Get ready for.
So it is still Thor's day, and this would be the second hour of the show, except I usually don't do a second hour anymore. However, I got it, you
know why. I got Larry Hancock with me, and we can't turn away an opportunity to bring on Larry Hancock, who is the author of a great many books on my shelf and hopefully yours too, a variety of things covering geopolitics, assassinations, the behavior of the national security state, et cetera, et cetera, from books like Nexus and Creating Chaos all the way to someone would have Talked, and of course the most recent and excellent Oswald Puzzle, which
he co authored with David boy Len. But on top of that you could also find other things, curious stuff, unidentified behavior of you know UFOs whoops they call him UAPs now. Anyhow, all of that stuff and a lot more in books I recommend all of from author Larry Handcock, and you can go check out his stuff at Larrydashhandcock dot com or the WordPress site which I give you at the in the show notes all the time whenever
Larry appears. Plus, I urge you to follow his blog read his books, follow his blog, et cetera, and you will learn, I promise you that much, and always with solid information in great context. Now, before we go any further, I got an email, what was it two days ago, that they were putting up an archive on a website
that I consider to be an essential. If you're somebody an essential, stop one of those things you got a bookmark and make sure you have bookmarked on all your devices, because it is a resource and inform normative place regarding the assassinations and American history in general, but especially the assassinations of the sixties. And I get this notice saying that we're putting up a Larry Hancock archive, which, by the way, I hear rumors might be expanded soon, and
we shall see about that. But anyway, I want to ask Larry about that, and then, believe it or not, we might tackle the world of the geopolitical feeder as it is being run at the moment. But more on that later. Larry, First, how are you doing tonight?
I'm a pretty good check. We're having lovely weather here before the fourth of July. It's unseasonably wet and green. Don't really know what to make of green in Oklahoma and any July. It's just not it's not normals. But so it's great. Fireworks are no problem. We're looking for tomorrow and so so it's a good.
Early summer, hot and wet here in Georgia because you know, we're in that subtropical region that covers just the southeastern corner of the continental US. If you notice, it's in a slightly different temperate zone. And unusually this year, though, Larry, I gotta tell you, I'm not hearing all the fireworks outside. It hasn't been crazy like it usually is every other year.
I'm thinking people don't have money to burn, literally, because that's what you're gonna wind up doing if you buy fireworks. And I know well that the fireworks are not popping off out there, because I got five little dogs and they freak out. Two of them are terribly terrified, but all of them bark, and you know what you hear any bark and Larry, no, there's no fireworks happening outside now. Tomorrow will be the fourth and maybe we'll get some.
But anyway, enough of that. I'm glad you're doing well, and you sound like you're in good spirits. But tell me about this Larry Hancock archive and a few other things that are going on regarding that before we get into the world of geopolitics as they stand here this summer.
Yeah, there are two elements to it. First of all, all the credit is due to Alan Dale, who really does content for that website at the AARC. And Alan contacted me and really kind of approached me and said,
you know, he would he would do some work. Could I help him to kind of pull together things that I've been interviewed about that I've blogged about on different research topics that to some extent are not just the political assassinations are They're they're beyond the books, you know, bits and pieces of work.
Right now, Larry, hold on just a second, because I want to give proper credit to Alan without embarrassing him or overstating it. But Alan doesn't just provide content and work on that website. Now, Alan Dale, you know, he is an author to and he's written a book, and he's made presentations and he was my predecessor really as the mc at lancer. But truthfully, a lot of people don't know Alan does a lot of work behind the scenes on a bunch of relevant websites. Having to do
with the assassinations and modern contemporary American history. You're aware he does. I'm letting the listeners know this. I'm sure you know, but Alan's a friend, so I know this. Not only does he do that, but he's also had the patience to slock through a lot of things with John Newman, which is not an easy job when he's working on his books. But Alan has made contributions very quietly and very intelligently and very directly from the tech side of things when it comes to what it is
you're getting out there now. He hasn't made any contributions to my website or anything like that, but it seems like he's touched almost anything else that is JFK related out there. So I just want to make people aware that a lot of what's available to you outside of the National Archives, Alan may have had a hand, a role in, or participated in when it comes to making sure it's successible to people on the internet. Just saying, Larry, that's how I would want to credit Alan.
Alan as an enabler. He maintains a low profile. He does a huge amount of work. As you said, He's done a huge amount of document work for John Newman. But he's he's very much you know, low key, He's very objective, pragmatic, stays behind the scenes, so he doesn't get the credit he really deserves. And as she said, he he mc to Lancer with us for years. He's got a wonderful speaking voice. He's a jazz musician, you know,
he is multi talented. You don't find that many jazz musicians at the National Archives, you know, enough of you maybe, but Alan stands out on his own merits.
No, absolutely. I just wanted to make it clear to people because Alan Dale is not necessarily the first name that comes to their mind regarding, you know, who gets the job done when it comes to this stuff. But also, yeah, full credit, he's not just a jazz musician, but a talented drummer. And you know, I do say this in a very nice way because he's also oddly a friend of mine, which you know is not I don't have
a huge circle of friends in the community. But he's actually a friend but also deserves a lot more credit than he ever gets. So I just want to make sure. Sorry, Larry, I don't mean to, you know, step on what you were saying, but I had to throw it in there because I think Alan needs more recognition than he gets. But please continue about this. He wanted your help assembling some things and putting together bits and pieces about what you were interviewed on and what happened next well, and.
