster than most
Speaker 1: people realize. I mean, I'm not as worried about, you
Speaker 1: know what, if Iran has nukes, I'm not as worried
Speaker 1: about that as I am about some other things that
Speaker 1: seem to be escalating and could easily wind up out
Speaker 1: of control in a hurry and cause once again lots
Speaker 1: of unintended and unforeseen consequences for us here and the
Speaker 1: rest of the planet one way or another. Do you
Speaker 1: have any thoughts about what is predictable that could be
Speaker 1: problems coming in the very near future from what's going
Speaker 1: on right now?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I absolutely do. I think there are two or three.
Speaker 2: Most dangerous thing that it couldccur right now is a
Speaker 2: leader who is in power in a nation, who has
Speaker 2: control over their atomic weaponry or weapons of mass destruction,
Speaker 2: that doesn't matter what you call it, that decides that
Speaker 2: the only way to solve their own personal political problem
Speaker 2: that they've gotten themselves into is to is to take
Speaker 2: the quick and easy route and to use weapons of
Speaker 2: mass destruction for decapitation. As I am, terrifically concerned that
Speaker 2: a Putin might do that, that he might just go
Speaker 2: ahead and you know, like he has no exits, right.
Speaker 2: These are people that have involved themselves in a situation
Speaker 2: where there is no other exit strategy, so suddenly they
Speaker 2: do something appallingly stupid stupid. Iz concerns me. Putin is
Speaker 2: in that position now. Is the Israeli premiere in that position?
Speaker 2: Could be getting close? Is the Indian president in that position?
Speaker 2: It depends on what Pakistan's decides to do next. You know,
Speaker 2: as far as China not in that position unless their
Speaker 2: economy really goes south. But I'm concerned about individuals who
Speaker 2: put themselves into a position to do something stupid and
Speaker 2: there are no checks and balances.
Speaker 1: I think the Chinese have a much longer fuse on
Speaker 1: something like that occurring, because they have a much greater
Speaker 1: amount of time that they could wait it out, even
Speaker 1: with the economic warfare. If they begin to really lose
Speaker 1: on a massive scale, they'll actually suck it up for
Speaker 1: a while. I think, yeah, they will.
Speaker 2: Put Putin is Putin is my major fear at the moment.
Speaker 2: If I had to like add bad dreams, it would
Speaker 2: be Putin.
Speaker 1: See and I've seen suppositions out there from some people
Speaker 1: that you know have discussed this, you know, in political
Speaker 1: science circles that you know. This is why no one
Speaker 1: has actually pushed Putin to the wall on this situation
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, because if he feels as though he could
Speaker 1: be facing the removal of his control over Russia, that
Speaker 1: could be the impetus for him deciding well, then I
Speaker 1: might as well just go nuclear. You're going to try
Speaker 1: and take me out, well, you might get me, but
Speaker 1: I'm gonna take a whole lot of you with me.
Speaker 1: And I mean that's I've really oversimplified what they've said
Speaker 1: in these scenarios they drew out. But I mean, is
Speaker 1: that the kind of thing you're thinking of?
Speaker 2: Is okay, that's the kind of thing. I'm also very concerned.
Speaker 2: I'm not a very big fan in general of the
Speaker 2: concept of false flags because I don't think they've People
Speaker 2: talk about it a lot, but false flags never work
Speaker 2: for one thing, everybody knows what's going on. But it's
Speaker 2: kind of like Hitler when he decided to go into
Speaker 2: Poland and those sorts of things like staging false flag
Speaker 2: attacks on German territories and border posts and that sort
Speaker 2: of thing. Everybody knows what's going on, right, okay, but
Speaker 2: that gives him an eternal internal political excuse to do
Speaker 2: what he's going to do. Anyway, I am concerned, since
Speaker 2: false flags are not unknown to the Soviet Union, that
Speaker 2: Putin might indeed stage a false flag event uh like
Speaker 2: this week in Moscow, uh, to essentially give him the
Speaker 2: cause to go and do what he wants to do,
Speaker 2: which is take out Keev. And and he sees that
Speaker 2: as you can even see that in the negotiations that
Speaker 2: are going on, he doesn't really see u Kin as problem.
