reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 argues that while global focus is on Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, and Colombia, Donald Trump quietly put Canada in the hot seat, presenting the Venezuelan operation as an opening salvo against the British empire. He frames Trump’s actions as not about Maduro alone but as a broader assault on imperial structures. Speaker 1 discusses the perceived death toll from drugs and asserts a real number of 300,000, noting drugs entering primarily through the southern border and also through Canada, implying this is part of a wider systemic issue. Speaker 0 notes that mainstream headlines focus on familiar targets, while the Toronto Globe and Mail editorially warns that Venezuela’s fate is a warning to Canada. The New York Times is described as framing this as another regime change operation from the Bush era that will split the MAGA movement, with Marjorie Taylor Greene contributing to that narrative. The Democratic Party is said to be shrieking about Trump’s actions, with some calling for impeachment. Former British MI6 head John Bolton is cited as recognizing that the operation is not a regime change. Speaker 0 and others present the view that this is a surgical strike against the British empire’s irregular warfare and the nexus of narcotics trafficking, terrorism, and the London-centered banking system. Susan Kokinda introduces herself as someone who has tracked offshore banking since the 1970s and claims this is the first time someone is taking on that system, namely Donald Trump, urging viewers to engage with Promethean Action for deeper analysis. Speaker 2 clarifies the big picture: there is not a war against Venezuela, but a war against drug trafficking organizations, arguing that the largest oil reserves are controlled by adversaries of the United States and misappropriated by oligarchs, including in Venezuela. The speaker emphasizes that the target is oligarchs and drug trafficking organizations, not socialism or communism. Speaker 0 connects oligarchs and drug trafficking with the British empire, describing Canada as run by the empire’s central bankers (notably Mark Carney) and as a major political outpost in North America used for drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and terrorism. This frame contrasts Trump’s actions with the cartels and highlights Canada’s role as part of the broader imperial apparatus. Speaker 3 (Sir John Soros) cautions against calling it regime change, noting Maduro has been abducted and taken to the U.S. to stand trial, but saying the army remains in power and the regime’s legal structures persist. He acknowledges the operation is not the same as Iraq’s regime change and notes Trump’s reluctance to deploy large-scale ground forces. John Bolton adds that Maduro has been removed from power, but the regime remains, and there is ambiguity about Trump’s thinking regarding Machado. Speaker 0 reiterates that this is not regime change but irregular warfare, with the United States pushing back against the empire’s rules-based order. The narrative argues that Trump is targeting the offshore banking system that finances terrorism, cartels, and the destruction of sovereign nations, including the London-centered financial network and its secrecy jurisdictions established in the 1960s. Prominent voices, including Tom Luongo and Crypto Rich, are cited to support the view that the British empire’s financial system and the rules-based order have long protected nonstate actors, NGOs, and cartels, and that Trump’s actions represent breaking those rules to defeat the imperial system. The piece frames the operation as the United States taking on irregular warfare and challenging the offshore financial framework that underpins global illicit activities, including narcotics trafficking and terrorism. Bottom line presented: Trump has launched a major offensive against the city of London’s offshore banking system and has targeted Canada as part of this broader strategy, signaling a shift from conventional regime-change thinking to irregular warfare against imperial financial and geopolitical structures.

A Cuban family from the Fanhul group, who have not been back to Cuba for about fifty years, recently spoke with me. They want to visit Cuba again, and they’re not alone—many Cubans have said they would love to go back. The family largely comes from Cuba, and they’re curious about what might happen if they return. I discussed Cuba’s appeal in terms of tourism and climate. Cuba is, in its own way, a beautiful island with great weather, and they’re not in a hurricane zone, which is a nice change. They noted they wouldn’t be asking us for money for hurricanes every week. I think Cuba’s situation is changing; I’ve heard my entire life about the United States and Cuba, and when will the United States do it. I do believe I’ll be the honor of having the honor of taking Cuba. That’d be a good honor. Taking Cuba, in some form. Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it or take it, I think I could do anything I want with it, to tell the truth. They described Cuba’s current condition as weakened. They said Cuba has been a violent country under its leaders, with Fidel Castro being a very violent leader and his brother also a very violent leader. That’s how they governed. Despite these views, a lot of people would like to go back.

