Speaker 1: Get ready.
Speaker 2: September eighteen, twenty twenty four. Allegedly, according to that thing
Speaker 2: we call a calendar, this is the Ocelly effect, and
Speaker 2: we are live on a Wednesday, middle of the week.
Speaker 2: So last night I could not get to the microphone
Speaker 2: because Coxx Internet was out in my area. So there
Speaker 2: you go. I revealed who I use, but they had
Speaker 2: an area outage. Nothing I could do about it. So
Speaker 2: the news show that I was going to do on
Speaker 2: a Tuesday, I'm going to have to do on a
Speaker 2: Thursday tomorrow night. Anyway, tonight, what we have very special
Speaker 2: because I screwed up on the dates and thought that
Speaker 2: I was supposed to have Larry Hancock scheduled for this week.
Speaker 2: I didn't, but Larry said, let's do it anyway. So
Speaker 2: I have the author, Larry Hancock, and you can go
Speaker 2: to Larry dash Hancock dot com keep track of his works,
Speaker 2: his blog, all of that stuff, Larry Hypenhancock dot com
Speaker 2: or Larry Dashancock dot com. Either way, you'll see it
Speaker 2: in the show notes and his books. Many books take
Speaker 2: up a lot of space on my bookshelf, and they
Speaker 2: don't just take up space. They're extremely important, especially in
Speaker 2: today's very strange times where we're looking at the way
Speaker 2: intelligence agencies behave, we're looking at the political spheres of
Speaker 2: influence and things like that. You could have looked at
Speaker 2: surprise Attack, you could have looked at shadow warfare. You
Speaker 2: could have looked at a book that might come up
Speaker 2: during tonight's conversation, Creating Chaos. Anyway, all of those I
Speaker 2: recommend every one of those books by Larryhancock and again
Speaker 2: Larry Dashancock dot com. So what is happening in the
Speaker 2: news that I didn't get to cover? Am I going
Speaker 2: to talk to Larry tonight about what's going on with
Speaker 2: Diddy and how he got his bail denied? No, I'm not,
Speaker 2: you know, not of interest generally to Larry. Usually I
Speaker 2: think I don't. You're not a big hip hop guy,
Speaker 2: are you, Larry? I'm strangely no, Okay, you know, I
Speaker 2: know it was an odd ball thing, but maybe anyhow so.
Speaker 2: But things that are going on in the news, which
Speaker 2: you're gonna have a lot to do with what we're
Speaker 2: talking about. No, not another possible shooter with Trump, although
Speaker 2: that would be relevant. We're not going to discuss that
Speaker 2: tomorrow night. I'll get to it. But other things are happening.
Speaker 2: I'm reading about the Iranians allegedly taking stolen documents from
Speaker 2: the Trump campaign, hacking somehow, and then trying to offer
Speaker 2: them to the Biden campaign when it was the Biden campaign.
Speaker 2: The FBI made that statement a little while ago. Plus
Speaker 2: we have other allegations of guess what, once again, the
Speaker 2: Russians being in play and doing this and that, and
Speaker 2: the Chinese supposedly. Now all of that's happening with the
Speaker 2: backdrop of let's see the IDF is exploding pagers and
Speaker 2: walkie talkies in Lebanon. We have a very strange landscape, folks,
Speaker 2: a very strange landscape where multiple levels of warfare are
Speaker 2: being conducted, the psychological, the technological, the military. Not so
Speaker 2: much in the blatant standard sense at this moment in time,
Speaker 2: but all of it does lead to some of that stuff.
Speaker 2: And don't worry, there's plenty of shooting to be had
Speaker 2: and possibilities upcoming. But as I take a look at
Speaker 2: the technological end of the warfare, Larry, we're in a
Speaker 2: strange time here. I mean, the Iranians are supposedly helping
Speaker 2: the Biden campaign, the Russians, well putin is endorsing Kamala Harris,
Speaker 2: but who knows what his intelligence agencies are doing. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: the Chinese have something else going that. Quite frankly, I'm
Speaker 2: having the difficulty get in my mind wrapped around entirely.
Speaker 2: Where do we begin to deal with this and the
Speaker 2: technological the other side of warfare that again doesn't have
Speaker 2: to do necessarily with live shootooting, but it's definitely shooting
Speaker 2: lots of technological assets in the put one way or
Speaker 2: another and causing an effect in the real world. How
Speaker 2: do we begin to wrap our minds around this, Larry?
Speaker 2: I mean, should we begin with the Chinese discussion? I
Speaker 2: mean where do we go?
Speaker 1: Well, it's important. I think one of the things that
Speaker 1: is is differentiate what the Chinese are doing from what
Speaker 1: the Russians, the Iranians and others are doing, because they
Speaker 1: have different strategic goals. I think the context for both
Speaker 1: of these actually, if you kind of cut down to
Speaker 1: the core at the strategic level, it hasn't changed. It's
Speaker 1: not really new. The tactics are the same. We've discussed
Speaker 1: this before. Back in twenty fourteen, I was writing about
Speaker 1: political warfare and how political warfare is conducted more in
Speaker 1: the modern era. I think because of the technologies that
Speaker 1: are available to us, simply it's simply possible to plant
Speaker 1: information in a more convoluted fashion than it used to be.
Speaker 1: In the fifties, sixties or seventies. You had to have,
Speaker 1: you know, reporters on a string, You had to manipulate
Speaker 1: a wire service with false documents. You know, that was done.
Speaker 1: It was done. But these days you can do it
Speaker 1: much more efficiently and on a much larger scale. For
Speaker 1: an example, And I think I think one of the
Speaker 1: things we have to keep in mind when we're talking
Speaker 1: about comparing the Russians and the Chinese and Iranians is
Speaker 1: that the objective for the political warfare that's being conducted
Speaker 1: with false information or acquiring information and planting it somewhere else,
Speaker 1: which is somewhat the same thing. The whole design for
Speaker 1: that is it really to support a candidate. You know,
Speaker 1: that's not the way it goes the holes. The whole
Speaker 1: design for that strategy is to create chaos, to essentially
Speaker 1: marginalize the regular political process, to bring things into a
Speaker 1: state where you create a non functional government. The Russians
Speaker 1: and the Iranians don't really care. Now, it's true that
Speaker 1: Putin might care about Trump personally, but what they really
Speaker 1: care about, what the FSB cares about, what the strategy
Speaker 1: is to essentially newter the American political process. And if
Speaker 1: you look at what's been going on for Congress for
Speaker 1: months and years and now is going on with the
Speaker 1: budgetary fight, where you know, we can't fund a budget,
Speaker 1: we can't fund arm spending, we can't fund the defense
Speaker 1: package because there is so much political chaos in the
Speaker 1: House and the Senate and it's so factionalized' that's the
Speaker 1: whole point. The whole point is actually it makes it
Speaker 1: It makes it better to have everyone at everyone's throats
Speaker 1: so that nothing happens, rather than taking a chance that
Speaker 1: something might happen by having someone in control. So you
Speaker 1: and I've talked about this before. It's chaos is the
Speaker 1: goal of the game. Political chaos is away is the strategy.
Speaker 1: And that's what we see. That's what we see Russia
Speaker 1: and Iran doing. You mentioned feeding information to the Biden campaign.
Speaker 1: Probably much more effectively, though, is what the news stories
Speaker 1: that came out last week and the week before of
Speaker 1: how the Russians were funding funneling money in to major
Speaker 1: right wing commentators who's run.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: That's basically opposing everything the government does now, which is
Speaker 1: really what the Russians would like to do. Oppose everything
Speaker 1: that the government does, so nothing happens well.
