TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Claim: 'our CIA infiltrates local law enforcement agencies and they're literally delivering crack and selling cocaine.' 'The drug dealers are working for the CIA, and the CIA wants to push a bunch of crack cocaine into the black neighborhoods in the eighties.' The video draws parallels to Candace Owens’ claims about the FBI being infiltrated and cites a Utah sheriff’s department as a 'CIA cutout' with 'six CIA assets' inside the university, including 'a professor' and 'an intelligence specialist and a security specialist.' It covers CIA recruitment at universities, especially Mormon campuses, and the 'Office of Public Safety under USAID' 'hired police chiefs' and set up programs at 'Michigan State University' and 'Indiana University,' with 'the staff was 100% CIA agents' and 'the Phoenix program.' It asserts CIA infiltration of the LAPD in the 70s/80s and mentions 'Mike Mitchell' and 'Sheriff Brooksby' amid a claim that 'they assassinated one of us.'

Ninety-seven percent of Colombia's cocaine is exported globally, generating trillions annually. The US Institute for Peace, receiving $50 million yearly in taxpayer funds, published an article stating the Taliban's opium ban negatively impacts Afghanistan and the world. This mirrors a scene from the movie *War Machine*, highlighting how US aid prevents Afghanistan from growing alternative crops like cotton, due to competition with US farmers. This ensures heroin remains the primary cash crop. USAID, with a budget exceeding the CIA's, has been implicated in supporting heroin production through irrigation projects. This strategy maintains influence over countries like Mexico and Colombia, and explains opposition to leaders like Bukele who curb drug gang activity. The goal is to preserve financial and political control.

The discussion centers on CNN’s report that the CIA is establishing a foothold in Venezuela, with the claim that the CIA has, for decades, enabled the Venezuelan drug trade. The speakers argue that the attack on Venezuela cannot be about drugs if the CIA itself facilitated drug trafficking. They cite CIA whistleblower Kevin Shipp, who said the CIA has been involved in Venezuela since at least the Cartel of the Sun, run by a general who was a CIA proxy and helped reconstitute Venezuela’s intelligence to penetrate the government; the general named Ramon Gulen allegedly ran narcotics and created the cartel of the sun. They claim the cartel is used by the Trump administration as a pretext to stage attacks on boats and in Venezuela and that the CIA, with its long history, was behind the Secret Service and the general in creating the drug trade and the cartel, with the Trump administration leveraging it to circumvent Congress. There is reference to a 60 Minutes piece from the 1990s reporting that the CIA collaborated with Venezuelan National Guard generals who moved tons of cocaine into the United States. The conversation then moves to John Kerry, who in the mid-1980s led the Contra Cocaine Investigation hearings into U.S. government complicity in the contra drug trade. The Reagan administration resisted the inquiry, attempted to discredit witnesses, and assigned the CIA to monitor the probe. Ten years later, the HITS report (the CIA Inspector General report authorized under Inspector General Frederick HITS) concluded that while the CIA did not officially participate in cocaine trafficking during the Contra War, it knowingly maintained relationships with and protected numerous contra-linked individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade when deemed operationally important, to keep the Contra War alive and to maintain U.S. objectives in Central America, even if it meant enabling and protecting drug lords; the CIA hid this from Congress, contributing to drug flow into the United States. The Iran-Contra framework is referenced as arms to Iran funding the Contras, with connections to cocaine trafficking, forming a single pipeline, allegedly placing the CIA at the center of these operations. The panel critiques CNN’s headline as suggesting the CIA’s new foothold is about establishing a presence, arguing the real aim is to block Russia and China’s influence, not democracy or drugs. Venezuela’s oil trade outside the petrodollar with BRICS nations is noted, with claims that the move away from the petrodollar spurred interference and invasion, and that Venezuela later returned to endorsing the petrodollar after a period of yuan transactions with China. The discourse asserts that the CIA’s purpose is to prevent free trade outside U.S. influence and to suppress alternative financial arrangements like BRICS or yuan-based oil transactions. The participants discuss the idea that the CIA has shifted from operating covertly to openly engaging in such activities, suggesting a normalization of “strategy of tension” and the notion that a third of the population would support the government’s actions, a third oppose, and a third are indifferent, thereby reducing public resistance. They connect these elements to broader media complicity, including Operation Mockingbird and the integration of former intelligence heads into media roles, implying entrenched deep-state influence.