The United States government decides to send the CIA to Venezuela. They say the CIA will conduct operations against Venezuela, against the peace of Venezuela. This is claimed to be unprecedented; the speaker notes that never before has any government since the CIA’s existence publicly said it would order the CIA to kill, to derange, and to topple countries. A historian named Alejandro is invoked to support this claim. The speaker lists past Latin American coups, asserting that all involved the CIA and resulted in governments being overthrown and presidents assassinated, with documents allegedly published by the U.S. government that have since been declassified. Specific examples named are: 1974, Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz; 1965, Dominican Republic, Juan Bosch; 1964, Brazil, Joao Goulart; 1973, Chile, Salvador Allende. The speaker says these are “a few” among many coups in Latin America, all documented through declassified U.S. government documents. Additionally, the case of Mosaddegh in Iran (1952) is cited as another example of a national leader toppled. The speaker asserts that, over time, the CIA apologized for overthrowing these presidents, stating the pretenses were that they were communists or terrorists, but later acknowledging the deception. The speaker uses the term “immorality” to describe those past actions and contrasts them with the present claim, stating that for the first time in history, a U.S. government says it has given authorization and issued orders to attack a country. The speaker concludes with a call to the Venezuelan people, saying their people are clear, united, highly conscious, with “1000000 of eyes and 1000000 of ears,” and that they possess the means to defeat this “open conspiracy” against the peace and stability of Venezuela. The ultimate aim asserted is to restore the peace and stability to which the people of Venezuela have a right, and to ensure they regain and sustain that peace and stability.

Speaker 0 argues that white Americans will soon be a minority, and that this is great. Speaker 1 counters that whites will not be the majority and describes it as an exciting transformation and evolution, a progress of the country. Speaker 2 states that whites will be a minority very soon and says, “I'm okay with that.” Speaker 1 asks, if the white working class is in trouble, whether new Americans should be brought in. Speaker 3 predicts America will look very different in a hundred years, with racial labels becoming less distinct (“You're black, you're white, you're Hispanic, you're Puerto Rican, whatever”), and says that complexity will be good in the end. Speaker 2 contends that white Americans feel they are losing their country and ownership, and that they are, in the end, not the future. Speaker 3 asserts that for the first time in American history, the number of white people went down; “White population is declining for the first time in history in America.” Speaker 3 cautions that white people will not be the majority in the country anymore, noting it will be the first generation with whites as a minority. Speaker 1 proclaims, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Speaker 3 proclaims that to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people. Speaker 1 contends that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate. Speaker 3 declares, “We gotta take these motherfuckers out.” Speaker 2 asks whether it was the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies. Speaker 3 responds, “We have to kill white people,” and, when pressed, mirrors that sentiment with, “When we say we wanna kill whites, we don't really mean we wanna kill whites. We do. We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem.” Speaker 1 comments, “When do we start killing white people?” and then, “start killing all white folks, but maybe?” Speaker 3 reiterates the extermination goal, stating, “We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem.” Speaker 5 adds, “An unrelenting stream of immigration. Nonstop. Nonstop. Folks like me who were Caucasian of European descent will be in an absolute minority in The United States Of America. Absolute minority.” He concludes that this shift is not a bad thing and calls it a source of strength.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss immigration and migration as the central issue for their region. They express a belief that immigration policies are letting criminals into the country daily and emphasize the need for the world to know this. They note a large shift in migration patterns, with migrants coming from Central America as well as Venezuela, despite substantial U.S. aid to the region. They describe a U.S. aid strategy they call the root causes strategy, which involves giving money to support and develop the origins of migrants so people can stay where they are. Specifically, they mention pouring 4 billion dollars over four years into Central America and question whether it is effective, acknowledging the continued flow of migrants despite the aid. There is mention of how the aid is allocated: some of it goes to female prisons in Mexico to help train inmates, and there is reference to working on gender issues in Pakistan aimed at recruiting, retaining, and advancing more women in law enforcement. They raise the broader question of whether U.S. taxpayer money should be spent in other countries on these issues, noting that some people claim “women simply don’t seem to care about” certain issues. Speaker 2 frames the discussion with formal gratitude to the committee and indicates upcoming briefings on the FY 2025 budget request on the Hill, highlighting migration as a big issue for their region and asking what is being done to stop migration. The dialogue reflects uncertainty about how to respond to migration and whether the administration can or will justify the policy choices. The speakers discuss the political impact of migration and aid, suggesting that “the end all be all” solution for politics does not exist, and that the other side might gain advantages from perceived failures. They observe that the public view of migration has evolved and that attitudes toward the issue are politically consequential. There is a provocative assertion comparing criminal elements among migrants to the worst criminals in the United States, and a hypothetical claim about if the worst criminals went to Canada, billions of dollars would be sent back, implying a desire to limit illegal entries or criminal migrants. They debate how to adjust the quality of entrants, proposing that a metric change—allowing a high number of entrants only if they have no criminal records and are not in the country illegally—could alter outcomes. Finally, they discuss perceived demographic shifts in the United States, noting that traditional Americans and Latin Americans have different political leanings, with a suggestion that demographics are being shifted by migration and related policy.