Some of the things, I mean, some of the things are obvious. It's it's pretty easy to come up with a list of the books. Alan's done some interviews with me. Yeah, so finding some of the contents okay, But he really did challenge me to go back and find some of the subjects that I tackle, that are that have come
up over the decades. You know, sometimes there are a hot topic, sometimes they're not that I've done some very long term research on that that you know, you would have to know where to find it now, as you and I both know, in this community, things are topical. You know, for six months something will be just the subject of discussion and then it fades away, only to
come back through four years later. So you know, there was a time when Dallas eranium and oil in the dal text building was you know, really really a subject of focus and what was going on in the dal texts and what were the mysterious connections there? And then
that faded away, so where do you find it? Well, I spent a lot of time I blogged about it, so Allan kind of challenged me to go back and find some of that material, which which fortunately, with what remaining memory I have left, I was able to do some searches and come up and we we've added that too. So there there some articles and monographs and some interviews that a lot of people even that know my books,
may not be aware of. They're also you know that when a topic comes up, it's like, oh, has that ever been discussed before? And you do a Google search on it and you don't find much. Well, that doesn't mean that the work wasn't done. So you know, you'll you'll find things in this archive that you know, people may be interested in that they don't even know there was any research on.
Well preservation has been a difficult thing in the modern media era, believe it or not, even though it seems like it would be easier. For instance, you know, the total of the amount of interviews you've done a lot of discussions with me over the past decade, more than a decade actually, And the funny thing about it is the majority of that stuff one way or another has gotten knocked off of platforms, or I've been deplatformed, or
Facebook page has been banned or whatever. And guess what the links to those things or the networks have disappeared, or the archives. It's not available out there, like the total interviews that you and I have done from anybody, not even me because I can't afford all the storage.
Although I do have a partially completed Larry Hancock tab for my website, but it's not complete at the moment anyway, Just saying, and that's a narrow focus to just think about the diverse amount of current events JFK myths we talked about. You were on one of those episodes we did, the one oh one series about the investigations we did. You know a lot of different series even of topical discussions that today some people can't find, don't access, if
they didn't save it themselves, they don't have it. You know.
Another thing about that this beginning to trouble me check and we've chalked about this a little bit before, but people are becoming increasingly rely on what I would call semi intelligent search tools and of course on AI. Right and I have done a number of searches lately using both of those and asking questions and about material that I know is out there, and I'm getting answers that
don't show that. And I think we really need to understand how limited the training for AIS are on certain things. Great in some areas, but when you start using it in the social sciences, when you start using it in history, you start getting answers that are quite incomplete but sound like they are right right. I mean, they're very authoritative, and I read them and I go, no, uh huh.
And sadly, Larry, I hate to say this to you, but frankly, if you do that search from someone else's computer that is not already marked and tagged and known to the algorithms, you'll get different results. You know, a search for you and I to do the same search might come up similar because you and I might look
into similar topics. But if you were to go to somebody's computer who you know is on Etsy all day and is trying to figure out arts and crafts and you know, following doggie and kiddie pictures, and they put in the same search inquiry into one of these systems, they get entirely different, customized results. So there is that
as well. Right, we are so compartmentalized in this technology at this point that quite frankly, you don't have the broad complete open source even though again, as you said, it's almost represented as no, this is more complete, this is more efficient. Well, it's also narrowed because of guess what, what you've already fed into your algorithms that are personalized.
And I'm not trying to criticize or make you belabor this, but I want to stamp your point twice that you know what your Google search is not what you think it is. And guess what. Unless people make an effort to collect things together and create things that are you know, relevant and archival in nature, guess what, you're not going to get an archive. You're not going to get a full view of anything anymore. And the Internet archive is
another thing. Have you looked at that, by the way, just done a search on yourself on the Internet archive dot org.
Yes, I have, and it's certainly not complete.
No, it is not, and I know that too because I've been there. But the point is that some more obscure things do end up there, and it's interesting. You've got to come up with a way of sweeping through these things, you the listener, not you Larry, in order to find a true representation of what's available to begin with. If you're even so interested anyway, please continue though about this, because I think this is relevant and interesting and what
do we have as an end result here? After working with Alan a bit and you know, and you collected some things and gave it to him, there's now like a section over there at the organization's website now right right, and.
So it is an archive devoted to my work. And I think one of the interesting things about it is you really need to scan it to see if you come up with a topic that's of interest to you, because we've tried to. I've tried to go through some back through some of my blog posts on what things that come up periodically, like the Chicago threats or Surtray
and his reported presence in Dallas. There's some of those things that you know, over the years, I might have spent months on any given time, consolidated into a relatively small blog post. I've still got all my research data's buried somewhere if I could find it. But you know, nobody will be interested unless it comes up again, you know, it's sort.