The discussion centers on claims that the CIA has long been involved in Venezuela, has enabled drug trafficking, and now seeks a visible foothold in the country to counter Russia and China. Speaker 0 argues CNN’s report that the CIA will establish a foothold in Venezuela is emblematic of a duplicative pattern: the CIA has supposedly enabled the drug trade for decades, so the attack on Venezuela cannot be about drugs if the CIA is involved. They cite Kevin Shipp, a CIA whistleblower, who said the CIA has been involved in Venezuela since at least the Cartel of the Sun, run by a general who was a CIA proxy and helped reconstruct Venezuela’s intelligence service to penetrate the government. The general cited is General Ramon Gulen, described as running narcotics and creating and running the Cartel of the Sun. The Cartel is portrayed as a pretext used by the Trump administration to stage attacks and operate around Congress, with the CIA behind past secret dealings tied to it. Speaker 0 then references a 60 Minutes piece from the 1990s reported on by mainstream media that allegedly showed the CIA collaborating with Venezuelan National Guard generals who moved tons of cocaine into the United States. The discussion moves to John Kerry, who led the Contra Cocaine Investigation in the mid-1980s, seeking to determine US government involvement in the contra drug trade. The Reagan administration resisted, stonewalled the Senate, and monitored the probe. The HITS report (the CIA inspector general report authorized under inspector general Frederick HITS) is described as concluding in the late 1990s that while the CIA did not officially participate in cocaine trafficking during the Contra War, it knowingly maintained relationships with and protected numerous contra-linked individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade when operationally useful, to keep the contra war alive and to maintain US objectives in Central America, even if it meant enabling and protecting drug lords. It also states the CIA hid this from Congress, contributing to drugs entering the United States. The Iran-Contra connection is summarized as arms to Iran generating cash to fund the Contras, with the same network tied to cocaine trafficking, implying a single pipeline of influence and criminal activity. The speakers discuss media coverage and relationships with locals in Venezuela, questioning the claimed “relationship-building” as a cover for coercive activities, given sanctions that harm locals. They criticize the notion that the CIA is simply building positive ties, suggesting instead a pattern of disruption and control. The dialogue then shifts to geopolitics: Venezuela reportedly traded oil with BRICS outside the petrodollar since at least 2017, which is framed as undermining US global oil hegemony. A recent move to settle oil transactions in yuan is mentioned, with a snide remark that the CIA’s presence in Venezuela aims to prevent any free-trade diversification away from the petrodollar. The claim is made that the CIA’s objective is to prevent alternative global trade arrangements and maintain US influence by blocking competition from Russia, China, and BRICS members. Speaker 3 adds that the CIA’s actions align with a long-standing pattern of intervention, suggesting that the agency’s open, unapologetic approach reflects a broader strategy of tension, where a third of the population would support such actions, a third would oppose, and a third remain indifferent. They reference Operation Mockingbird and the presence of CIA-linked figures in media, including Mike Pompeo as a Fox News contributor, arguing that mainstream outlets act as channels for the deep state’s messaging, with information often flowing from the CIA to outlets like the New York Times. In sum, the discussion argues that US intervention in Venezuela is less about drugs or democracy and more about strategic counteraction to Russian, Chinese, and BRICS influence, with a long history of CIA involvement in drug trafficking and media manipulation. The speakers invite audience reactions on these points.