Speaker 2: He sees the political leadership in keV as this problem,
Speaker 2: and he really wants them to go away, uh, which
Speaker 2: is what he was trying to bargain with the US.
Speaker 2: Get Zelenski to resign and all my problems are done,
Speaker 2: and well we got a deal. You can see what
Speaker 2: he wants. So if false flags are are a concern
Speaker 2: for me right at the moment, the same the same
Speaker 2: could be said. I I might have thought that for Israel,
Speaker 2: but I don't really any longer. I just I really
Speaker 2: see it as an issue as you said, if Putin's
Speaker 2: and Putin is economically getting his back to the wall,
Speaker 2: if the trade wars the World War. Trade wars are
Speaker 2: not good for US. They're not good for Putin either,
Speaker 2: especially with what Opek is doing enterprise of oil.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: And this is problematic because you know, one would think,
Speaker 1: and because of the things I study, I think to myself,
Speaker 1: why would he not simply use assassination as the tool here?
Speaker 1: You know, because decapitating the government there, well, if he
Speaker 1: thinks that will solve his problems, I mean, that would
Speaker 1: be a lot cleaner than say, nukin Kiev. But then again,
Speaker 1: if you have a false flag attack, let's just say,
Speaker 1: theoretically where Ukraine, does, you know, launch an attack against
Speaker 1: Moscow try to take out Putin, Well, then he's got
Speaker 1: to respond, he's got to retaliate. And I got to
Speaker 1: tell you, I worry about that there. But I also
Speaker 1: worry about it because Trump's about to have a parade here,
Speaker 1: you know. And look, I'm not saying that the US
Speaker 1: would definitely do something like that, but then again, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't put it past a lot of the people that
Speaker 1: have worked in the intelligence agencies in the past.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: And just because the heads have changed doesn't mean you know,
Speaker 1: the people that really do the work there have changed.
Speaker 1: All that much. But anyway, that would be a huge worry,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it.
Speaker 2: I think at this point in time, I'm worried about
Speaker 2: people who do something to create chaos because there are
Speaker 2: a lot of groups, most of the terrorist actors where
Speaker 2: they're they're religious or cultural or whatever, they really like
Speaker 2: chaos and they don't really care. That's one reason I'm
Speaker 2: I would be more concerned in the US of them
Speaker 2: just kind of like I want to radicalize the situation.
Speaker 2: I want to make it more chaotic because I'm it's
Speaker 2: such a minority that it's to my advantage when things
Speaker 2: are chaotic, and at this point in time in the
Speaker 2: US at least, that would be my primary concern, is
Speaker 2: that that any terrorist group might see it as opportunity
Speaker 2: to add chaos to the system. You know that. It's
Speaker 2: there's two different things we're facing. We're facing the warfare
Speaker 2: like we've been talking about, and we're facing escalating chaos. Obviously,
Speaker 2: the trade war is facilitating chaos. It's almost like two
Speaker 2: separate things that are occurring in parallel tracks, and both
Speaker 2: are dangerous.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've wondered aloud, and I'll say this even
Speaker 1: though I haven't said it. On my show. Yet I
Speaker 1: have wondered aloud, not on the air, but about the
Speaker 1: possibility of the return of a time of political assassinations,
Speaker 1: because therein will lie a whole lot of chaos if
Speaker 1: that occurs, if there is literal decapitation, because okay, you know,
Speaker 1: this person who is actually a backer of the enemy
Speaker 1: state has actually executed our great leader. And that could
Speaker 1: occur in a lot of places. That could happen in India,
Speaker 1: that could happen in Pakistan, that could happen in Israel.
Speaker 1: You know, in various places. Chaos could be loosed by
Speaker 1: something like that. You know, if a Palestinian assassinated a
Speaker 1: high level is Raeli official, you have a whole new
Speaker 1: circumstance there, same thing, Ukraine, Russia, same thing. You know,
Speaker 1: think about it. There are many circumstances where that would
Speaker 1: be exactly a perfect ignition point for a new level
Speaker 1: of chaos to be to emerge. Yeah, yeah, absolutely, And.