Of like the relatively revived interest in Billy Celestes that you and I went through on the two part piece with Billy Celestie's grandson, right exactly, which was curious.
But yeah, go ahead, Well, and I think that raises a very good point check because again, this is a potential weakness for us, I think, and this is a weakness for document geeks in general. We're becoming more and more used to all right, well we'll go. You know, there are document collections. They're government collections, private collections, university collections, and that's kind of the world of information. But it's really not because a lot of there's a lot of
primary evidence that's held by individuals. Like we talked about the Billy all Celestes thing, Nobody, if you had not done the research that I did a couple of decades ago, would have found the court documents, the interview that was never investigated. You know, there was not a government investigation. There were lots of newspaper articles, so you had to go back to that kind of material to find the context for the story and some of the you know,
some of the stuff we provided him. The only place that's setting is because I happen to have an interest in it at one particular point in time and put it all into a file. It's not out there on the internet, which is I won't say it's it's not an issue. It's only an issue if you think that
everything is. You know, it's like, Okay, I looked at the Internet and it wasn't there, so I'm good, you know, which is because interesting because obviously he himself had done some you know, of his own research, and Billy Solvent had not seen these things. But I think it's just important that we don't fool ourselves into becoming too bureaucratic in terms of information. It's just like if it's if it's not out there in the world of the Internet, then it's okay, because that's all there.
Is, right right, No, And I appreciate it. And I just put the link in the live chatroom at Ocelli dot com to the aa r C Library dot Org's website. The page is under Larry Let's see, it's under Larry Dashhancock dot archive is Larry Handcock dash Archive. Excuse me, but the weblink will be right there in the show notes and also in the Ocelli chatroom. If you roll it back at any time, you can see it anyways. Just want to let people know that that's available and
it is evolving. There will be more added to it.
Larry, I think I'm glad you brought that up, because that brings up a good illustration of what we were just talking about. Allen has actually done me a favor and posted a solicitation for something that's missing. And one of the areas that's missing out of my research is I spent months and years on certain individuals related to
the JFK assassination. Thomas Beckham, Fred Chrisman, both very important to the Garrison investigation, Richard case Miguel very important for a lot of reasons to this full story of Nagel. To get the full stories of these people, Frank Sturgis, I had to go way beyond what's in the documents,
for example, and Chrisman and Beckham. I was fortunate enough to connect with a person who had been involved in several lawsuits related to their activities and Theacific Northwest, and who had done an immense amount of private research on the backgrounds of the individuals for his legal papers. That sort of thing, I mean it was amazing to me when he when he sent me the whole background document that both of them had represented themselves as certified evangelical ministers.
And I came across Beckham who Wood was performing now song routines, but also evangelical appearances, and I was fascinated because the symbols that he was using on his flyers related to all face. It's like, oh man, this guy touched everything, including a swastika.
Look, I would never put a swastik on my file, on my file or flyer or anything else. But quite frankly, I'm actually an ordained multi faith minister. You bet you didn't even know that.
Larry I did not where do we start a file on you? But and for him it was it was a mail order thing because both of them were doing But the point of that whole thing, I have one of those two.
Yeah, I have one of those also. Anyway, Well they.
Were actually white valuable back in the sixties because you could pursue that for a draft deferment.
Well draft deferment, plus you can provide a service by marrying people in a lot of states. Uh, you know, I happen to know this. I've only performed three marriages in my life. But but I've done it anyway. It's just one of those. It's interesting, uh. And outside of Joan Mellon's interviews with with Beckham, I mean, you know, it's difficult to get to know this guy, so there
you go. But meanwhile, the solicitation that Alan put out is interesting because a lot of us, and I do mean us, those of us who have you know, labored and done independent work, whether they were trying to write a book or not. A lot of us have you know, purchased or required CDs over the years, and a lot of the CDs or you know, work files that you picked up digitally in one way or another, CD ROMs
I used to call them at one point. You know, quite frankly, a lot of that stuff is not on the Internet, and some of us have you know, boxes or spindles full of these things. And somebody out there right now listening to us might have the Larry Hancock collection on a CD.
Right, Yeah, they were Basically what happened is I I wrote narratives to introduce all the documents and you know, like a ten or twelve page analysis, then double up all the documents and.
Sent boxes to Lancer and Debra would have them scanned and put on CD. And there there were two collections. One was there the research of Larry Hankyck I think, and then there was another one specifically on Beckham and Chrisman, and so I know they did sell some of those. Unfortunately, my copies of both CDs are no longer readable, which does happen to CDs. But then the documents themselves got misplaced,
lost whatever in various moves at Lancer. So if anybody happened to have purchased those and we can get copies of the CD, get the CD credit off reconstructed, there's just there are literally hundreds of pages of documents and research in those CDs that will disappear forever. Strangely, it's kind of like, gosh, I remember that was a lot of work, but it would be nice to be able to recover it.
Well, quick question, do you still.
Have your CDs?
Why are they not readable? Is it? Are they telling you that the files are no good or I do not.
I sent them off to a couple of archives who were going to try to attempt to recover them, to go into university archives. They were unable to read them.