A ton of cocaine, worth hundreds of millions, was smuggled into the United States not in the usual way, but through a CIA-backed operation with Venezuela’s National Guard, according to former DEA head Judge Robert Bonner. He says this drug trafficking was approved or condoned by the CIA, and that it was illegal unless approved by the DEA or a US law enforcement authority. Bonner conducted a two-year secret investigation with the DEA’s Office of Professional Responsibility in cooperation with the CIA’s inspector general, and concluded that the CIA broke the law by facilitating drug shipments into the United States. The CIA’s stated rationale for promoting the drug smuggling was that it would yield valuable drug intelligence about the Colombian cartels. The plan, described as an undercover operation in Venezuela, involved the CIA and Venezuela’s Guardia Nacional to handle the transshipment of the cartel’s cocaine en route to the United States and Europe. The operation reportedly produced more than a ton of cocaine, stored at a CIA-financed Counter Narcotics Intelligence Center in Caracas. The center’s commander and the CIA’s man in Venezuela was National Guard General Ramon Guillen Davila. Annabelle Grimm, a DEA agent with eighteen years’ experience, testified that CIA station chief James Campbell and CIA officer Mark McFarlane told her that to keep the undercover smuggling operation credible, they had to keep the cartel happy by delivering their dope untouched by US law enforcement to the cartel’s distributors in the United States. Grimm said the CIA and the Guardia Nacional wanted “to let cocaine go on into the traffic without doing anything,” with no surveillance, no interference. Grimm and others argued that the operation would not stop drugs in Miami, Houston, or elsewhere; the plan was to allow shipments to reach the United States and then enter the traffic. Campbell and McFarlane sought Washington approval, but the CIA leadership in Washington allegedly went over Grimm’s head to DEA headquarters. The joint DEA-CIA investigation confirmed that more than a ton of cocaine moved from the Caracas counter-narcotics center to US streets, and that at one point Guillen’s National Guard tried to ship 1,500 kilos at once—an effort that failed because the box would not fit through the airplane door of a Boeing 707. General Guillen admitted bungling the operation, but he denied involvement in an unauthorized shipment. He insisted the operation was approved by US authorities. The CIA maintains it found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, though it acknowledged instances of poor judgment and management leading to disciplinary actions for several CIA officers; Mark McFarlane resigned, and James Campbell was brought back to the US, promoted, and later retired. Campbell claimed he devoted his life to his country and felt like a victim in this thing, insisting the issue occurred without CIA knowledge. Senator Dennis DeConcini was briefed by the CIA, and some officials argued no one in the CIA has been prosecuted, while others argued that the drugs did reach the streets. The intelligence gained from the operation was disputed; some questioned whether any valuable intelligence was produced. Three to four truck drivers were arrested, but the larger goal—US intelligence or seizures—was contested. General Guillen later traveled to Miami and was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating the CIA’s cocaine, but Venezuela reportedly would not permit testimony. The investigation continues to raise questions about the CIA’s involvement in drug trafficking, with ongoing inquiries by House and Senate intelligence oversight committees.

Colombia exports 97% of cocaine worldwide, worth $1 trillion annually. The US Institute For Peace receives $50 million yearly from taxpayers and influences Afghanistan's opium production. USAID aids in heroin cultivation in Afghanistan. The drug trade connects to political power in Latin America and China, involving Bush, Biden, and Clinton. Trump's lack of involvement in this scheme is a reason for opposition. The control of narco gangs is crucial for political influence in the region. Bukele's crackdown on drug gangs in El Salvador disrupts this system, leading to backlash from Soros and the media.