Speaker 2: The way things are, let's face it, here's the why
Speaker 2: would that even be more dangerous now than it was,
Speaker 2: say in nineteen sixty three? Okay, why would it be
Speaker 2: more dangerous? Because we have AI and we have the Internet,
Speaker 2: and I guarantee you if the President of the United
Speaker 2: States can suddenly be send out a message from the
Speaker 2: White House showing himself as the pope in a very
Speaker 2: realistic picture. The opportunity exists after any event that you're
Speaker 2: talking about, to take control of the narrative. I mean,
Speaker 2: it was difficult for the government to take control of
Speaker 2: the narrative in the nineteen sixties when there were political assassinations.
Speaker 2: Now it would be almost impossible to take care of
Speaker 2: the control of the narrative with the tools that are available.
Speaker 2: I mean you would see on the internet immediately real life,
Speaker 2: real people, real voices, real time characters carrying out that assassination.
Speaker 2: It's totally fake, right, and nobody would be able to
Speaker 2: tell the difference.
Speaker 1: No, you could have instantaneous, prepackaged propaganda ready to roll
Speaker 1: even before the event occurs, and then just stage the event,
Speaker 1: or maybe not even stage the event, just simply broadcasted,
Speaker 1: so to speak, and within moments the whole world would
Speaker 1: have seen it. So this is different from the sixties.
Speaker 1: It took time to broadcast. It took time for them
Speaker 1: to warm up the camera at CBS, you know, it
Speaker 1: took time for them to get out the name Lee
Speaker 1: Harby Oswald. When Kennedy fell in Dallas, it was kind
Speaker 1: of instantaneous for its time period. But imagine that today.
Speaker 1: There's no way that anybody could ever get ahead of
Speaker 1: or change that narrative if that was the desire of
Speaker 1: the powers that be to push it forward. So there
Speaker 1: we and.
Speaker 2: It can be inserted from any one point one server,
Speaker 2: one server in the right place. It's kind of like
Speaker 2: the tactical response to you know, an airplane. Someone's why
Speaker 2: do tactical teams manage to eliminate terrorists and recapture an
Speaker 2: aircraft because they have thirty seconds they knew what was
Speaker 2: going to happen, and the bad guys didn't. Okay, in
Speaker 2: the case of what we're talking about, the bad guys
Speaker 2: carry out this incident and they have five minutes to
Speaker 2: take the narrative right, and they're way ahead of the
Speaker 2: national media that the national media can never even catch
Speaker 2: up with their news feeds. You know that if it's
Speaker 2: done with a sophisticated fashion, it'll be going out over
Speaker 2: the wire services. It will be you know. It's so,
Speaker 2: why do I feel better or worse after this discussion? Chuck?
Speaker 2: It's like, Okay, am I going to sleep tonight or not.
Speaker 1: Well, there you go. I mean, but at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, I mean, well, look, this is an
Speaker 1: interesting time in which we live, right and it is
Speaker 1: a fairly dangerous time. But I don't think it's dangerous
Speaker 1: for the reasons that most people are talking about. And
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, a relative amount of context
Speaker 1: needs to be placed upon this. You know, we need
Speaker 1: to get real about it. Are we about to go
Speaker 1: after each other's throats? You know? And is there going
Speaker 1: to be a new civil war? And all people are
Speaker 1: still talking about that. I'm surprised they're not exhausted. But
Speaker 1: there are many other dangers out there, and I think,
Speaker 1: you know, I think I don't know what's going to
Speaker 1: happen next. You know, I'm very much not feeling as
Speaker 1: though I know where the road is going. But but
Speaker 1: you know what, do you see anything that we're not
Speaker 1: going to be able to avoid that's kind of upcoming,
Speaker 1: that's just going to happen and we already know about it,
Speaker 1: or do you think it's still very unpredictable all of
Speaker 1: what's in front of us.