Okay, if you wind up with those CDs back in your hand and you're willing to mail them to me. I've been able to recover some stuff off of CDs that people have told me you can't get anything off, so I'm just saying, as a last resort, I'd be willing to help you get them, and that would save a lot of work and would present people with a unique opportunity to study that stuff and get those nice narratives that I'm sure were exclusive to those CDs that
you wrote. So I wouldn't mind helping you recover them if nobody else can send them to me. As a last resort, I'll get it done if it's possible, because I got a couple of weird techniques that people told me wouldn't work, and they do. It just has to do with branching between some old programs that you can no longer get. But I still have on a device or two that actually allowed me to recover some things from some CDs in the past. I'm just telling you, oh.
Sure, I certainly, and if anybody finds them, I I don't think I have any left if I can recover If anybody finds them, just let's try to do this, because there's really some interesting stuff in there if we could locate it.
Right and do me a favor. If anybody does and you don't know what to do with them, by all means, contact me or contact Larry through his blog if you'd rather do that, but one or the other. I will make sure they either get to them or get recovered if you send them to me, you know, but info atochelly dot com or blind JFK researcher at gmail dot com, and I'll be more than happy to assist Larry and
recovering those anyway. But one way or another, I'd like to see your work preserved, and I'm glad that it's being done over there, you know, some of it. Obviously. I don't think any website can hold all your work at this point, but we'll give it a shot, you know, and see what we can get done. So, anything else about this that you want to let people know or should they contact you know? Do we want to give out any other email addresses?
Is there anything?
Or Oh I'm always happy to give out my email address if somebody saw a particular interview or particular posts that I've done. That thanks, worthwhile with me sharing. I tried to recall and search everything, but I could for allan but people might very well have suggestions. At this point, my recollection of everything that I've done myself is getting a little hazy.
There you go, And I'm planning to contribute a little piece to the Hancock archive over there as well. I'm not telling you what it is yet, but you will see it, probably within the next forty five days or so at most, because it's going to take me a little time to reconstruct something, but it'll get done. And anyway, I really want to see this continue. And again the link is in the show notes and also at the ocell dot com chat room there for the public to see.
So by all means, go there, visit it, take a look at Alan Slash Larry's work at the web site. So there you go, Larry, that's the past and all of your work of the past. But you want to talk about the current season of geopolitics as it is presented on the reality show or.
What yeah it is. It's amazing to me to try to really you and I have talked about, you know, and ongoing. Did the Cold War suddenly become hot? You know? Is this a new Cold War, a new type of World war?
Whatever?
And I think I think we've run into a fascinating thing of it's become more like a reality show. You know, how much of this is really staged? How much of it is posturing? Is it? I mean, certainly there are people dying, there's huge amounts of damage being done, but it's almost as if it's theater.
Well, look, there's real blood, there's real consequences, there's real death. There's really people getting shot trying to get food in Palestine. Okay, that's really happening. It's not crisis actors, it's not Ai Okay. And I'm not telling you this, Larry, I'm telling the listener this because there are people out there speculating and even look, I've been a little mocking about this. I call it the War of the two Eyes. Okay, Israel
and Iran. All Right, I know it's not very creative, but best I could do with only twelve days to work with. Really, all right, and now there's speculation, well, you know, did the US strikes really destroy nuclear capabilities or did it do nothing? Or what was this? And all along? Quite frankly reality show. It's less real than a reality show. It seems like it is performative, like people that are out there trying to demonstrate how outrage they are over things just to make the point of
their outrage to score points. And this is what occurred. Plus, I think there's an added benefit. And you may disagree with me about this, but there's an added benefit to the business model. What business model am I talking about? The military industrial complex? Of course, you know those big huge Mother of All bombs or bunker busters or whatever, the planes, the fuel, all that stuff. Guess what costs money? And now we got to restock. I mean, it's just
like any other business. And I'm sorry to put it that way, because, like I said, there's real bloodshed, there's real consequences, there's real death and destruction. But at the same time, there's some people that I think are just looking at a cost benefit analysis, whether it's political or financial, and a lot of people are cashing in. And that's the way I see it. Maybe I'm crazy, but I mean that's the way I've come through this, regardless of
all the rhetoric, regardless of all the hyperbole. What are your thoughts?
Yeah, And the reason I referred to it as maybe political theater is the right word is given the amount of death and destruction with the relative lack of engagement. I mean, it's like, Okay, we're going to launch a huge missile barrage and then we'll come back and say, well, let's let it set for a couple of weeks and maybe we'll start negotiations, okay, And one party says, all right, they've agreed to negotiations. The other party says, no, we haven't.
And as a matter of fact, yeah, it's it's like there are two levels as things occurring. One is explosive and as you said, there's blood and casualties and destruction, and then at a higher level it's just like, well, we talked, and then we'll talking and Putin will call me or I'll call somebody, and there's no level of urgency.
I cannot fathom the fact that the United States would would first of all, bomb someone that it has made no threat against us and is certainly not an exec general threat against the continent of the United States in any way, shape or form. Yet we bond them with one of the most massive displays of force since World War Two.