The discussion centers on the Venezuelan political crisis, U.S. involvement, and historical precedents of regime change in the region. The speakers contrast current military buildup around Venezuela with past Latin American coups, and they assess domestic support, international dynamics, and potential outcomes. - Venezuela under Maduro: Speaker 0 notes a broader deployment of military infrastructure than in recent Latin American coups, implying heightened risk or intensity of any intervention. Speaker 1 counters that domestically there is a “rally around the flag” effect in response to U.S. threats, with about 20% of Venezuelans supporting U.S. military intervention and over 55% opposing it. - Regime-change calculus: The conversation asks for the value of regime change when Maduro is willing to open the Venezuelan market to the U.S. Speaker 1 responds that there is no clear political or economic value to regime change; the predicted consequences would include a massive migration wave, civil war, and higher oil prices. They discuss the implications of implementing a regime-change strategy in the Venezuelan context. - Cartel of the Suns: The Cartel of the Suns is discussed as a U.S.-designated terrorist group. Speaker 1 explains that the designation emerged from a DOJ/intelligence collaboration during the Trump era, with William Barr involved in pursuing Maduro. The term traces back to the Reagan era, when the CIA and DEA allegedly allowed drug trafficking through Venezuela to monitor routes, revealing a long history of U.S. involvement in narco-trafficking networks as a tool of influence. Ramon Guillen Davia is named as a Venezuelan National Guard contact, with broader exposure through media such as a 60 Minutes segment and a New York Times expose by Tim Weiner. The cartel’s earlier existence and its resurfacing in U.S. legal actions are tied to broader U.S. efforts to delegitimize Maduro’s government. - Venezuelan political history since Chavez: Speaker 1 outlines Chavez’s rise and popularity (e.g., reducing extreme poverty by 60% before sanctions), the 2002 coup attempt led by opposition figures including Leopoldo Lopez, and the subsequent public support for Chavez when the people protested to restore him. They describe “La Salida” in 2004–2014 as an opposition strategy funded by U.S. entities (NED, USAID) to depose Chavez, with various protests and riots that damaged the economy. After Chavez, Maduro faced U.S. sanctions and a narrative of illegitimacy framed by the opposition’s efforts to install Guaidó as a parallel government in 2019, enabling asset seizures and embargos on Venezuela’s Sitco assets. - 2019 events and aftermath: The 2019 U.S.-backed attempt to install Juan Guaido as interim president is described, including the staged “humanitarian aid” convoy at the Colombia border which failed; Guaidó’s association with Las Bratas (the Las Frastrojos cartel members) is cited as a public-relations embarrassment, corroborated by major outlets. Leopoldo Lopez is described as a persistent organizer of opposition efforts, connected to a broader U.S.-funded framework through the CIA’s ecosystem (Canvas, Einstein Institute), and by extension to regime-change policy. The possibility of Maduro arresting Guaido is discussed as strategically unwise for Maduro to avoid bolstering U.S. claims of repression. - Opposition fragmentation and polling: The panel debates whether the opposition has broad support. Speaker 1 says a November poll by Datanalysis shows Maria Carina Machado at roughly 14–15% and Maduro around 20%, with most voters undecided and younger voters leaning toward external media narratives. Older, rural, and poor Venezuelans—Chavista base—remain a significant portion of the population. Young people are described as more influenced by social media and potentially more susceptible to pro-U.S. messaging but not broadly supportive of the radical opposition. - External actors and drug-trafficking links: The dialogue links narco-trafficking networks to geopolitical strategy, arguing that the U.S. has used or tolerates narcotics channels to fund political aims in Latin America. The discussion covers broader examples, including Ecuador and the Balkans, and references to U.S. figures and policies (e.g., regime-change agendas, naval movements, sanctions, and strategic partnerships) to illustrate how narcotics intersects with geopolitics. - Geopolitical trajectory and outcomes: The speakers speculate on possible futures: (1) a negotiated deal between Trump and Maduro or U.S. diplomacy (with the oil sector’s re-entry and debt relief) being preferable to open intervention; (2) a decapitation strike leading to destabilization and civil war with severe humanitarian and migration consequences; (3) ongoing sanctions and coercive measures as a long-term strategy. They caution that a direct, large-scale military invasion seems unlikely due to political and logistical risks, including American public opinion and potential backlash if U.S. troops are lost. - Global context and strategy: The broader international framework is discussed, including the U.S. strategic doctrine shifting toward a multipolar world and hemispheric dominance concerns. The conversation touches on how U.S. policy toward Venezuela fits into wider ambitions regarding Russia, China, and regional partners, as well as potential domestic political changes in the U.S. that could influence future approaches to Venezuela and Latin America. - Concluding note: The discussion closes with reflections on the complexity of regime-change ambitions, the difficulty of predicting outcomes, and the possibility that diplomacy or limited, targeted pressure may emerge as more viable paths than broad invasion or decapitation strategies. The participants acknowledge the influence of regional personalities and U.S. domestic politics on policy direction.