The speaker asserts that misinformation and lies are already being spread, and warns of foreign interference. Drawing on experience from the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the speaker claims Black people were specifically targeted with misinformation. The speaker urges listeners not to let them take their voice.

Dr. Paul and the other speaker discuss a sequence of public claims and shifts regarding Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and the Cartel de los Soles. They begin by recalling a $50,000,000 bounty on President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, arguing that Maduro is the head of a narco-terrorist drug cartel called Cartel de los Soles. They note that Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio stated in November that the State Department intends to designate Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization headed by the illegitimate Nicolas Maduro, asserting that the group has corrupted Venezuela’s institutions and is responsible for terrorist violence conducted with other designated foreign terrorist organizations, as well as for trafficking drugs into the U.S. and Europe. The speakers claim that for weeks Americans were exposed to a narrative portraying foreign narco-terrorist cartels running the country and that this narrative influenced public opinion, making some believe it might be acceptable to take drastic actions, including attacking boats, on the premise that “they’re all terrorists.” They then point to a development that “dropped yesterday,” presenting a clip that, once Maduro was “in their grasp,” the Justice Department allegedly dropped the claim that Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles is an actual group. They assert that after months of hype intended to drum up support for invading Venezuela, the claim was retracted, with the implication that the government figures had misrepresented the situation. The speakers compare this sequence to the Iraq WMD narrative, asserting that officials “swore up and down for years” about WMDs, and when the invasion occurred they were shown joking about the existence of WMDs. They recall President George W. Bush joking about WMDs at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner, looking under the couch and the coffee table, asking “Where’s those WMDs?” They conclude by likening the Cartel de los Soles to the WMDs of their operation, arguing that the construct is already completely falling apart. The overarching claim is that the Cartel de los Soles was used as a justification for aggressive action, and that the narrative surrounding the cartel has been exposed as unreliable or false.

"The first to be attacked was Guatemala, one of the small countries of Central America known dismissively as Banana Republics." "In fact, most of the people of Guatemala are not of Spanish descent. They're indigenous Mayan people and very poor." "In the nineteen fifties, 2% of the population of Guatemala controlled the natural wealth in collusion with giant US corporations like the United Fruit Company, which dominated banana growing." "On the board of United Fruit was John Foster Dulles, who happened to be US Secretary of State. His brother, Alan, happened to run the CIA." "Both were Christian fundamentalists who regarded any opposition as the work of communism and the devil." "In 1950, this man, Jacabo Abenz, became the first Guatemalan leader to be democratically elected by a majority of his people who saw in him the hope of social justice."

Speaker 0 outlines a discussion on global threats and resources. The audience quickly names Russia as the major threat, with China and North Korea also suggested; Venezuela is mentioned by one participant as well. The speaker then pivots to a question about natural resources: which place has the largest oil deposit on the planet, more than Saudi Arabia or Iran? The answer highlighted is Venezuela, noted as arguably the single greatest source of oil and minerals on the planet. The focus shifts to Venezuela’s leadership: President Nicholas Reyes, who rose to power on nationalist pride and, in six years, has crippled the national economy by half and raised the poverty rate by almost 400%. Reyes is up for reelection. His opponent is Gloria Bonaldi, described as a history professor turned activist, running on a social justice platform. The speaker adds a claim about predictions for Venezuela’s future, stating that as of today the chances of total economic collapse are 87%. Media framing is contrasted: on the news, Venezuela would be called a crisis, but on the world stage it would be called a failed state. The speaker notes other examples of failed states in recent history—Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. A further point is made that Venezuela is the only one of these places within a thirty-minute range from the US of “next gen nuclear missiles.” The claim continues that you will not hear about any of this on the news because the biggest players on the world stage do not want you to; unstable governments are seen, in their view, as opportunities. The closing assertion is that Russia and China can never be the most major threat until countries like Venezuela leave the door open to the United States’ backyard.