Okay, Well, in the end, there's an additional But there's an additional element to this that I'd like you to address as well, which is the longstanding history of Okay, they're not an existential threat to us, you know, the colloquial us, but you know us. But the thing is,
we have been a constant interference, element of interference. Let's say for almost a century in that country that we just dropped some bombs on in the middle of the country, by the way, regardless of what the facility allegedly was or whatever else. Here's the thing. I mean, if we go back to Mohamed Mozdek and all that, we're talking the nineteen fifties. So okay, excuse me, I said, a century, seventy five years? How what will be fair that way?
Mohamed Mozdek, that whole incidence where we reinstall the shaw of Iran basically with the help of British intelligence. I mean, if you go from there, through the hostage crisis, through the give us back you know, the guy that you supplied the Savak training to and everything else for the secret police, we want to punish him. Big miracle. They turned the country over to the priests. After all that. From the secular government interference.
You know, here we.
Go again and again and again and again, and meanwhile, nobody even wants to look at that history and say, you know, if I was these people, I might be a little more angry or reactive to this, And yet we got virtually no reaction. So there's a context to be spoken of here that I didn't see in the media, in the talking heads, the political analysts, the you know, we're going to bring on Spider, you know, General Spider,
they always bring him on CNN. What's his name, Spider Marx retired general right, and these other guys who are military experts everything else. Nobody talked about the constant interference and the other war that has been going on again for seventy five years in the spheres of influence, in the political assassination and you know, upheaval and regime change and all these things. They throw around all these words and never look at the history, and yet we get
a result that makes no sense given that history. Or again, am I speaking out of school here?
Now? I think certainly the media has forgotten much of the history. But let's face it. Let's let's step back one phrase during the period of time that you were talking about the first cod War, American foreign policy was global, right right, Ignow, we accept that we're at war with the communist menace. We are part of the global We're part of a global war. It just has to be
a co war, right now. About six months ago, we decided our foreign policy stopped at our border, right, didn't I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere, And then it's it's just all about us here, and we're just focused on something that's a direct threat. You know, if it's not at the border, it's none of our business, except it is suddenly and suddenly and then re engaged. We
suddenly pushed that border out way far. And I'm absolutely certain that none of Ourn's missiles will reach across the Atlantic.
Well because because Israel, you know, because yeah, I got that.
But it's it's it's like it's it's a shifting it's there's no common perception of it. So we're all only concerned about our on boarders. And this, as you say, it has to do with a threat to Israel, Okay, but of course a threat to you know, people attacking Israel, it's a threat and we should help them. People attacking Ukraine it's not a threat, and we should not help them. As a matter of fact. You know, even if they offered a bias from US, we wouldn't necessarily sell it
to them, but we will give it to Israel. You know, there's a disconnect here. I hate disconnects. And and by the way, the only country that has actually threatened US with atomic weapons is North Korea. But you know they've actually got them, and we're not going to mess with them. You could almost say, you know, Iran says they're going to attack us and left we have an atomic weapon,
and sure enough they did. And North Korea is a perfect example of you get one and you can do anything you want and threaten whoever you want, and we won't mess with you, right, dear Russia. You know, so Iran may have a point in you know, the fact that nukes are a defensive device.
Yeah. Well, and that was the other point I brought up, is that, you know, when we got a circumstance, there was that common you know, perception, right, and we threatened and cajoled North Korea and everything else. They went ahead and said, nope, now we got a bomb. That changed the equation. Iran, it would be insane for them not to pursue a nuclear weapon, even if just to say they have it. They can have a test and say, look,
we have it, we could use it. Now. We bargain differently, and we demonstrated that.
I mean, we made their point for them, right, Uh, you know that. And but as you said, it's it's all about Israel. That's it's all about Israel. The rules are not being applied across the board, which is driving us all nuts.
You know.
I think that's part of why I consider it theater. We've got different shows going on in different regions. Geopolitically, there's no common strategy to any of this. There was. I mean, you could have made an argument six months ago that there is a new common strategy and it stops at the border. Yeah, we're going to defund all of you know, Radio Europe, right, that's just an example. We don't care about the rest of the world anymore. So that would have at least been a common, consistent strategy.
But that's not the way it's playing now. We're picked and choosing.
Yeah, it would have been coherent, but uh, Israel never mind, you know, up to that point, right, we're not intervening and we did another smaller version of that where we're not intervening in certain places where you know, hey there's a genocide occurring, but we intervened in South Africa.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm just saying. Look, I'm not trying to make and some people are probably already screaming at this podcast right now, going Chuck the liberal, Chuck the Look. I'm not being the liberal here. I'm just pointing out what's happening. And Larry Hancock is the last guy that I would ever think to complain about Israel, frankly, but yet here it is.
Look, you know, let's let's talk about moral imperatives, because we both come out of a period of time from JFK on when the US at least did have one uncommon theme, not that we did not screw it up up all the time and do things to deniably that. Okay, we're not talking about what we did. At least, what we said was that we had the moral perative of helping defend people that were being attacked, defend democracies that were being attacked, and we would It's Kennedy and Berlin,
the speech at the Berlin Wall. I am a Berliner. No, the border doesn't stop at the US. The US will assume the moral imperative of defending against aggression. Yet here we are. We can defend against aggression. For Israel, we stop defending against ingressia, for Ukraine. We can morally reject genocide in South Africa and just totally ignore it in Gaza.