The speaker, a former LAPD narcotics detective, accuses the CIA of drug trafficking and presents evidence of CIA involvement in drug operations. Another individual mentions past CIA activities, including assassination attempts and espionage. They question the credibility of the CIA director's denial of such activities in Los Angeles.

The speaker claims that the CIA's army, the contras, brought cocaine to Los Angeles, sparking the crack epidemic. Some accuse the CIA of deliberately targeting young African Americans. However, the speaker does not believe there was a conscious decision to poison black America. The controversy surrounding the story continues, with some journalists finding it reckless and wrong. Freeway Ricky Ross, a drug dealer, played a significant role in the crack epidemic. He received a steady supply of cheap cocaine and introduced crack to other cities. While Ross's drug supplier had connections to the contras, there is no evidence of CIA involvement. A Senate investigation found complicity in drug trafficking by individuals supporting the contras, with some using the US government's airlift operation for smuggling.

The speaker asserts that cartels are running Mexico and expresses that it is very sad to watch what has happened to the country. They claim that the cartels are killing about 250,000 to 300,000 people in our country every single year, mentioning drugs as part of the issue.

Speaker 0 says that 85% of the international narcotrafficking annually, "the 85 por 100 de los 1000 de 1000 de 1000000," is in the banks of the United States, and that the cartel should be investigated to uncover money laundering. They mention looking at fiscal permission data from the vice president, stating that there are more than $500,000,000,000 (five hundred billion) dollars annually in US banks, in legal banks. If they want to investigate a cartel, they should investigate the cartel of the north, because from the United States it directs all narcotrafficking of South America and of the world, and also directs the trafficking of opioids, etc. The speaker concludes that in the United States are the mafias, the true cartels.

Grant and Mike Benz discuss alleged U.S. and CIA involvement in drug trafficking connected to Venezuela and the implications for prosecuting Nicolas Maduro. - Maduro indictment history: The DOJ superseded its 2020 drug trafficking indictment of Nicolas Maduro in 2025. The conversation references the Bay of Piglets failed operation to capture Maduro in 2019 and the 2020 indictment linked to Jordan Goudreaux’s Silvercorp private mercenary firm. The discussion frames this within a broader Cold War context of U.S. actions in Latin America. - CIA and drug trafficking link: The speakers claim the “Cartel of the Suns” (Cartel of the Suns) was a CIA cartel. They state two Venezuelan military brigadier generals who started the Cartel of the Suns were on the CIA payroll. They reference a 1993 confrontation where the head of the DEA resigned in protest after the CIA allegedly greenlit the deliberate importation of 1,500 kilos of cocaine from Venezuela into the U.S. They allege the CIA and DOJ later granted immunity to Venezuelan military officials involved in the operation. This is presented as pre-Hugo Chávez era activity in the 1990s. - Broader historical pattern: The discussion situates these actions within a long-running pattern across the 20th century—U.S. support for pro-American groups (insurgent, rebel, or militia-type entities) funded by drug proceeds. They compare this to past episodes in Afghanistan (Mujahideen, warlords) and to narcotics and intelligence collaborations in South America (Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela). The speakers draw a parallel to a Noriega-style “smash and grab,” noting Noriega’s trial revealed decades of CIA association and payroll. - Implications for Maduro prosecution: Mike Benz suggests the case could be complicated because many allegations about Maduro are “thinly sourced” and relate to minor Venezuelan officials rather than Maduro directly. He notes that many points of evidence are tangential and question whether Maduro’s leadership directly sanctioned drug operations, despite the indictment labeling him as head of the Cartel of the Suns multiple times. The Bush family connections and historic CIA involvement are mentioned to illustrate the complexity of attributing direct responsibility. - Stabilization and funding argument: Benz outlines a three-part stabilization plan for Venezuela—stabilization, privatization, and transition. He describes stabilization as “hearts and minds work,” which in practice involves paying off military, civil society, and business leaders with cash. He cites the CIA’s reported $70,000,000 in drug-money bribes used to influence such actors in stabilization campaigns in Afghanistan and analogous actions in Latin America. - Closing notes: Grant appreciates Benz’s insights and asks where to follow him. Benz directs listeners to X (Twitter) at @mikebencyber, and also mentions YouTube and Rumble. - Notable names: Nicolas Maduro, Jordan Goudreaux, the Silvercorp firm, the Cartel of the Suns, Noriega, the head of the DEA who resigned in 1993, and George H. W. Bush’s historical CIA involvement are referenced to frame claims.