The speaker argues that language distinctions create a false sense of superiority, saying: “they tell us if you're speaking Dutch, you're the best. If it's English, you're the best. French is the best. Spanish is the best. American is the best, and all of us hating each other.” They assert that, in fact, “we are one people from one Caribbean with one struggle and one destiny.” The speaker frames this as a historic duty to “pull down these artificial barriers of colonialism” and to develop “that oneness and that unity that we nearly lost.” They emphasize the necessity of close relations with neighboring countries, stating, “We believe it is critically necessary to have close relations with all of our neighbors.”

Speaker 0 argued that Maduro was not democratically elected and was not cracking down on drug trafficking to the U.S. and other countries, contrasting this with Honduras’ crackdown on drug trafficking supported by agencies like the DEA and Southcom, which earned praise for the Honduran government. The discussion then turned to U.S. policy. Speaker 0 asked whether the interviewee supports what the Trump administration did, or believes there is a line that should not be crossed. They noted that the U.S. military action against Maduro—bombing the country, entering, capturing Maduro, killing members of his government, and taking him to jail—was seen by some as positive, with Maduro described as a criminal who destroyed the country and economy. Speaker 1 responded by focusing on the human impact in Venezuela and other Latin American countries. They stated that a large portion of the population has suffered, with a notable number of people migrating from Venezuela and Honduras. They asserted that elections in Venezuela were stolen by Maduro’s regime, stating that the opposition’s poll results were stored in the cloud and the government did not want to see them because they knew they would lose. They described this as not democracy. They added that, since Hondurans left the country due to trafficking, vessels by sea and illegal flights were bringing jobs to Honduras, but also causing deaths and bloodshed. They argued that if the Trump administration framed Drug Trafficking as terrorism, it was warranted because the drug flow to the United States harmed not only U.S. citizens but also Honduras, which faced the highest death toll in fifteen years due to drugs coming through its borders, largely from Venezuela, and that nothing was done about this by prior administrations. Speaker 0 then asked for the stance on U.S. intervention in general: should intervention be allowed only in certain cases (e.g., Maduro), or should there be no U.S. intervention in Latin America under any president? Speaker 1 shared a Venezuelan friend’s view that there are no options to change Venezuela and that intervention might be necessary if there is no other way to save Venezuela. From a Honduran perspective, they believed Trump’s actions helped not only Honduras but also other Central American and regional countries along the drug-trafficking routes, by reducing corruption, bloodshed, and deaths. They argued that the political machinery Chavez created and used to stall elections in other Latin American countries had previously gone unchecked by the U.S., and that Trump faced Maduro with a confrontation. They concluded that many people in the world do not know what has been happening in Venezuela and its impact on the region. They stated that Trump confronted Maduro, who now has a chance to defend himself in a trial, and emphasized the issue of sovereignty for every country.