And when you see stories of US funded relief organizations their own people saying their own people are firing on the Palestini Palestinians trying to recollect the release, you know, it takes real, an real effort to ignore that. So my point is you're going to be consistent. Either you stop at your borders or you don't. Or you have a moral imperative that you honor everywhere, or you don't.
Otherwise it's just theater and you're doing whatever you want wherever for your purpose, not with any consistent morality or strategy either one.
Well, and that's the thing, it's not even necessarily. Look, you know, people say, oh, look, you know you're moral, you're this way, you're that way, you're bleeding heart. You're worried about certain people, not worried about other people. Look, how about remove that from the equation it's strategically incoherent as well as morally yeah coherent, So yeah, go ahead, please.
That's what I was going to say. You can if it was one or the other, maybe somebody could make the argument as you say that you're just a liberal and you know morality does not apply to geopolitics. Okay, a fine plan, but then at least you ought to have strategy. You ought to have tactics, You ought to have a plan. You know, if you're going to be like Gung Ho brute force, I'm all out for me, then at least you should have a plan.
It reminds me of that. You know that that Batman movie. I don't know if you ever saw it, but the Dark Knight, you know, the one with the with the heath ledger joker. Yes, yes, and he's in the nurse's uniform and he's looking at the now Harvey Dent, who has become two paced, and he goes, do I look like a guy with a plan. I really felt like that's what was being said to the world, is that America had become the Joker here? Do I look like a guy with a plan? Because you don't.
That's a that's a perfect line. That's a perfect line. If somebody was writing about American geopolitics right now, that would be the line to use. Do I look like I have a plan? Do I look like I have a plan anywhere?
You know?
You and I talked about this a bit earlier. But to add to this equation, you have to add to the fact we are busily making enemies a lot with a lot of people that don't necessarily have ballistic missiles but have asymmetric warfare tools. Okay, and we've been through that before. And we're in the midst of making lots of people very mad at us who have the ability to attack us in numerous ways, whether it's forget the aircraft, when's that next bomber drone going to hit a big building?
You know?
But what did we just do today? I'm appalled that we're going to cut the Fusion Center for counter Terrorism Threats by like seventy percent. I mean, this is insanity. See, but don't you don't go off start making start making people totally mad at you and at the same time reduce your defenses for the easiest way for them to attack you.
Well, right, but now I'm going to present to you my last crazy piece of input into this discussion. And then I'm going to let you wrap it up any way you want regarding this circumstance that we find ourselves in. But here's the thing that I find remarkable at this point.
For decades now, okay, and I'm a little younger than you, Larry, but I'm sure you can agree with me that from the nineteen seventies to now, okay, past fifty years, we have effectively been told continuously by various talking heads both parties, people of isolationists and of you know, the people that want to be the global police, remember the whole you know, we're going to police the globe. It's going to cost
us a fortune. We can't afford it. Or the people that say we must because we're the only ones that can among all of them, what they always said about Iran, right ever since the hostage I mean, I was a kid when that went on, and that's where you got day twenty seven of the hostage crisis, Day one hundred and fifty of the hostage crisis. We heard that on the radio every day, on TV every day. That's how
Nightline got started. Right. Anyways, it was amazing to me that all these people that told us over and over again that if we weren't careful, we could have ourselves swarmed in all places all over the world by people that sought to blow up, kill, create chaos, and they had people ready at all times, and we're constantly sending them there a message that was taken much more seriously in the post nine to eleven reality by people who said, look what happened, guys with I'm not even getting into
the conspiracy the discussion. Let's just use the official narrative here. Guys with box cutters hijacked airplanes and took New York City down. Part of our financial institutions were crushed. Serious things were done, low tech asymmetrical warfare. And that was the thing. This is why we needed homeland security. This is why we needed the Patriot Act. This is why,
why why why why? In light of all of that and the constant, continuous threat, the fact that we've seen nothing happen since this, you know, attack on Iran almost says to me, obviously, you've been telling me about a boogeyman that doesn't necessarily exist, or at least not the way that you've explained it. Just like we found out that you know, Saddam Hussein. Yeah, one time he was kind of on our side. Then we kind of, you know, smacked him down. Then we got rid of him. He
was an asset coincidentally against Iran. Anyway, let's not get sidetracked. The point is that at this point in time, I'm saying to myself this boogeyman you've always told me about, maybe he's about as real as sy because that's where we're at. And I wonder what your thoughts are. Again, I know it's a crazy thing and it's not the responsible, you know, sane thing to say in mixed company, but
I present it to you. I mean, put me in my place, put this in its context any which way you want, Larry, But what are your thoughts on that idea that maybe just maybe we have just seen a mask drop here and the reality is not as it was represented. Could be there was collusion here for this political theater, or it could be that it's just been an unrealistically amplified threat in the perception of most of us when those in the know knew better. What are your thoughts, Well.