Speaker 2: And this is not unusual in the Russian strategy as
Speaker 2: far as you know, sort of infiltrating the alternative media
Speaker 2: what they did for a while and becoming a standard
Speaker 2: with things like Russia today. RT, right, and the English
Speaker 2: RT was an essential part of a PR campaign that
Speaker 2: was being run to sort of bolster Putin, to make
Speaker 2: him a good guy, to make him because there were
Speaker 2: all of these anti American sentiments built around the anti
Speaker 2: Obama sentimentality, Right, this guy was weak, This guy was
Speaker 2: a you know, a do nothing liberal, et cetera. We'd
Speaker 2: rather have a strong man like Vladimir Putin. Look, his
Speaker 2: RT is telling us the truth when our American is
Speaker 2: lying to us. All that kind of stuff. And that
Speaker 2: was well funded and well put out there and was
Speaker 2: effective for about a decade.
Speaker 3: But they have.
Speaker 2: Since gone into funding and giving warm interactions and interviews
Speaker 2: with people like Tucker Carlson once he was not connected
Speaker 2: to Fox News anymore, and stuff like that, taking the outliers,
Speaker 2: if you will, and pumping them full of information and
Speaker 2: contrarian stuff that kind of dovetails nicely with the sentiment
Speaker 2: they already have out there, the lack of trust with
Speaker 2: the government. We're being infiltrated, Our government's being infiltrated, our
Speaker 2: country's being infiltrated. Well, yeah they are, and you know what,
Speaker 2: we have more reasonable government over here. They keep making
Speaker 2: us the bad guys, but look at how bad they are, etc.
Speaker 2: That's almost exactly what the strategy is. Or am I
Speaker 2: reading this wrong, Larry.
Speaker 1: No, that's the whole whole point of that. And it's
Speaker 1: evolved over time. You know, it evolved from essentially kind
Speaker 1: of feeding major media outlets and putting them head to
Speaker 1: head against each other, right, because again, that's what you want.
Speaker 1: You want to silo this information. The last thing in
Speaker 1: the world is you want everybody hearing the full story
Speaker 1: that that does not work to your strategy. You want
Speaker 1: to silo the information so that people just listen to
Speaker 1: their favorite outlet, So that first that would happen to
Speaker 1: say with Fox and MSNBC. Then okay, then we can
Speaker 1: grab hold of figures like Tucker Colson and he moves
Speaker 1: out of the media landscape. But then we bring him
Speaker 1: into our environment. Okay, I think what we saw in
Speaker 1: the link kind I sent you for the show in
Speaker 1: terms of what's going on with the figures now, as
Speaker 1: some of these independent media figures have become so large scale,
Speaker 1: which sex you are, audience, I think the Russians have
Speaker 1: determined that they probably are more attractive because they can
Speaker 1: get to them quite easily, and because they appear to
Speaker 1: be totally independent. I mean, the more independent your source is,
Speaker 1: the better it works if you can control it right,
Speaker 1: because it's trusted. Because these people are independent, they wouldn't
Speaker 1: take money from anybody. You know, we're on our own here.
Speaker 1: And some of the stories that have come out of
Speaker 1: this though, that one individual was took one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars through a deniable chain. He didn't realize it, but
Speaker 1: it was Russian money, and when asked about it, it's
Speaker 1: kind of like, well, are you going to donate it
Speaker 1: to charity or something? The guy's going one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars means nothing to me. I'll probably never even touch
Speaker 1: the money. I don't need the money. That's not significant
Speaker 1: to me, and then goes on to say to the
Speaker 1: document show that when he was originally approached or somebody's
Speaker 1: appreachiably roast with a contract. It was like four million
Speaker 1: dollars and they said, no, I need at least five million. Dog.
Speaker 1: Think about this. Think about these so called independent people
Speaker 1: who are making so much money that it it. Those
Speaker 1: kind of figures mean nothing to them, yet you can
Speaker 1: influence them. Well, it's a guy thinking about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are guys out there acting like they're basically me, Larry. Uh.
Speaker 2: You know, I put out my own thing. I do
Speaker 2: it just funded on really listeners. Listeners fund this all
Speaker 2: one way or another, Okay, and that's it. That's what
Speaker 2: I do. And I'm not accepting corporate stuff where they
Speaker 2: get in and start telling me, hey be nice to
Speaker 2: Puvisor because you know we're actually a subsidiary of them
Speaker 2: or whatever. Right, I don't have those influences from advertisers.
Speaker 2: So I'm an independent guy doing it on my own,
Speaker 2: so I can't be bought. I'm not part of the
Speaker 2: influence machine that you see on the corporate media in
Speaker 2: any way, shape or form. But guys like me, once
Speaker 2: they get a large enough audience, they become targets for
Speaker 2: this because quite honestly, you're not making a lot of money.
Speaker 2: To start with, you're barely getting by or barely paying
Speaker 2: the bills in some cases. And then if you get
Speaker 2: money funnel to you which appears to be from some
Speaker 2: source that is just you know, downright wanting to support
Speaker 2: you and take care of you, you generally accept it
Speaker 2: quite honestly, right. I mean, look, if somebody came to
Speaker 2: me and said, I love all you working the JFK stuff,
Speaker 2: and I've been a JFK guy for a long time,
Speaker 2: but I'm behind the scenes. I want to fund you
Speaker 2: because I know you're getting good JFK stuff out there
Speaker 2: and we need a voice like you. And somebody like
Speaker 2: that just basically gives me fifty sixty thousand dollars, Well,
Speaker 2: that's a huge amount of money to me. And yes, indeed,
Speaker 2: I might listen to some things they have to say
Speaker 2: after they do that, and they could be completely seemingly
Speaker 2: you know, benign, just supporter. Right. Some of these guys
Speaker 2: got approached like that, or they got given sweet deals
Speaker 2: with you know, some company allegedly where it's like, if
Speaker 2: you do this, then you won't have to bend and
Speaker 2: scrape to some you know, corporate entsity. You won't have
Speaker 2: to run McDonald's commercials or utilize the Google machine to
Speaker 2: try and gain your pennies per download or whatever. We'll
Speaker 2: just give you the money and we'll give you a
Speaker 2: product that you like to support, and they get them
Speaker 2: that way. And meanwhile, it doesn't matter if they sell
Speaker 2: the product or not, because the real front, that's just
Speaker 2: the front. The real thing about this is to get
Speaker 2: in on the other influence game. And the next thing
Speaker 2: you know is these guys are being fed other information. Hey,
Speaker 2: I'm a great supporter of yours. Here's some great information
Speaker 2: you need to look into. Here's some filmmakers that I
Speaker 2: think are making great stuff, etc. They'll start to feed
Speaker 2: stuff to you, and I watch this happen, Larry, to
Speaker 2: be honest with you, I don't want to name names,
Speaker 2: but I've kind of watched this happen where somebody comes
Speaker 2: in and picks somebody up who is in this kind
Speaker 2: of shape that I've been in all this time, and
Speaker 2: raises them up a bit. And I see this list
Speaker 2: of names, and I realize that some of these people
Speaker 2: went next level all of a sudden, And you do,
Speaker 2: wonder where did all that money come from? You know,
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not Joe Rogan who's getting two hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty million dollars right, he's got a two hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty million dollar contract. It's not those two football
Speaker 2: player brothers who have one hundred and fifty million dollar contract.