Speaker 2: I think, if if if the people in power really
Speaker 2: thought about the same discussion, we just had and thought
Speaker 2: about the fact that what saves you in all these
Speaker 2: situations is the pause button. Not react. Kind of like email,
Speaker 2: what's the classic thing, Do not respond to the email
Speaker 2: as soon as you read it. Just don't do that
Speaker 2: like count ten, count to ten before you say something
Speaker 2: to somebody. You know, there's a pause that appears to
Speaker 2: be what Pakistan is doing right now, for example, not
Speaker 2: a knee jerk reaction. And I think that would be
Speaker 2: if we could, if we could get everybody to take
Speaker 2: a pledge that says, don't just react, because that's the
Speaker 2: state that we're in. You've got to avoid reacting. And
Speaker 2: I think that's really the answer to most of these things.
Speaker 2: Don't respond. You've got to acknowledge the fact that you're
Speaker 2: never going to have the information that you need. The
Speaker 2: information that you're getting is not You got to hold off.
Speaker 2: And so I think the solution a lot of this
Speaker 2: is just if I had a gigantic pause button. It's like, okay,
Speaker 2: press it. Just think about it for a minute. You know,
Speaker 2: I think that's the only solution, because it is. It
Speaker 2: is a dangerous situation. But it is interesting in me
Speaker 2: that that Pakistan did and it you know, which is
Speaker 2: kind of different, did not respond immediately. It's it's kind
Speaker 2: of interesting to me that even some of the things
Speaker 2: that we're seeing in Ukraine, it's that there's a there's
Speaker 2: a delay in the system. You know, Ukraine did not
Speaker 2: decide to go after Moscow, you know, after some of
Speaker 2: the catastrophic Russian strikes on civilian targets. You know, you
Speaker 2: you would almost be drawn revenge eye for an eye.
Speaker 2: You attacked my hospitals, you attack my schools, I'm going
Speaker 2: after yours. And they've refrained from that. Urine. Ukraine has
Speaker 2: weapons now that they're not using. Russia actually is not
Speaker 2: showing the same kind of restraint, but it could have
Speaker 2: gotten a lot worse, a lot more quickly if they
Speaker 2: had not showed that kind of restraint.
Speaker 1: Right, So the hope for us all is that reactionary reactionary,
Speaker 1: you know, actions are restrained. That's the thing, not to
Speaker 1: just simply react, but actually show a little restraint and
Speaker 1: think better of it. You know, again, like you said
Speaker 1: with the email, or you know, when somebody strikes you
Speaker 1: emotionally in a discussion, don't just respond to the emotion,
Speaker 1: because if you do a lot of times it's going
Speaker 1: to be well, you know, I didn't think before I
Speaker 1: spoke there you're going to wind up with some regret.
Speaker 1: And unfortunately, sometimes there's no way to avoid regret, but
Speaker 1: there are ways to minimize it anyhow, Larry, I hope
Speaker 1: I didn't make it feel too bad. I'm glad you
Speaker 1: sat and did this exercise with me because I needed
Speaker 1: somebody to go through it with me and to just
Speaker 1: kind of take a pause and look at what's happening,
Speaker 1: because there's a lot going on, and again, I'm kind
Speaker 1: of exhausted from the hyperbole every time a new event emerges.
Speaker 1: What is our media doing reacting? You know, and they're
Speaker 1: rationally making a lot of statements and really they could
Speaker 1: be provoking actions that would not be anything but regrettable,
Speaker 1: you know. And I watched the dialogue that went on
Speaker 1: between Pakistan and India and I found that interesting as well.
Speaker 1: You know, consider what you're doing before you escalate. This
Speaker 1: seem to be exchanged between both sides publicly. I found
Speaker 1: that really interesting because normally that's not the way these
Speaker 1: guys behave and that's not that's why Kashmir has been
Speaker 1: what it's been. And for those of you that are unaware. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Kashmir has been around, not for centuries. The problem that
Speaker 1: you know, Trump said it's for centuries can't possibly have
Speaker 1: been for centuries, considering that Pakistan was only created in
Speaker 1: the nineteen forties. But this conflict has gone on pretty
Speaker 1: much since Pakistan became a thing. You know, read your history,
Speaker 1: don't just take the statements of the current leaders as
Speaker 1: gospel as per usual, and try not to be reactionary
Speaker 1: in your own lives. What can I say? Always take
Speaker 1: a step back before even trying to analyze these things.