Maybe he gave a different slant on it, and I only would speak this way because I did look into this a lot in writing the section of Surprise Attack that deals with post nine to eleven. Yes, And one of the things I will say is there was a period of time during three or four administrations where we took that kind of threat very seriously. And I'm not talking about immigrants or asylum seekers. I'm talking about the real threat being the recruitment of American citizens for terror acts. Yeah,
because you can. You can only get away with nine to eleven. You know, you you sneak sawdies in and you know, put them through aircraft pilot training. You get you get away with that once. Next time you're going to have to do something really different because everybody's watching for that. But there was a period of time for a couple of decades where truly the Fusion centers, the the fbis and Home Rand security, they were being very diligent.
They were doing uh exercises, they were they were turning people looking at the Internet. They were turning people. Now you can like that or not like that, but one argument can be made is that they were being preemptive and they were being proactive, and did they trample on some people's rights? Very likely, Either like that or not, But one day.
One day, you and I I will. I don't know if I ever shared with you my personal interaction with the Department of Homeland Security in two thousand and seven. I think I did, But if not, maybe one day I'll have to discuss it with you, because I got to tell you there's a lot of overstepping that was done during that time period as well, and from my personal experience, I don't know if I ever told you about Did I tell you about that when I was getting married?
Oh yeah, yes, uh huh, okay, fair.
Enough, fair enough. I leave it there, But I'm just saying to me, it's still one of those things. Where was that done, you know, as a demonstration, as a preventative measure. Was it realistically necessary? Well now nowadays doesn't seem to be, because I think we would have had a serious attack back.
As I said, ahead, Well, but I guess my point was, you'll never know. It's one of those things that did it. Did it pre empt I mean those things if they're proactive. I I'm not necessarily saying that I like them, but they are also preemptive. We won't know what it stopped. I mean, we know a few people got picked up, and I tracked some of those cases in the book there there that was an issue for a time. Now that tapered off because we did get ahead of the
curve globally with al Qaeda. Now we're falling behind again in Africa. There's no doubt that al Qaeda is growing again in Central Africa. It's looking for outlets to the to the Atlantic Ocean. I guess what my counter to what you just said is, I don't know that we can know. All I can say is we did a lot of things domestically in a nation to get ahead of it, some good things, some not bad things. Now we're stopping all that just at the time that that
threat is developing again now, which seems inconsistent to me. Again, if we're making the argument that we're at threat on our borders because they've been so loose, well, would this be the time that you decreased counter terrorism? You know, next week when they're all gone, six months, when they're all gone, and you can sign off a slip. But they're still here and we're making we're making new enemies.
There's no doubt about that. So I guess I just bring this up as an area of again inconsistency and the lack of any overall strategy. We are. We are diming down our cyber warfare. That's been very clear over the last three or four months. We actually for a period of time turned it off in regard to Russia, right, And we're doing a lot of things that in homeland security, we're focused in one particular area like detention camps and deportees.
I mean, for whatever that's worth, that does not address an appending attack from some of the people that we're making really upset with us right now. So that's all I was really pointing out is this is another area of inconsistent tactics supporting no strategy at all.
Right, And I want to point out just a couple of quick red flags and then we can close out this discussion, because here's two red flags to me when I'm watching the performative nature of the administration where Trump visits, you know, Alligator Alcatraz, and it's not because it's Trump, it's the president anyway, so forget it. It's not about Trump here. Trump visits Alligator Alcatraz as the president shows it to the media, and the next day I'm reading
reports about how there are people arriving there. Okay, so that is a priority that is occurring in real time. But a funny thing about those massive strikes on Iran, if they knew nothing about it, if they were striking an active facility, etcetera, etcetera, et cetera. I don't see complaints about casualties. I don't see they killed one hundred and fifty people. I don't see they killed thirty of
our scientists in the strikes. I don't see that as a priority, which, by the way, would normally evoke the need for vengeance, the need for and the legitimate which we did develop earlier on in other conflicts, the legitimate desire for people to want to get back at you for the fact that you blew up their family, you blew up their livelihood, you blew up their village, etc. None of that occurred in this twelve day war of two Eyes that the US put a punctuation mark on.
So I point out to you that these things either happened because they're not meant to happen, or because people were warned there was an understanding. Something occurred here. That is strange. When you can see people moved in real time for a priority, and then another priority doesn't have the expected consequence. And oh, by the way, pay no attention to whatever the hell's going on in Ukraine now because we don't have the weapons to send them anyway.
I think Trump earlier today said we need those for us for what. Anyway, I'm just saying, when you see these things, yeah.
To wrap that up too, that's one thing that makes you think, see, Iran is not behaving as they've behaved in the past, threats whatever you know. There and there was a very interesting interview with a scientist from ros Alamos today talking about the fact that again we're forgetting our science and we're doing away with our science. But
it takes a lot less. If you're at sixty percent enrichment, going from sixty to eighty takes minimal time and resources compared to what it took you to get to sixty. If you've already got a store of material enriched, you can go quickly to a working bomb or a dirty bomb. Yes, you know. And one of the things that nobody is
talking about is the most radical part. The only thing you're talking about is they killed all their commanders, right, But the guys down below who are still radical and just had their commanders wiped out are the ones that could very well be in control of that stuff. And they never took orders from the Iranian National God what ever, They launched their own attacks. They launched their own strikes, and they just might take it in their head to
do it again. We somehow have managed to convey the messages after those strikes, it's all over and we're safe. And again that's again, that's the nothing is ever that simple.