Speaker 2: It's not one of those. But some of these independent guys,
Speaker 2: all of a sudden they've got a lot of money
Speaker 2: and it came from somewhere. And isn't it interesting you
Speaker 2: got a track where this stuff comes from, and really
Speaker 2: check into the background of whatever or whoever is like,
Speaker 2: you know, funding you Otherwise you never know where it
Speaker 2: really came from. Or am I crazy?
Speaker 4: Larry?
Speaker 1: I think part of it is, well, one thing is
Speaker 1: at a certain level they are out of the equation
Speaker 1: themselves personally. You know, they have a media person, they
Speaker 1: have an agent, you know, in between them, and people
Speaker 1: are approaching them with money. And in this one instance,
Speaker 1: a media company simply approached this fellow and said, I
Speaker 1: want to buy a couple of shows. I want you
Speaker 1: to do a couple of shows on these topics, you know,
Speaker 1: and it would and and because of this person's approach,
Speaker 1: and you know, you know what kind of show he's
Speaker 1: going to do. You don't have to tell him what
Speaker 1: kind of show he's going to do. You know, if
Speaker 1: you can just get that topic planted, you know what's
Speaker 1: going to come out, and he does. It's just it's
Speaker 1: another contract I'm getting I'm getting spits. The people want
Speaker 1: me to talk about all sorts of things all the time,
Speaker 1: and somebody walks in and says, Okay, we scheduled you
Speaker 1: to do a show on this. He's not involved in
Speaker 1: the process. I think in one instance. In one instance, uh,
Speaker 1: the per personality actually pushed back because it was like
Speaker 1: a four million dollar d from multiple shows, and it's
Speaker 1: kind of like, well, who are these people? Well, a
Speaker 1: cover was created. This is a European individual, here's the
Speaker 1: background and and and they actually created a cover. We
Speaker 1: talked about this last week, right, Chuck. You know the
Speaker 1: CIA can create covers. Well, these folks can create cover.
Speaker 1: The the FSB has always been equal to are better
Speaker 1: than the CIA and creating covers. So they just created
Speaker 1: a cover, fed it back to them. It's kind of like, well,
Speaker 1: that's cool. And by the way, I want five million,
Speaker 1: not four million. Okay, fine, not a problem and money
Speaker 1: it's not a problem. So you know, at that level,
Speaker 1: it just it becomes a matter of production. You know.
Speaker 1: It's like big media. People are buying shows, they're buying commentary,
Speaker 1: and the people are just talented and it's all a
Speaker 1: process and it becomes obvious to intelligence agencies like I say,
Speaker 1: how they can play this game. And since that, the
Speaker 1: goal and all of the political action is always keep
Speaker 1: the playing field moving, you know, don't do one thing
Speaker 1: too long or you're going to get caught. Be prepared
Speaker 1: to do another thing, you know, So it makes perfect
Speaker 1: sense that they were cycling through just another option. Well.
Speaker 2: Right, And there's the fascinating thing again, is if you
Speaker 2: came to me and said, look, I want you to
Speaker 2: do a show on political assassinations, and I've got some
Speaker 2: guests for you, and I'll tell you what we'll do.
Speaker 2: Since i'm buying, you know, I'm buying a block of shows,
Speaker 2: I'm going to pay you to do them. Well, I
Speaker 2: would have already done those shows, so that's great, I'll
Speaker 2: take them. That might be as easy as it is
Speaker 2: to begin with. Right. And then the next thing is,
Speaker 2: since I've approached you with something that you're very friendly to,
Speaker 2: maybe I try, well, this is something that you're kind
Speaker 2: of friendly to let's see if you'll do this, And
Speaker 2: they feed them a few different things and build them up,
Speaker 2: and the next thing, you know is they might give
Speaker 2: them access to some great, really insider, interesting guests too.
Speaker 2: That's another thing right where it's like, hey, look, it
Speaker 2: just so happens. I know somebody who you know, that
Speaker 2: interview that nobody can get because they're you know, an
Speaker 2: exclusive with this lawyer who worked for this foundation or
Speaker 2: whatever that nobody else can get. I'll get them for
Speaker 2: you all of a sudden, right. And again, if you're
Speaker 2: an independent media person, you're struggling to survive, and you're really, well, gee,
Speaker 2: I would have done this show anyway. Plus, they're going
Speaker 2: to throw me some cash because I'm taking care of
Speaker 2: you know, their particular client for a little bit. Not
Speaker 2: a problem. It's a temporary contract. I'm not signing away
Speaker 2: years of my life, you know, sure. And I think
Speaker 2: it gets done about that easily, Larry, what do you think?
Speaker 1: Oh? Absolutely, it gets done that easily. And one of
Speaker 1: the things that makes that at easy is those people
Speaker 1: have established a pattern in their shows. Right, you know
Speaker 1: what position they're going to take, you know what they're
Speaker 1: going to say on a given top you'd you know,
Speaker 1: it's kind of like RTI interviewing Tucker Carlson. You know,
Speaker 1: this is no shock as to what the man is
Speaker 1: going to say, you know, so you just have to
Speaker 1: get it scheduled. So these folks kind of by being
Speaker 1: so politicized, have set them up sells up for this
Speaker 1: in a way because it's easy to go through. It's
Speaker 1: easy to go through the list and know what's going
Speaker 1: to happen on that show. I just have to make
Speaker 1: sure that the show happens and the topic is covered
Speaker 1: at a particular point in time. And as I said,
Speaker 1: it's the sad thing about it is it doesn't it
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be all that credible. We talked about
Speaker 1: this this like last week and terms of deniability. We've
Speaker 1: reached a stage where I'm not expecting this person to
Speaker 1: address a broad audience or conduct a thorough or objective discussion.
Speaker 1: That's I don't want that, you know. So that makes
Speaker 1: this really easy because I know exactly what I'm buying.
Speaker 1: When I was trying to control a media outlet for
Speaker 1: political action, I might have to worry. Even with Fox
Speaker 1: or MSNBC, you know, there might be some balance. They
Speaker 1: have people from one part of the spectrum and other s.
Speaker 1: So this is not a concern. I know exactly how
Speaker 1: this is going to go. So it actually makes things easier.
Speaker 1: We have made it easier for them than it was
Speaker 1: in twenty fourteen. If you compare what they were doing
Speaker 1: in twenty fourteen, it was small scale social media. They
Speaker 1: were actually having to go out to individuals to create
Speaker 1: their own foe organizations. Remember last time we talked about
Speaker 1: this Texas secessionist organization that was being cultivated by the FSB.
Speaker 1: The trolling that was being done in twenty fourteen, it
Speaker 1: was minor compared to what's going on now with the
Speaker 1: ability to reach in and control these kind of people
Speaker 1: and use them all right, I mean because there, I
Speaker 1: didn't have to make up any anything fake. I didn't
Speaker 1: have to have somebody and you know inside Russia trolling
Speaker 1: and a troll farm. I just routed money to the
Speaker 1: right person and bingo, I've got it. So like nowadays,
Speaker 1: elevated to another level.
Speaker 2: Right Like nowadays, I know he's kind of been shelved
Speaker 2: at the moment, but he's not gone. Alex Jones, Like,
Speaker 2: if you wanted to approach him, you knew already what
Speaker 2: it was that he would support. So if any of
Speaker 2: that fit with your agenda, you could feed extra stuff
Speaker 2: to him happily, right, And you knew what kind of
Speaker 2: audience you were getting. You knew what kind of thing
Speaker 2: he was doing, you know, the editorial staff over there.