- The discussion opens with the possibility of a coup in Venezuela, with Speaker 0 suggesting the first step would be to “take out Maduro.” Speaker 1 notes reports that Maduro sought amnesty from the US to step down, which Trump allegedly refused. - A recurring theme is the idea of watching naval movements to gauge US willingness to attack a country. Speaker 2 emphasizes that an aircraft carrier battle group signals seriousness, citing the USS Gerald R. Ford and 11 associated ships as the indicator that the US is “serious.” He also questions any upside for the US in regime change in Venezuela, noting the US has avoided buying or refining Venezuelan oil and arguing that the policy lacks a clear benefit. - On drugs, Speaker 2 asserts that the drugs in Venezuela are not Venezuelan but come from Colombia and Ecuador, transiting Venezuela to West Africa and then to Europe, with the claim that Europe is the primary market and the US a smaller one. He argues this reflects broader flaws in US foreign policy. - The speakers discuss the potential consequences if Maduro steps down, predicting chaos, and reflect on the broader narrative shift from Iran, Russia, and Ukraine to Venezuela. They discuss whether the military and regional powers would support intervention. Speaker 2 argues that regional powers (Colombia, Brazil, Mexico) are opposed to American intervention, complicating any possible regime-change effort. - The issue of amnesty is revisited. Speaker 2 speculates Trump might want a “scalp” as a symbol of seriousness on drugs, drawing a parallel to Manuel Noriega’s capture, while noting that a post-overthrow stability plan is often missing in US operations. - The conversation touches on China’s role. Speaker 2 suggests China’s refinery investments in the Caribbean represent a strategic shift away from US-dominated refining, arguing that this creates incentives for China and reduces the US’s influence, with Maduro’s regime survival as a central concern. - On whether Maduro would offer US full access to Venezuelan oil, Speaker 2 says he can’t see it changing the strategic calculus, and argues China’s expanding influence makes regime change less sensible for the US. - They discuss the plausibility of using naval movements as a bluff to force Maduro to depart, noting such tactics are used in the South China Sea. However, Speaker 2 cautions that removing Maduro would create a power vacuum, and the military’s stance remains uncertain since the region’s powers oppose intervention. - Regarding the opposition, Speaker 2 downplays Maria Machado’s prospects, suggesting she lacks military backing and that a senior military officer might be the likely successor if Maduro leaves. The Juan Guaido episode is cited to illustrate the fragility and divisiveness of Venezuelan opposition movements. - The feasibility of decapitation-style strikes against Maduro is debated. Speaker 2 stresses Maduro is the internationally recognized president and emphasizes that any coup would require ground forces and a day-two plan, which historically has been lacking in US interventions. - They compare potential outcomes to Libya’s post-overthrow chaos and caution that US-imposed peace rarely lasts. The risk of a renewed crisis in Venezuela, including possible Hezbollah or Iranian connections, is acknowledged as a troubling possibility. - The discussion ends with a somber note that even seasoned policymakers may overestimate the success of regime change, and a reminder of historical lessons about coup outcomes and long-term stability.

Speaker: The speaker argues that a “plan of pedophiles” aims to end democracy in Colombia, stating that despite the harsh reality, they would not allow themselves to be silenced or betrayed by invading neighbors. They claim people would not applaud invading a brother country or a neighbor, emphasizing that the Colombian people are not the enemy, and that invading Venezuela would be traitorous. Speaker: They reject the idea of Venezuela as a villain and say they do not mock the Venezuelan people or trap them in an invasion driven only by oil greed and violence. They warn that such actions would turn this corner of South America into a place like Syria, Iraq, or Libya, filled with slavery and slave trading, and would degrade the region. Speaker: They criticize those “friends of STEIN” who do not want the list to appear in the United States and assert that these friends want to use violence to force the United States to ignore its own government, fueling xenophobia, racism, and ideas of racial superiority to distract from domestic issues. Speaker: They state that the Colombian president has long denunciated narcotraffickers, but note that the narcotraffickers who have been denounced have always been in power in Colombia, in the State. Speaker: The speaker reiterates a stance against betraying bloodlines or supporting invasions of brother countries, condemning any move by the Colombian president to seize lands for invasion from Colombia into a neighboring country. They denounce the president as “maldito” (damned) for generations to come for such a betrayal. Speaker: They emphasize that they do not belong to those who wanted to kill Bolívar, defending Bolívar’s legacy and the dignity of the region, while criticizing external powers’ influence and urging a stance against internal complicity with narcotrafficking and imperialist motives. Overall: The speaker frames a narrative of political betrayal, invasion threats, and manipulation by external actors framed as defending democracy and regional unity, while opposing violence against neighboring peoples, denouncing narcotrafficking within Colombia, and calling out alleged foreign influence and manipulation aimed at destabilizing the region.