Speaker 1: That's my suggestion. Anyway, Larry, you can tie a bow
Speaker 1: on it any which way you want, But I advise
Speaker 1: people to go to your site, take a look at
Speaker 1: your blog. Of course you're covering some of these things
Speaker 1: you've been talking about a great many interesting pieces of history,
Speaker 1: and some current events here and there too. Between the
Speaker 1: JFK assassination, the RFK release of files. I'm sure there's
Speaker 1: gonna be some news on some UAP stuff coming soon, right.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, absolutely so.
Speaker 1: Look, disclosures happening, and things are changing in the world.
Speaker 1: And Larry Handcock. Once again, if you don't own all
Speaker 1: of Larry's books, always a good time to go get one.
Speaker 1: I highly recommend the Oswald Puzzle, which there'll be a
Speaker 1: link in the show notes to it, even though none
Speaker 1: of this discussion had anything to do with that outside
Speaker 1: of the one mention of nineteen sixty three and how
Speaker 1: the narrative came out that day, but there you go.
Speaker 1: That was more about the media, not about the assassination,
Speaker 1: and definitely not about Oswald. But anyway, an excellent book nonetheless,
Speaker 1: of course your co author David Boylan, and we'll be
Speaker 1: looking forward to seeing what we can do as far
Speaker 1: as the presentation goes at Lancer this year, where you're
Speaker 1: gonna present virtually and also help us run the Facebook group. Right, absolutely, yeah,
Speaker 1: looking forward to that. And also Larry and I are
Speaker 1: having discussions about a couple of things behind the scenes too.
Speaker 1: By the way, great suggestion about that guy from Australia,
Speaker 1: and I've been able to seek to speak with him
Speaker 1: just for you and I to know. His last name
Speaker 1: is Abbott, and I'm hoping that he's going to do
Speaker 1: a presentation at Lancer this year in person, guys, So
Speaker 1: and Larry and I will talk about that more when
Speaker 1: we get closer to November. Okay, but In the meantime, Larry,
Speaker 1: go ahead and tie a bow on it. Like I said,
Speaker 1: larrydshancock dot Com is also a link in the show
Speaker 1: notes to Larry's sight and blog and everything, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna drop a few key links in the Ocelli chat
Speaker 1: room too. But what would you say in closing, Larry.
Speaker 2: I think I would say in closing is this is
Speaker 2: not newlevel of danger. This level of threat, this level
Speaker 2: of warfare is nothing new. It is more or less
Speaker 2: the human condition. And if you're a historian, you see
Speaker 2: that it's no more or less dangerous. I mean I
Speaker 2: grew up in the nineteen fifties and nineteen sixties with
Speaker 2: the constant threat and expectation of global nuclear warfare. I
Speaker 2: mean you go back to the first forecast of global
Speaker 2: nuclear warfare was for nineteen fifty two, and then it
Speaker 2: was for nineteen fifty four, and then it was. So
Speaker 2: this level of risk and danger is not you and
Speaker 2: there are answers for it. And the reason it didn't
Speaker 2: happen then is because there are answers, there are control systems,
Speaker 2: there are mutual fears, if nothing else. So people, really,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it's not a dangerous time. I'm not
Speaker 2: saying it's I'm sort of saying is it's certainly not
Speaker 2: the first dangerous time, don't think it is, and kind
Speaker 2: of look for some of the solutions that have worked before.
Speaker 2: I really wish that there are solutions, and we need
Speaker 2: to kind of get back and get real, just like
Speaker 2: we got after World War Two, and say all right,
Speaker 2: let's let's let's step back. Let's just accept the fact
Speaker 2: that we are at each other's throats all the time,
Speaker 2: and what are we going to do about it? Doing
Speaker 2: something's important?