Speaker 2: Ultimately he was the one guy making the decisions. And
Speaker 2: that's the thing with a bunch of these other all
Speaker 2: media guys. They have a couple of volunteers, or maybe
Speaker 2: they have somebody who worked for them, but it is
Speaker 2: a very small staff or no staff that makes the decision.
Speaker 2: If you're coming to me, guess what, I got no staff.
Speaker 2: So I mean I'd be an easy target if I
Speaker 2: was willing to say some of the stuff that was
Speaker 2: helpful to you. You know, here I am imagining myself
Speaker 2: as an easy target, right, But this is the truth.
Speaker 2: And if I had a bit more of a foothold
Speaker 2: in certain communities, I could be very useful to some
Speaker 2: of these people because I've already got you know, a
Speaker 2: bunch of people that you know hear all the time
Speaker 2: about how America is involved in so many different conspiracies.
Speaker 2: The government is, the agencies are. All you got to
Speaker 2: do is drop another one into me real easy, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not so easy about it, but some
Speaker 2: people are. They literally will have contradictory guests on one
Speaker 2: after the other and kind of tout both of them
Speaker 2: as legitimate. And I've listened to them do it. And
Speaker 2: interesting story coming up toward the end of this week.
Speaker 2: I might talk about it on Friday. By the way,
Speaker 2: is a particular media outlet that had millions of dollars
Speaker 2: and all of a sudden maybe doesn't, but anyway, not
Speaker 2: sure if that's because the recent discoveries are not. We're
Speaker 2: gonna have to keep an eye on it, but it
Speaker 2: ought to be interesting on Friday. Anyway, I'm watching somebody.
Speaker 1: We also have to consider the multiplier effect, which but
Speaker 1: to kind of sum that up, when you compare this
Speaker 1: story about what the Uranians did with you know, getting
Speaker 1: a dossier informations feeding into a campaign, I mean, that
Speaker 1: is so twenty fourteen, right, compared to what the Russians
Speaker 1: are doing. The Uranians are just way behind the curve
Speaker 1: on this one. But talk about the multiplier effect. How
Speaker 1: can I do this again? I'm wearing my FSB hat.
Speaker 1: How can I make things even more chaotic? What could
Speaker 1: I do to create the kind of I mean, one
Speaker 1: thing that was evident in twenty fourteen was they managed
Speaker 1: to use troll form farms to plant things that caused riots, right,
Speaker 1: And we've discussed that that's in creative creating chaos. There's
Speaker 1: no doubt about that they actually created race riots a
Speaker 1: small to medium scale just by seeding the right stories
Speaker 1: to the right people, they made it happen. Well, this time,
Speaker 1: it is so much easier because their targeting can be
Speaker 1: so sophisticated. They now know that all they've got to
Speaker 1: do is go to the right media person who is
Speaker 1: listened to by Donald Trump, Jade events, any politician who's
Speaker 1: likely to monitor that newsfeed and repeat it. And they
Speaker 1: know how that's working because they're monitoring their Twitter accounts,
Speaker 1: their Trump's social or whatever, or it could be, it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. I'm picking that out because a prime example
Speaker 1: would be to feed them a rumor that they repeat
Speaker 1: that is going to cause a problem, which nobody can
Speaker 1: deny that. That's what we're seeing in Springfield, right.
Speaker 2: I was going to say, Look, the whole eating your
Speaker 2: Cat's thing, right, is based on there's one lady who
Speaker 2: came out with a story and it got run with
Speaker 2: and it's interesting how it got cycled through social media
Speaker 2: and the next thing you know is it shows up
Speaker 2: and it's literally being mentioned every half hour on every
Speaker 2: news broadcast that's covering the election. Right, they're having to
Speaker 2: bring this up. They're having to mention it, even if
Speaker 2: it's just to shoot it down, and it's having an effect.
Speaker 2: It's continuing to go on. Now, somebody who doesn't trust say,
Speaker 2: you know, okay, the liberal media. You know they always lie,
Speaker 2: so they're going to try and cover it up. Somebody
Speaker 2: who's in that sort of orientation takes even the repetition
Speaker 2: of them denying it as confirmation, and this causes it
Speaker 2: to be fueled even more. Meanwhile, it started with one
Speaker 2: lady who allegedly misspoke because now her neighbor came out
Speaker 2: and said, this was a you know, her misspeaking about
Speaker 2: my situation even and it turns out that one little
Speaker 2: thing that one post on Facebook or whatever to start with,
Speaker 2: has grown into this massive thing now where like I said,
Speaker 2: every electronic media is having to.
Speaker 1: Mention it, Larry, And as you said, it's bi directional, Chuck,
Speaker 1: It will work either direction once you get it started,
Speaker 1: and if you step back for a minute here. You
Speaker 1: you have managed to close down colleges, you have managed
Speaker 1: to cause people to lose business big time in the
Speaker 1: capital of a state. You're turning people against each other.
Speaker 1: And I did that simply by making sure that the
Speaker 1: right person who has a platform saw the story.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: If I'm kind of thinking, the only job I want
Speaker 1: inside Russia now is to be an FSB political action officer,
Speaker 1: because this is like so easy. It's shooting fish in
Speaker 1: a barrow. You know, I don't want to be in
Speaker 1: the trenches. I don't even want to be in a
Speaker 1: drunk this is it. We have made it so easy
Speaker 1: for them, it's pitiful. And the multiplier effect of these,
Speaker 1: you know, making sure that these stories, it's like these
Speaker 1: stories happen all the time. You and I both know
Speaker 1: that you can go over social media and find things
Speaker 1: that are sensational. So it's not that you had to
Speaker 1: create them. It's even better you don't have to create them,
Speaker 1: which is what they had to do in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: Now you just pick them and make sure that they
Speaker 1: get in front of someone who's going to repeat them.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: And they learned how to do that last time. They
Speaker 1: learned the value of Twitter last time, and they are
Speaker 1: maximizing terrifically. I mean, heck, now they've got the guy
Speaker 1: who owns Twitter repeating the stories. I'm not sorry, owns
Speaker 1: acts repeating the stories. What don' want to get that? Right?
Speaker 1: So I have to give them from a professional standpoint,
Speaker 1: they have learned their lessons. They saw what worked to
Speaker 1: a small extent in twenty fourteen, and man are they
Speaker 1: they're profiting from that in this election and not even
Speaker 1: the election again, as I say, they don't even care
Speaker 1: about the election. They just want chaos in American society,
Speaker 1: which translates into a neutralized American government, which is what
Speaker 1: you get when you tie up Congress, and it's you know,
Speaker 1: nothing happens in Congress.
Speaker 2: Right, And here we go. So how do we parse
Speaker 2: this out? How do we separate what the you know,
Speaker 2: what the Chinese are doing from what the Russians are
Speaker 2: doing from you know, again, the Iranians, as you said,
Speaker 2: they're kind of working on the twenty fourteen sort of templates,
Speaker 2: so they're behind the times a bit. But it looks
Speaker 2: to me like the Russians and the Chinese are on
Speaker 2: the curve. They're not behind the curve. They're on it.
Speaker 2: What do you think.
Speaker 1: The Chinese are very much on the same curve that
Speaker 1: the Israelis demonstrated that they were in the last three days.