Speaker 0 describes a long, forty-year conflict described as a Third World War waged by the CIA and the U.S. National Security Complex against people of the Third World, not the Soviets. He states that at least six million people have been killed in this war. He emphasizes that these are not Soviets and notes no parachuting into the Soviet Union to kill since 1954, when the Soviets developed the capability of dropping atomic weapons on the United States. He references CIA, Marine Corps, and three CIA Secret Wars. He recalls his 1975 position as chief of the Angola task force within the National Security Council, describing it as the third CIA secret war he was part of. He mentions the National Security Act of 1947 creating the National Security Council, and the CIA being given a charter to perform duties and functions necessary to national security interests, with vague authority to protect sources and methods. He says, in the mid-80s, he coined the term the Third World War after realizing the U.S. was not attacking the Soviet Union but people in the Third World. He characterizes the Third World War as the third bloodiest war in history, with operations conducted globally and a license to kill, smuggle drugs, and violate international law and principles of nations working together for a healthier and more peaceful world. He alleges the U.S. legal system was being converted to give the CIA control of society. He notes there is massive documentation of CIA secret wars, citing the Church Committee investigation of 1975, which found 900 major operations and 3,000 minor operations in the fourteen years prior. Extrapolating over the forty-plus years of CIA activity, he claims 3,000 major operations and over 10,000 minor operations, all allegedly illegal and disruptive to other societies, with many bloody and gory. He asserts the CIA organized the overthrow of functioning constitutional democracies, created secret armies, and directed them to fight on multiple continents. He claims the agency encouraged ethnic minorities to rise up: the Mosquito Indians in Nicaragua, the Kurds in the Middle East, the Hmongs in Southeast Asia. He alleges death squads funded by the CIA, such as the Treasury Police in El Salvador, responsible for most of the 50,000 killed in the 1980s, and 70,000 before that. He describes orchestration by the CIA through secret teams and propaganda, leading to involvement in the Korean War and attacks on China from Quemoy and Matsu, Thailand, and Tibet. He notes drug trafficking, the Korean War resulting in about a million deaths, and the Vietnam War, with CIA involvement at every level, contributing to the creation of the Golden Triangle and the Golden Crescent, where heroin became a major outcome, with Air America aircraft shipping arms for allies and returning with heroin, and claims President Carter and Admiral Turner brag about the Afghanistan operation as the largest CIA secret war operation in history. He concludes that the Golden Crescent remains the largest source of heroin today. He summarizes that the Third World War, waged by the CIA, the U.S. National Security Complex, and the military, has resulted in widespread devastation, especially in the Third World, as opposed to Europe where there is no equivalent destructive capability. He notes that those regions rarely have the means to hurt the U.S., questioning the motive of targeting those who cannot defend themselves.

The speaker asks, why are we doing this and why are we so opposed to Nicolas Maduro. On the street, most people would say they don’t know who Nicolas Maduro is. But in places like South Florida, where people recognize Maduro and can identify Venezuela on a map, the typical answer shifts: because he’s a communist or a socialist. The speaker asserts that this is true: Nicolas Maduro and his government are very left wing on economics. The speaker notes an interesting distinction: this left-wing stance is economic, not social. In Venezuela, gay marriage is banned, abortion is banned, and sex changes for transgender individuals are banned. The speaker describes Venezuela as one of the very few countries in the entire hemisphere with those social policies, emphasizing that these policies are conservative socially. The speaker adds that Venezuela is one of the very few nations in the region with those social policies, specifying that it is on social policy, not defending the regime. The speaker mentions that only El Salvador comes close in conservatism, though El Salvador is much smaller. Additionally, the speaker brings up a political point: the US-backed opposition leader who would take Maduro’s place, if Maduro were removed, is described as eager to implement gay marriage in Venezuela. This is presented as a counterpoint to the idea that the opposition is globally liberal or that the regime is uniquely opposed to liberal social policies. The speaker references the notion of a “global homo” project and implies that the reality is different from that belief, labeling the project as not crazy after all. The overall argument ties Maduro’s economic leftism to social policy conservatism, and contrasts Venezuelan social policy with potential shifts under the opposition, while noting public recognition differences about Maduro.

The speaker asserts that political influence in the United States comes from foreign and special interests, claiming “They’ve bought our politicians. They’ve thrown their Jewish money at our politicians.” This funding, the speaker says, has sustained “forever wars,” and is tied to a broader pattern of influence that the speaker attributes to a deliberate agenda. In response, the speaker declares an uncompromising stance: “as American Christians, it’s America first. It’s America only.” The speaker emphasizes a resolve to resist what is described as entrenched interference, asserting, “we will have no choice but to declare our country a white Christian country.” A central aim named by the speaker is pushing back against an “immigrant takeover,” which is said to have been brought about by those who have “paid off our politicians.” The speaker expands this claim to a global scope, stating that these forces have “flooded Europe” and “flooded America with all different types of brown people and Middle Eastern Muslims.” This phrasing is used to identify the purported agents of influence as “the head of the snake behind the brownification of America,” and the speaker further alleges that these groups or interests have “bought out hundreds of millions of dollars in politicians in our country.” In naming specific individuals, the speaker cites Joe Biden, Beijing, CCP Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Mary Aladdin, presenting them as part of the described network of influence. The overall message links political funding, immigration, and demographic change to a conspiracy aimed at reorganizing American political and social structure away from the speaker’s asserted vision of America. The speaker’s framing ties national allegiance to a combination of religious identity (white Christian) and ethnic framing, while portraying immigration and non-white population growth as a deliberate strategy by unseen actors. The overall claim centers on the belief that political power in the United States has been captured by financial interests tied to immigration and international actors, necessitating a national repositioning to prioritize “America first” and “America only.”