Speaker 1: And a generation later, look, nuclear fears were still there.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, no offense, Larry, but you're more
Speaker 1: like my father's generation. So quite honestly, a generation later
Speaker 1: in the eighties, we were quite concerned about the idea
Speaker 1: of nuclear warfare as well. Of course, a lot of
Speaker 1: it was sort of a push forward by that TV
Speaker 1: movie The Day After and all of that, and it
Speaker 1: was the time of Reagan and many discussions about the
Speaker 1: arms race, et cetera, et cetera. We didn't have the
Speaker 1: Cuban missile crisis, but we had the anxiety. Nonetheless, a
Speaker 1: whole generation later, just saying it's not the same thing
Speaker 1: but yet it happened again and we did survive it.
Speaker 1: That's the ultimate note here, right.
Speaker 2: We've avoided it before, we can avoid it again. You
Speaker 2: just have to face up to it.
Speaker 1: There you go, and that's the perfect way to end
Speaker 1: this one. Larry Hancock was my guest for this hour,
Speaker 1: and I hope you guys got a lot out of it.
Speaker 1: I know I did, And thank you Larry for patience.
Speaker 4: That I'm going Oh.
Speaker 5: Chili dot com the dot com radio net.
Speaker 3: In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks by
Speaker 3: Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 3: operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial
Speaker 3: rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 3: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 3: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 3: really failed and why the United States did not.
Speaker 6: Earn from it. It also shows why other countries today
Speaker 6: are doing secret operations with more success. This is the
Speaker 6: book that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 6: In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larryhancock.
Speaker 6: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 6: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 6: com in digital or physical form.
Speaker 1: The use expressed like caller schools There anyone else alloudens
Speaker 1: to get on the air who's only comedy not necessarily
Speaker 1: reflected us y dot com or jo Chilly and we
Speaker 1: are not responsible. We're getting stupidity which might ensued.
Speaker 3: Will you go ahead call it about the JFA assassination.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, what do you want to know? Tondy Baker's
Speaker 1: wild claim?
Speaker 2: Oswald girlfriends he knew?
Speaker 1: Ruby and Barrie answer weapons? Really, I imagine I could claim
Speaker 1: I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 7: But Okaysal Bilby and trying to prevent the murder of
Speaker 7: John Kennedy.
Speaker 2: Come on now has a real effort on the DAFA assassination.
Speaker 1: Book into claim. Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith
Speaker 1: Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for
Speaker 1: a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes
Speaker 1: her own words and the known evidence in the case
Speaker 1: to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you
Speaker 1: can get Judith Barry Baker in her own words from
Speaker 1: the author himself, signed if you request it by contacting
Speaker 1: doctor Brown at k I A s jfk at aol
Speaker 1: dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects
Speaker 1: the many, many fantastic claims. Judith Veryry Baker, in her
Speaker 1: own words, thank you for all the great information revelation
Speaker 1: through conversation.
Speaker 7: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 7: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 7: the context of the times and reveals never before published
Speaker 7: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 7: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 7: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 7: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 7: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 7: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 7: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 7: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 7: island arn't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 7: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 7: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 7: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 7: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 7: up against. For more information, the War State dot com
Speaker 7: Nuclear Holocaust.
Speaker 3: You know what uranium is, right?
Speaker 8: Think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you.
Speaker 7: Know what uranium is right?
Speaker 8: Bad things things are done with uranium, including some bad
Speaker 8: things nuclear holocaust. You know what uranium is right? I wait,
Speaker 8: Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 2: You know what uranium is, right?
Speaker 7: They think called nuclear.
Speaker 2: Weapons and other things like lots of you know what
Speaker 2: uranium is?
Speaker 9: Right?
Speaker 8: Things things are done with uranium, including some bad things
Speaker 8: Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holo Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear revelation.
Speaker 9: Through conversation here shell you.
Speaker 5: Do you like history, real history that you were never
Speaker 5: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Speaker 5: Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 5: new documentation never seen before that will open your eyes
Speaker 5: to events that led up to this Why the Vietnam
Speaker 5: War Nuclear Bombs in nation
Speaker 9: Conversage