Speaker 1: The Chinese understand technology. The Chinese manufacture things right. This
Speaker 1: is something the Russians and Iranians can't do to the US,
Speaker 1: you know, that's harder. The Chinese manufacture all kinds of software.
Speaker 1: They manufacture all kinds of products that have chips in
Speaker 1: them that have the bottom line is the Chinese are
Speaker 1: in an excellent position to connect conduct technological warfare, covert
Speaker 1: technological warfare. They by embedding software. And that's if you
Speaker 1: look at the botnet article again that I sent today
Speaker 1: that the Justice Department has moved on them today. There
Speaker 1: have been concerns that they were doing this for some
Speaker 1: time about I mean, I think the first time that
Speaker 1: it really came to my attention was when it became
Speaker 1: a concern that some of the wireless systems that were
Speaker 1: being manufactured by Chinese companies were determined to have code
Speaker 1: in them that was questionable, code that could be remotely
Speaker 1: activated that had nothing to do with the actual functional
Speaker 1: operation of the device. And when it became clear that
Speaker 1: those things were emplaced in wireless towers all around our
Speaker 1: strategic weapon centers, all around our missile bases, our ICBM basis.
Speaker 1: So much so that the government and the military began
Speaker 1: pushing back and trying. Not so much the government at first,
Speaker 1: the military became surfaced this threat and tried to surface
Speaker 1: it to the government and to the administration and to
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. And there was pushback because this is
Speaker 1: not just happening in the US, It's happening globally. The
Speaker 1: same thing was happening to NADO installations. And over the
Speaker 1: last three or four years there have been a big
Speaker 1: pushback against some of these, especially Chinese wireless companies, wireless communications,
Speaker 1: cell phone whatever, companies, big pushback against.
Speaker 2: That and right, and that was a hot topic of
Speaker 2: conversation a few years back with Huawei and why is
Speaker 2: there this other stuff that's come along with Initially there
Speaker 2: were drones being purchased and used by the government, right,
Speaker 2: And they were wondering about the extra software that came
Speaker 2: along with it. And these things are being used for
Speaker 2: crowd control. I think back during George Floyd time, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, and there it was they were speculating, what's
Speaker 2: the problem with this, This could be a major issue.
Speaker 2: We got to get rid of all this stuff because
Speaker 2: it's going to create back doors, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And meanwhile, our government is foolishly acquiring the Chinese technology
Speaker 2: not knowing all of what's on board with it. Issue. Yeah,
Speaker 2: low cost bidding, but it was a real issue. What
Speaker 2: else are you buying along with the functional drones? Right?
Speaker 2: I mean this was a real world problem. And then
Speaker 2: they said, well that could give us issues with them
Speaker 2: hacking into our grid and infrastructure and so on and
Speaker 2: so forth. I mean, that was the big scare. Then
Speaker 2: nobody's really talked about it since then, and yet here
Speaker 2: we go. Right, what's going on is.
Speaker 1: Over the last six months, there have been a number
Speaker 1: of instances and it's quite frankly not have gotten the
Speaker 1: press that I would have expected it would. But we
Speaker 1: have seen it out here of communities having their water
Speaker 1: systems taking down, their power systems taking down. It's a hacker.
Speaker 1: It's very hard to trace the source of this stuff,
Speaker 1: but it's it's being done by embedded code, and some
Speaker 1: of it has been linked back to Russia more or
Speaker 1: I shouldn't say Russia in terms of the SB It's
Speaker 1: very hard to differentiate sometimes because a lot of times
Speaker 1: it's accompanied by blackmail. You know, it's kind of like
Speaker 1: the scams fulled against the banking institutions. It's sort of
Speaker 1: like stuff. It's ransomware things, so you don't really know
Speaker 1: if it's government act or if it truly is you know,
Speaker 1: piracy basically. But again, being the suspicious person that I am,
Speaker 1: if I were doing this as an adversary government, I
Speaker 1: would use ransomware as my cover. Oh, there are all
Speaker 1: these bad guys in Eastern Europe that keep doing this.
Speaker 1: Why are all the bad guys in Eastern Europe? I
Speaker 1: don't understand. You know, in former Soviet republics.
Speaker 2: They have nothing else to do over there, Larry, don't
Speaker 2: you know they're sitting on it. They're a fat guys
Speaker 2: sitting on a bed or whatever somebody said.
Speaker 1: About I guess that's what it is. But there has
Speaker 1: there have been a number of instances about that, and
Speaker 1: there have been warnings. I've seen warnings issued to to
Speaker 1: community governments, county governments, metropolitan governments. This is it's this
Speaker 1: is the next step forward. It's not just collecting information,
Speaker 1: it's putting the infrastructure at risk. So that's kind of
Speaker 1: phase two. The first step is as passive. I put
Speaker 1: code in this stuff that just allows me to you know,
Speaker 1: it's kind of what's happening with your TV set or
Speaker 1: with your wireless system. If you can talk to it,
Speaker 1: it can talk to you. It's listening to you all
Speaker 1: the time, so it can collect information.
Speaker 2: And welcome to go with that center traffic.
Speaker 1: Patterns or what what sources using what frequency? Great stuff
Speaker 1: in all of that. But that's that's kind of like
Speaker 1: the first here. But the ability to act interfere with
Speaker 1: infrastructures the second tier.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, until you get to interfering with infrastructure as
Speaker 2: far as I know anyway, I mean, welcome to modern
Speaker 2: Google from the pedestrian and commercial side of things that
Speaker 2: you know, the public gets to interact with every single day.
Speaker 2: I mean, Google does this right, they track everything. It's
Speaker 2: it's amazing. But now as far as you know, wanting
Speaker 2: to do harm or is it there just to you know,
Speaker 2: turn all of your data into the best commodity possible.
Speaker 2: There's the other issue. But meanwhile, these foreign nations not
Speaker 2: necessarily looking to turn a profit. Maybe they're looking to
Speaker 2: turn other kinds of profits, right, and.
Speaker 1: You never you're never sure when when somebody decides to
Speaker 1: throw the switch. You know, the Israelis decided to throw
Speaker 1: the switch, okay, and look what happened. We have and
Speaker 1: now it looks like it was the capability that they
Speaker 1: wanted and they found out that they were going to
Speaker 1: be discovered and they decided to use it. You know,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that China is going to throw the switch. However,
Speaker 1: quite frankly, if someday China decides then wants to enforce
Speaker 1: their territorial domains in the South China Sea and they
Speaker 1: decide to throw the switch and shut down major chunks
Speaker 1: of American infrastructure in a fashion that's deniable. What are
Speaker 1: we going to do?
Speaker 2: Right? And meanwhile, some of these things are piggybacked onto
Speaker 2: other things. I mean, this guy from the Golden Apollo Company,
Speaker 2: the Taiwanese company, the owner of it, is sitting there
Speaker 2: going I had no idea that my stuff could have
Speaker 2: done this or anything else or be involved in this.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's got something to do with this again, Eastern
Speaker 2: European company that had a licensing deal with US, but
Speaker 2: we didn't do this. It's very strange. Some of these
Speaker 2: things are piggybacked in with other people's hardware, other people's businesses,
Speaker 2: and it's not necessarily like, well, just don't buy anything
Speaker 2: from China then stupid and you'll be fine. No, that's
Speaker 2: not necessarily the way it works. You could be dealing
Speaker 2: with something that came through that was you know, sort
Speaker 2: of just added and comes in like the Trojan Horse, right,
Speaker 2: I mean you're talking about and talk was exploding in Lebanon,
Speaker 2: for God's sake. Could Yeah.