This country is in trouble because by 2040, white Europeans will be the minority. We need to start working more with Hispanics, who are a larger part of the population than us.

- The speakers present a conspiratorial framing of Libya’s recent history and its global repercussions. They assert, “It’s a Chinese colony at this point,” implying foreign influence over Libya and its trajectory. - They claim that “the West and Hillary blows up Gaddafi,” arguing that those who were aligned with the West retaliated against Muammar Gaddafi. They further state that Gaddafi had “invested everything with the West, came and apologized,” and describe NATO as “the defensive alliance” that “went and just murdered Gaddafi for no reason.” - Gaddafi is portrayed in softened, almost heroic terms: “One’s Gaddafi, you know, the crazy colonel,” but the speakers emphasize that “the point was he was for the people.” They describe him as “a statesman,” noting that “he literally lived in a tent.” - The economic and infrastructural claims are central to their narrative: they say “98% of the state money coming in and oil went to not just his people, Africa,” and that he was “building real infrastructure” with a “whole plan to link up” with Africa. They imply that his policies would have connected Africa regionally rather than remaining separate from the rest of the continent. - They allege that the killing of Gaddafi was part of a broader, destabilizing plan: “they came and killed him,” and as a result, “now all of Africa’s collapsing because they blew up the South Point and the North Point.” They attribute these upheavals to “the globalist deliberately blow[ing] that up for destabilization.” - The discussion turns to population movements: they claim that “the population will be moved here and to Europe as it already is being in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, of course.” The speaker asserts personal certainty about this trend: “I know I see it so, so clearly.”

The speaker asserts that misinformation and lies are already being spread, and warns of foreign interference. Drawing on experience from the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the speaker claims Black people were specifically targeted with misinformation. The speaker urges listeners not to let them take their voice.

Speaker 0 discusses Greenland as a serious policy proposal and recounts a recent exchange with the Danish ambassador to the United States. Denmark is described as being uneasy about the conversation around Greenland. The speaker emphasizes that Denmark is a friend and ally, and that friends and allies can have conversations. The ambassador stated that Greenland is not for sale, to which the speaker responded that “everything's for sale” and that a conversation will take place. The speaker notes that this discourse has contributed to a growing independence movement in Greenland. If Denmark does nothing, Greenland may end up with nothing and could break off on their own. It is presented as plausible that Greenlanders, about 50,000 in number, might decide to become American. A recent poll in Greenland showed positive results regarding this possibility. The speaker asserts that becoming American would be, in many ways, “the greatest gift we can give anyone on planet Earth.”

The speaker says the United States is becoming like Venezuela. At a local HEB in San Antonio, Texas, the speaker observed a majority of people who appeared to be Venezuelan. They were speaking a Spanish dialect different from Mexican Spanish and wearing jerseys with "Venezuela" on them. The speaker observed them taking up all the aisles, not moving for others, and loading up on beer. The speaker feels big changes are coming to the United States.

The speaker draws a parallel between the current situation and what happened in Zimbabwe. They mention the demonization of white people, similar to what occurred in Zimbabwe before its collapse. The collapse was triggered by scapegoating white farmers who were the main producers in the agricultural industry. The government's corruption and mismanagement led to poverty and discontent among the people. Instead of taking responsibility, the government shifted blame to the white farmers, accusing them of taking land and causing problems. This rhetoric didn't exist before.