Well, if you read Son Sou's The Art of War, you make your enemy feel safe just before you attack them. And if you don't read that, how about read this. If you blew up a nuclear facility that had a whole bunch of radioactive stuff in it, that stuff might have gotten spread around and noticed by people, you know,
in the region. Just saying, But anyway, Larry, maybe it's just my you know, curious mind and the odditch I have in my brain and could be the concussions I've taken in my life that makes me think this way. I don't know, but Larry, I appreciate you giving us context. And I told people in the chat room that you were going to bring some sanity to the broadcast and
you've done so, so I appreciate that. I want people to check out the archive, which I've given you a link for at the at the AARC website, as well as going to Larry's blog at Larry Dashancock dot com. Always always a good idea to follow that if you want to keep up on the reality of some of the unreal things that are happening. And I recommend to all Larry's books, especially by the way, you know the
Oswald Puzzle, which is the newest one. But you're also going to make a presentation at Lancer this year and I'm hoping to hear some new stuff. I think there will be actually by the time you get to it. Is that a possibility, Yeah, I think there could be.
We're we're we're still pursuing what was happening with with Oswald starting in New Orleans, right and what was going on with him, and I think there might be some new stuff on that. And just one final comment that I will offer check. I think I would love it if I could go anywhere and add some sanity to something these days. I would just I pretty much think that what I can do is delineate the insanity you know then we're all going to have to deal with it. I'm just not fineing much sanity.
Listen, I hear you, and I'm seeing that exactly the same way you are, even though it might be from a slightly different angle. So there you have it, guys, one way or another, Larry gives you something that you're not getting elsewhere, and that's why I recommend his books, his blog and everything else. Very unique and ethical work. Ethical and ethical, by the way, I'm saying both words.
Work from Larryhncock again, larrydsh Hancock dot com, Larry Hyphenhandcock dot com, whatever, and the links will be in the show notes. So anyway, that'll do it for us. I know it's less than an hour, but I promised Larry would be less than an hour, and we covered a lot of ground. Hopefully you guys got something out of it. I'm o'chelly, you are the offend.
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the Times and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state. Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island arn't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
up against. For more information, The War State, dot com.
Devilation through Conversation.
Dot com radio net funders.
Go ahead, I'm about the Javassas.
Ration, right, Well, what do you want to know Rudy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry answer weapons. Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon.
But okay, Bill, and I'm trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy Come On Now has a real.
Effort on the day of pay assassination book into her claims.
Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith Very Baker in her own words from the author himself signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at k I as jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims Judith Very Baker in her own words.
Thank you for all the great information. Jesus, what would I do? Revelation through conversation in a radio show slash podcast? You want the good news? Listen to the o'shelley effect. Check o'ceelly is the most underrated voice in all media, news, education, and entertainment. The Daily Bread from ocelly dot com. Go there, save yourself from ignorance ochelly dot com. But we all agreed to put o'ceelly dot com on and listen to the o'helly effect. Revelation through conversation o'helly dot com.
Geochili dot com.
Nuclear holocaust.
You know what uranium is right?
Just think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you know what uranium is right? Bad things things are done with uranium in living, some bad things.
Nuclear holocaust.
You know what uranium is right.
I agree Nuclear holocaust is nuclear holocaust.
You know what uranium is right?
Just think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you know what.
Uranium is right.
Bad things things are done with your anim including some bad things.
Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear hollolear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear.
Hollow Yo yo. This Doug Campbell, host of the Dallas Action podcast presented by Wall Street Window. And you are listening to the o'chill effect revelation through conversation.
Do you like history? Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia.
By author Mike Swanson with new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this.
Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one.
Get your copy today at Amazon dot com.
Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swans o'chilly dot com.
Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by Larryhncock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did.
Not learn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larryhancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com. In Digital or Physical.
Force Radio, The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presentdency in the context of the times, and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state. Before World War II, the United States
was a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you
what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, The Warstate dot com the.
Use expressed by callers schools. There anyone else who happens to get on the air at Olly dot com. You're not necessarily reflecting he views of Olly dot com or Jeff Chelly, and we are not responsible for any stupidity which might ensue.
Thank you.
This is James Corbet at corner Report dot com and you're listening to the affected Olly dot com revel.
Through conversation here, Yeah, ravel through convers well, a truth breaking through.
Uncle. Do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said that an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninja's to take down the Illuminati.
Oh that's interesting, Yeah in the clutchroon.
Yeah did that ever work out too good?
No?
It didn't, did it? But here on o'chelly dot com radio network things work out a bit better, don't they?
Much better?
Much is clear and understanding about the programs. The programs much clearer, getting live people into it. They really have a good conversation going much better, much better scene.
I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninjas and listen to the Ochelly dot com radio Network.
I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and I like that idea dot com.
Roll of brass, red bones, smash fire flows through everything, little
Storm, unleash the pain.