Speaker 1: I remember reading a book this is from the fifties,
Speaker 1: which I thought was I couldn't understand it at the time,
Speaker 1: but it was called The Death of America, and basically
Speaker 1: the concept was an adversary nation put a lot of
Speaker 1: atomic weapons in orbit and started bombarding America. The problem
Speaker 1: was they had already been in orbit. You couldn't prove
Speaker 1: who they were, who it was, You couldn't absolutely prove
Speaker 1: who was attacking you, so you couldn't unleash a retaliatory strike.
Speaker 1: You know, you were neutralized. And I thought that was
Speaker 1: silly at the time, but I mean it's the same concept.
Speaker 1: You have a real hard time retaliating against that sort
Speaker 1: of situation, you know, where you can't really for sure
Speaker 1: determine the aggressor.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can't determine it.
Speaker 1: I hope to keep going back to creating chaos. But
Speaker 1: we saw during starting in about how twenty well, twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: twenty eleven, that sort of thing that was the sort
Speaker 1: of thing that happens began to happen in Eastern European
Speaker 1: nations who had been part of the Soviet Bloc but
Speaker 1: had had left and we're very happy not to be
Speaker 1: affiliated with Russia. And they started getting those kind of
Speaker 1: infrastructure attacks, and it's quite clear that it was the
Speaker 1: Russians that were doing it, but it was so highly
Speaker 1: deniable that you know, all you could say is, well,
Speaker 1: it looks like it was, and so you can't you
Speaker 1: can't retaliate, you can't even suffer damages. So and I
Speaker 1: bring up one of the things that we're looking at.
Speaker 2: And I bring up this time on these company because
Speaker 2: they're over there kicking in the door pretty much going
Speaker 2: after it and then looking to investigate. Let me tell you,
Speaker 2: the most brilliant thing would be to turn an American
Speaker 2: company somehow into the delivery system for something. And of
Speaker 2: course our DOJ would go after that American company, start investigating,
Speaker 2: looking around, and they might find that it has nothing
Speaker 2: to do with that American company. It's something that was
Speaker 2: added into them from some other foreign nation that might
Speaker 2: have two or three steps behind it, in which case
Speaker 2: you have no idea who the actual aggress you know,
Speaker 2: like you said, aggressor her perpetrator is, because it's three
Speaker 2: levels deep and hidden within a shell company that actually
Speaker 2: delivered this stuff. But they put it in there three
Speaker 2: years ago. And it so happens that you bought this
Speaker 2: stuff this year. You don't even know it because it's
Speaker 2: so far in the past it should have nothing to
Speaker 2: do with it. I mean, did I just make that
Speaker 2: more convoluted than it needs to be? Maybe I did.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately you made it just as convoluted as it probably
Speaker 1: will be.
Speaker 2: Right, I mean, but this is the type of stuff
Speaker 2: we're talking about here, Like I said, this Golden Apollo company,
Speaker 2: you know, supposedly they're the ones who made the pagers
Speaker 2: and the walkie talkies or whatever, right, and they have
Speaker 2: no design on having these things blow up. You know.
Speaker 2: The guy from the company's like, this would destroy my company.
Speaker 2: I got exploding devices. I don't want to do this,
Speaker 2: you know. Basically he's pleading to the press like don't
Speaker 2: blame me for this. But meanwhile, it's all his hardware, right,
Speaker 2: So you know, there you go. So somebody's got to
Speaker 2: figure out what the actual origin was and is that
Speaker 2: going to be easy?
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead, since we're talking about so what's different
Speaker 1: between the Russians and the Chinese.
Speaker 2: Yes, let's get back to the point in time.
Speaker 1: Russians are primarily engaged in political warfare creating chaos, while
Speaker 1: the Chinese appear to be engaged in something a bit removed,
Speaker 1: which is literally setting up the context for either you know,
Speaker 1: covertly collecting information or putting them in a position for
Speaker 1: more proactive damaging action if they should type decide to
Speaker 1: do it. So they're they're looking a little bit more
Speaker 1: like Israel. I think. The other thing that's going on
Speaker 1: that that that people aren't really into the military side
Speaker 1: of things are not aware of, is that the Chinese
Speaker 1: provably have been so active in operating drones over American
Speaker 1: military targets, infrastructure elements like airports and atomic power plants.
Speaker 1: You don't see this in the news that much. It's
Speaker 1: it's kind of I see it because it sets over
Speaker 1: in the either the military or the UFO genre of
Speaker 1: just a constant stream of unidentified objects in military spaces,
Speaker 1: restricted military space, These atomic power plants operating over our
Speaker 1: navy forces. That things. What is now being floated and
Speaker 1: actually as even surfacing in Congress is we need to
Speaker 1: spend hundreds of billions of dollars setting up a new
Speaker 1: nationwide air defense network. And what they have proven is,
Speaker 1: of course we've seen this in Ukraine. And what they
Speaker 1: have proven is they have the ability to covertly operate
Speaker 1: drones at will over the United States, which is a threat.
Speaker 1: And now we've seen how easily those drones can be weaponized.
Speaker 1: It is a threat. Are we going to spend money?
Speaker 1: You know, we during the Cold War we had missile
Speaker 1: defenses against around every major metropolitan area, hundreds of them,
Speaker 1: with atomic warriors to take down bombers. Are they trying
Speaker 1: to tempt us into doing that again? Do we need
Speaker 1: to do that again again? It's it's a it's a
Speaker 1: kind of a mental judo in a way. They can
Speaker 1: spend virtually no money and really raise our military concerns
Speaker 1: and potentially our military spending far over What what is
Speaker 1: causing them to worry us?
Speaker 2: No, it's just the whole thing is amazing. It just
Speaker 2: is I mean so again separating this from what we
Speaker 2: see in the headlines, right there is the political end
Speaker 2: of this and all of that, and that's sort of
Speaker 2: a wave of influence, and then there's a decisively more
Speaker 2: practical military application here, is there not?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is creating. If we have creating chaos and
Speaker 1: the political space, we have creating chaos in the military space.
Speaker 1: If you if you follow it, you'll see that the
Speaker 1: air Force and the Army and the Marines, but in
Speaker 1: particular the Air Force are stepping back from several major
Speaker 1: programs that they have spent billions on in terms of
Speaker 1: next generation fighters, next generation tankers because the the battle
Speaker 1: space is being changed, and it's kind of like, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, we thought we knew what the battlespace was
Speaker 1: going to look like. Now, you know, we don't think
Speaker 1: the Russians are going to use it against us, but
Speaker 1: it's very clear that the Chinese have been playing this
Speaker 1: game and are in a space in the Pacific where
Speaker 1: they can play it in a big way. You know,
Speaker 1: we're we're having it's creating military chaos in our strategic
Speaker 1: planning and our spending is the big thing. Locke just
Speaker 1: backed out of a multi billion dollar contract because of
Speaker 1: a change in basically strategy as far as the Air
Speaker 1: Force saying, well, now we realize that we don't need that,
Speaker 1: we need something else. So big aerospace companies are losing
Speaker 1: major investments because the battlespace is being made more chaotic.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure our show this evening is doing a
Speaker 1: lot to make people feel good, Chuck. You know, well,
Speaker 1: you know, it didn't really occur to me when we started,
Speaker 1: but now I'm feeling bad too.