The speaker argues that whenever a country defends its own people, the United States asks, “Who owns the resources?” and if the answer isn’t The US, a coup follows. The claim is that over 80 foreign governments have been overthrown or destabilized by the United States, and that most of them weren’t dictatorships, but democratically elected governments that threatened US corporate profits. The described playbook involves the CIA funding opposition groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, planting stories in the media, bribing generals, arming rebels, or collapsing a country’s economy, with the coup replacing the leader with a pro-US dictatorship. The overarching assertion is that this is not about democracy but about power and control. Key historical examples cited include: - Iran in 1953: Mosaddegh attempted to nationalize oil; the CIA launched Operation Ajax, orchestrated protests, paid off politicians, and installed the Shah, resulting in twenty-five years of dictatorship and torture under US protection. - Guatemala in 1954: President Arbenz redistributed land from the United Fruit Company, a US corporation; the CIA branded him a communist, conducted a coup, and Guatemala descended into a civil war with over 200,000 deaths. - Chile in 1973: Allende was overthrown in a US-backed military coup, and Pinochet’s regime tortured and killed thousands after Allende’s attempts to nationalize copper. - Congo in 1961: Lumumba sought African control of African resources; the CIA helped orchestrate his assassination and installed a brutal dictator who was supported for decades. The speaker adds that there are “dozens of others” beyond these cases, including Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Bolivia, and beyond, arguing that the motive is not fighting tyranny but profits and control. When a country attempts to exit the system or nationalize resources to reduce inequality, they threaten profits and the idea that another world is possible, so the CIA sabotages such efforts to prevent successful example-making, such as Libya. The conclusion is that many nations don’t trust the United States because “we’ve been the villains throughout most of our history.” The speaker invites readers to comment to receive a “forbidden reading list” of books and documentaries that “they never wanted you to find.”

The discussion highlights the challenges faced by black leaders in governance, noting that no African country represented at the UN has a leader from a contested election. Comparisons are drawn with Latin America, where similar governance issues exist, often resulting in dictatorships or oligarchies. The conversation touches on the historical difficulties in governance in regions like Haiti and Liberia, contrasting them with more stable forms of government in parts of Asia. Despite recognizing cultural contributions from black communities in areas like sports and music, the speakers express skepticism about governance capabilities, suggesting that many regions struggle with effective leadership. The dialogue reflects on the complexities of race, governance, and cultural achievements.

Speaker 0: Have you considered talking to the president of Colombia who you called a drop leader? Speaker 1: No. I haven't really thought too much about him. He's been fairly hostile to The United States, and I haven't given him a lot of thought. He's he's gonna have himself some big problems if he doesn't wise up. Speaker 2: Did you say Colombia is producing a lot of drugs. Have cocaine factories that they make cocaine, as you know, and they sell it right into The United States. So he better wise up or he'll be next. He'll be next too. I hope he's listening. Speaker 0: So was this operation a message that you're sending to Mexico, to Claudia Scheinbaum, president there? Speaker 2: Well, it wasn't meant to be. We're very friendly with her. She's a good woman, but the cartels are running Mexico. She's not running Mexico. The cartels are running Mexico. We could be politically correct and be nice and say, oh, yes. Is no. No. She's very, you know, she's very frightened of the cartels that are running Mexico. And I've asked her numerous times, would you like us to take out the cartels? No. No. No, mister president. No. No, no, please. So we have to do something because we lost the real number is 300,000 people, in my opinion. You know, they like to say a 100,000. A 100,000 is a lot of people, but the real number is 300,000 people. And we lost it to drugs, and they come in through the southern border, mostly the southern border. A lot plenty come in through Canada too, by the way, in case you don't know. But but they come in through the southern border, and something's gonna have to be done with Mexico. Cuban government, the Trump administration's next target, mister secretary, very quickly. Speaker 3: Well, the Cuban government is a is a huge problem. Yeah. The the the the Cuban government is a huge problem for Speaker 2: some So is that a yes? Speaker 3: Cuba. But I don't think people fully appreciate. I think they're in a lot of trouble. Yes. I'm not gonna talk talk to you about what our future steps are gonna be and our policies are gonna be right now in this regard, but I don't think it's any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro. His entire, like, internal security force, his internal security opera apparatus is entirely controlled by Cubans. One of the untold stories here is how, in essence, you talk about colonization because I think you said Dulce Rodriguez mentioned that, the ones who have sort of colonized, at least inside the regime, are Cubans. It was Cubans that guarded Maduro. He was not guarded by Venezuelan bodyguards. He had Cuban bodyguards. In terms of their internal intelligence, who spies on who inside to make sure there are no traitors, those are all Cubans. Speaker 0: He felt very strongly. We we needed for nationals. We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals. We had some we have so many sites for minerals and oil and everything. We have more oil than any other country in the world. We need Greenland for national security.