Speaker 2: Well, lots of adversarial stuff is happening, right, and what
Speaker 2: is the purpose of it all At the end of
Speaker 2: the day, It's definitely not to make things better for
Speaker 2: those of us, you know, having to endure it here
Speaker 2: in the United States. I mean, what can I do.
Speaker 2: I can't avoid the fact that it's you know, not
Speaker 2: meant to be a big hug and a kiss in
Speaker 2: Merry Christmas, you know.
Speaker 1: And it's like we're being targeted from two directions, two
Speaker 1: different types of adversaries, two different types of strategies, two
Speaker 1: different types of weapons, if you will. At the same time,
Speaker 1: you know, and you really have to be sympathetic as
Speaker 1: to how any administration could get their heads around this,
Speaker 1: regardless of politics. How how do you get your head
Speaker 1: around this? How do you? How do you the Justice
Speaker 1: Department deal with it? How do the military services deal
Speaker 1: with it? How do you? How do you come up
Speaker 1: with a strategy to concurrently deal with two totally different
Speaker 1: types of attack, especially when one of them is specifically
Speaker 1: designed to keep you from doing anything in Congress even
Speaker 1: if you had a strategy.
Speaker 2: Well, see, here's the thing that that that occurs to me,
Speaker 2: and again this is my loose thinking on it, and
Speaker 2: that is that we have to have our own sort
Speaker 2: of uh cyber attackers, right with our own hackers, US
Speaker 2: based hackers and attackers of source in order to counter this.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't that be the way that the US would normally
Speaker 2: answer something like this? If they have a special you
Speaker 2: know program to do xyz, then that means we need one,
Speaker 2: and we need one that counters theirs or or am
Speaker 2: I thinking.
Speaker 1: To the problem from a technology standpoint, we could do that,
Speaker 1: but let's look at the advantage is that they have.
Speaker 1: If we come up with a a political action package
Speaker 1: that involves disinformation, misinformation, social networking, you know, social messaging,
Speaker 1: is that going to work against Russia? Absolutely not. Putin
Speaker 1: has such total control over Russian media, there is virtually
Speaker 1: nothing that we can do. I mean, at this point
Speaker 1: in time, they've had over sixty thousand casualties and it's
Speaker 1: not even touched them because the ability to keep that
Speaker 1: out of the media. So that's a political warfare against
Speaker 1: Putin's regime at this point in time. It's just not
Speaker 1: in the cards. But it is in the cards against us. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: it's unilateral. Okay, let's talk about China. Yeah, absolutely, we
Speaker 1: can come up with counters for drones. We can, but
Speaker 1: what about this manufacturing capability? How much American stuff is
Speaker 1: used in China? The Chinese Over the last three or
Speaker 1: four years, Chinese government has created an absolute phobia against
Speaker 1: foreigners in China. I say this, but I mean, you're
Speaker 1: at the point now where there was a story a
Speaker 1: few months ago where and a sports team they've decided
Speaker 1: to play in Japan and not China, and it was
Speaker 1: like a huge national they're disrespecting us, They're Okay, there
Speaker 1: really is a great deal of anti it's not anti
Speaker 1: all foreigners, but anti Western feeling in China. So the
Speaker 1: question is how much are our sales of equipment in China.
Speaker 1: Can we do anything on the order that they could
Speaker 1: do with you know, chip embeds and software embeds and
Speaker 1: that sort of stuff in terms of selling to US
Speaker 1: and selling through third parties to us. Is that even
Speaker 1: on the table that we could balance that out. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that it is.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know, And I have a
Speaker 2: chatter mentioning the Iranian thing against Trump, but I don't
Speaker 2: know how it is. That's a whole mixed up thing.
Speaker 2: I'm seeing where they went and they got documents from
Speaker 2: his campaign and we're trying to hand him over to
Speaker 2: the Biden campaign. Were there other Iranian moves against Trump
Speaker 2: that I missed?
Speaker 1: I'm the only one I'm aware of is the uh
Speaker 1: document package. And again that's that's very much just a
Speaker 1: repeat of It's it's kind of like Hillary's emails or
Speaker 1: something like that. You know, that's I think that's and
Speaker 1: that's Biden, right. This is months old at this point
Speaker 1: in time.
Speaker 2: It's had to be because they were.
Speaker 1: I've seen some talk of maybe social messaging coming out
Speaker 1: of Iran against Trump, but you know, nothing, nothing to
Speaker 1: compete with the other stuff that's going on. So now
Speaker 1: I can't say that I've seen anything of the same
Speaker 1: magnitude at all coming from Iran.
Speaker 2: M All right, Hey, I don't know, but how do
Speaker 2: we how do we kind of tie a bow around
Speaker 2: this though and bring it all to a conclusion about
Speaker 2: what does this mean? You know, all of this action?
Speaker 2: And oh, by the way, every time I see a
Speaker 2: bunch of stuff like this, Larry, I always think to myself, Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's the part of it that we know about. Now
Speaker 2: what else is going on that we're not being told
Speaker 2: yet or we're never going to be told even as
Speaker 2: it keeps happening, right, I mean, that's the other true.
Speaker 1: Rather running screaming to the exits, which you know would
Speaker 1: seem to be the call for I think there are
Speaker 1: a couple of things we can do. One I think
Speaker 1: we can trust And you just brought it up that
Speaker 1: we are developing the resources to respond to the kind
Speaker 1: of threat that we see coming from China. And I
Speaker 1: think that's very clear because like the announcement we saw today,
Speaker 1: Justice is very well aware of it, the military is
Speaker 1: very well They're no longer taking us by surprise. So
Speaker 1: there is an active defense against the Chinese on all fronts.
Speaker 1: There is an active defense. There is not an active
Speaker 1: defense against Russia's political warfare because we until we stop
Speaker 1: doing it to ourselves. I mean, they're just making us
Speaker 1: do it to ourselves. They're siloing us, they're making us
Speaker 1: not talk to each other, they're making us not listen
Speaker 1: to each other, and we're the only ones that can
Speaker 1: fix that. Until we become less politicized, there's no solution
Speaker 1: because they're just taking advantage of us. So the answer
Speaker 1: there is really obvious, and that's quite frankly not to
Speaker 1: be preachy, but we got to stop hating each other
Speaker 1: and we've got to start looking for compromised solutions and
Speaker 1: reaching across the aisle and not be POI. It's just
Speaker 1: it's like it's fertile ground for them and nothing's going
Speaker 1: to make it better.
Speaker 2: Well, as long as you pretty much draw a line
Speaker 2: where it's like, look, everything that is not on my
Speaker 2: side of the line is absolute evil and needs to
Speaker 2: be confronted, you know, this is where you get extremist action,
Speaker 2: which is weird because you know, we're now being faced
Speaker 2: with who's to blame for different things that occur. Right,
Speaker 2: That's the other thing that happens after another event happens
Speaker 2: where look, we have all this discord being sewed every
Speaker 2: which way, and then somebody says, well, it's really their
Speaker 2: fault that they've been attacking us. No, it's actually their
Speaker 2: fault that they've been attacking us. And meanwhile, both sides
Speaker 2: will blame each other over the same thing, and it's
Speaker 2: you know, it's irrelevant.
Speaker 1: The blame game is a political warfare tool, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: live with it. People, If you do that, you just
Speaker 1: it's like, keep asking yourself, is someone taking advantage of me?
Speaker 2: And there it is? Anyway, Larry, try not to take
Speaker 2: advantage of you. You've been with me about an hour
Speaker 2: here going through this amazing you know, sorry, but crap
Speaker 2: show of what's happening. You know, we are dealing with
Speaker 2: a new age of technological advances that allow things to
Speaker 2: occur in the subtlest of ways, and you have this
Speaker 2: It's back to the spheres of influence once again. Right,
Speaker 2: It's really about that, Who is manipulating that? For what purpose?
Speaker 2: And why are they utilizing all of these modern tools now?
Speaker 2: Because they're the best tools to utilize. You get the
Speaker 2: biggest bang for your buck, so to speak. In going
Speaker 2: through these different avenues creating these ripple effects, sure, grab
Speaker 2: yourself a couple of alt media people along the way
Speaker 2: to make sure that your message gets pushed. But it's
Speaker 2: not really about them. It's about all of their listeners
Speaker 2: that are gonna then take that and become even more
Speaker 2: engaged in the strife between each other. They're going to
Speaker 2: argue more with each other, They're gonna argue more with
Speaker 2: the with the prescribed enemy, one way or another. And
Speaker 2: so long as we're subdividing amongst ourselves and turning our
Speaker 2: anger and turning our finger pointing at people that are here,
Speaker 2: well we can't possibly focus on them and whatever the
Speaker 2: hell they're doing I mean, or am I wrong?
Speaker 1: No, And it's asymmetrical. But as again we talked in
Speaker 1: as we talked last week, this is another form of
Speaker 1: deniable warfare, which we have always done very poorly in
Speaker 1: the Russians in particular, and Chinese have always done very well.
Speaker 1: They just do it, they don't deny it, and they
Speaker 1: just keep doing it and it works. So yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: you just have to be aware that it's going on.
Speaker 1: I think if people were just aware that was going on,
Speaker 1: we have become so introspective and just like looking in
Speaker 1: our side, ourselves like, it's just America. Let's just look
Speaker 1: at ourselves and find bad guys.
Speaker 2: Here well in the large Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: The bad guys are all here. Certainly. Oh, should somebody
Speaker 1: be taking advantage of us? Well, the bad guys are
Speaker 1: all here.
Speaker 2: Well. I think the most profound thing to recognize is that,
Speaker 2: at all times, you know what, most of these arguments
Speaker 2: are not ones that we created, but we've been we've
Speaker 2: been influenced to engage in. And I think one of
Speaker 2: the things that would bother the American people if they
Speaker 2: would accept it, if they would truly accept it, is
Speaker 2: it would truly bother them. It would disturb them, and
Speaker 2: it might even change their direction if they thought that
Speaker 2: all of these things were being manufactured and fabricated by
Speaker 2: people who do not have our best interests at heart.
Speaker 2: And I don't mean your political adversaries here. I mean
Speaker 2: people that want to create chaos for the sake of
Speaker 2: making sure that we are incoherent and at each other's
Speaker 2: throats and definitely mistrusting of one another. Any of our
Speaker 2: political situations be damned. If we are all turned against
Speaker 2: one another, we never have a chance to honestly look
Speaker 2: at them, because all of our focus against one another,
Speaker 2: and that if that's being manufactured by people not here,
Speaker 2: it's not organic. If it's an artificial thing that has been,
Speaker 2: you know, thrust upon us, and people really recognize that,
Speaker 2: I think they might object. I think they might try
Speaker 2: to reevaluate if they thought to themselves, this is an
Speaker 2: organic This is all being manufactured by somebody else who
Speaker 2: wants to pull our strings from a distance.
Speaker 1: Chuck, Chuck, I think you need to link in that
Speaker 1: Twilight Zone episode, Remember the one I'm talking about where
Speaker 1: it's this local neighborhood where suddenly the you know, the
Speaker 1: lights go out, there's no more radio broadcast yea, and
Speaker 1: by the end, everybody is at each other's throats.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I think that's a perfect illustration of what you were
Speaker 1: just talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the one where all of a sudden, the one
Speaker 2: guy has electricity, and then everybody goes and tax his
Speaker 2: house because suddenly he has power on exactly then people
Speaker 2: standing way back, they're supposed to be aliens, but it
Speaker 2: doesn't matter, standing way back goes. Look, it's that easy.
Speaker 2: We can turn them against each other just like this.
Speaker 2: We don't have to do a single thing. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: it reminds me off.
Speaker 1: I'll be forced to watch that once a pay and
Speaker 1: think about it.
Speaker 2: Really, it reminds me of the days when somebody was
Speaker 2: banging their shoe on the on the uh you know,
Speaker 2: on the uh uh on the lecturn at the un
Speaker 2: and saying we'll bury you without without taking a shot. Yep,
Speaker 2: it can be done, and perhaps it is being done anyway. Larry. Yeah,
Speaker 2: there you go. Positive note to end things on and uh,
Speaker 2: don't you feel good? I don't necessarily, but you can
Speaker 2: feel better and educate yourself with Larry Hancock's work larrydash
Speaker 2: Handcock dot com. Again, I recommend all of his books,
Speaker 2: and especially tonight we discussed a bit of creating chaos
Speaker 2: for sure, not necessarily about what's in that book, but
Speaker 2: then again, maybe some of what's in that book. So
Speaker 2: all I can tell you is stay tuned and Larry,
Speaker 2: thanks a lot for doing this with me.
Speaker 1: You bet have a nice evening, Chuck you too.
Speaker 2: And as for you guys, I am merely O'Kelly. All
Speaker 2: of you are indeed the effect. Go to Larry dash
Speaker 2: Hancock dot com and follow his work, get his books.
Speaker 2: They will educate you and also feel free to drop
Speaker 2: in something at o'helly dot com. I could use your
Speaker 2: help at any time, but especially now. Thanks a lot
Speaker 2: for listening again, I'm ocelly, You're the effect. Good night.
Speaker 4: In Denial Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by
Speaker 4: Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 4: operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial
Speaker 4: rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 4: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 4: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 4: really failed and why the United States did.
Speaker 3: Not learn from it. It also shows why other countries
Speaker 3: today are doing secret operations with more success. This is
Speaker 3: the book that puts what some want to deny into
Speaker 3: the light. In Denial, Secret Wars with Air Strikes and
Speaker 3: Tanks Larryhancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock
Speaker 3: dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at
Speaker 3: Amazon dot com.
Speaker 4: In Digital or Physical Revelation Through Conversation, The.
Speaker 5: War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation
Speaker 5: that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the
Speaker 5: context of the times, and reveals never before published information
Speaker 5: about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have
Speaker 5: been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago.
Speaker 5: His assassination took place in the context of the Cold
Speaker 5: War and the rise of the national security state. Before
Speaker 5: World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 5: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 5: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 5: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 5: island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 5: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 5: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 5: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 5: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 5: up against. For more information, the Warstate dot com.
Speaker 6: Yo yova's Doug Campbell, host of the Dallas Action podcast
Speaker 6: presented by Wall Street Window, and you are listening to
Speaker 6: the O'Kelly effect revelation through conversation.
Speaker 3: When you was expressed by caller schools, there anyone else
Speaker 3: who happens to get on the air of Jelley dot com.
Speaker 3: You've not necessarily reflect views of door and we are
Speaker 3: not responsible.
Speaker 2: We're any stupidity which might ensue.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Do you like history, Real history that you were never
Speaker 7: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and
Speaker 7: Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 7: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 7: events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War,
Speaker 7: Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 7: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 7: Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 4: Omega My You