During a presentation, the speaker discussed how Congress held hearings in 1998 on narcotics trafficking by the US intelligence dark alliance scandal. They mentioned that the US economy was laundering a significant amount of illegal money, making it the global leader in dirty money. The speaker asked the audience what would happen if the US stopped being the leader in money laundering. The audience responded with concerns about their 401ks, government deficits, taxes, and government checks. The speaker then proposed a hypothetical scenario where pushing a button could stop all hard narcotics trafficking, but only one person out of a hundred was willing to push it.

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.

Speaker lay out a conspiracy that "the CIA infiltrates local law enforcement agencies and they're delivering crack and selling cocaine," alleging drug dealers are working for the CIA and the agency aimed to push crack into Black neighborhoods in the eighties. They draw parallels to Candace Owens' claims about FBI infiltration of the local sheriff's department, noting "six CIA assets" inside a Utah university, including a professor and an intelligence/security specialist. They discuss a broader pattern: the CIA focusing on universities, with "Harvard" and "Kissinger" fronts, and the Office of Public Safety under USAID recruiting police chiefs worldwide, contributing to corruption and the Phoenix program in Vietnam. They cite Los Angeles Police Department CIA infiltration in the 70s-80s, and question the identity of "former deputy Mike Mitchell." They close by railing against a "digital slave state," a "401(k) Ponzi scheme," and the assassination of Tyler/Charlie, urging viewers to like.

Speaker 0 asks about how common it is for the CIA to use drugs as a weapon or to create cartels for various purposes, and whether it sometimes works as a strategy. Speaker 1 responds that it continues to this day, with key US allies implicated in the drug trade. The Organization for Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, funded by the State Department, is described as an investigative journalist outlet that has a new report about the Noboa family’s ties to the Balkan mafia. The Noboa family controls Ecuador; Daniel Noboa, born in Miami, is the president, and his family owns a Noboa shipping company. The shipping company is alleged to have been involved in sending bananas through the Noboa Bonita Fruit Company packed with cocaine to Europe via routes overseen by the Balkan Mafia. Ecuador is described as the largest drug export center to the United States, per the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, while Venezuela is claimed to be responsible for about 5% of drug transit. Kristi Noem, identified as the DHS secretary, is said to have visited Ecuador to meet with Daniel Noboa and campaign for a referendum to bring US military bases back to Ecuador, a referendum that was rejected by Ecuadorians. Noboa is portrayed as strategically valuable to the US, described as friendly with Marco Rubio, who has touted him as a partner in the war on drugs, yet the claim is made that the issue is about geostrategic interests. Noboa is said to have ended the legacy of social democrat Rafael Correa and is purportedly supporting US military bases on Ecuadorian soil, aligning with US interests even as Ecuador becomes a center of narco-trafficking and cartels destabilize parts of the country. In Mexico, the narrative references Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderón, noting Calderón as author of Plan Mérida, a US military-directed program to combat drugs in Mexico. Gennaro García Luna, head of Mexico’s equivalent of the FBI, is described as now in a US federal prison for life for involvement in a conspiracy with the Sinaloa cartel to ship drugs to the United States. The State Department is said to have acknowledged knowing about Luna’s activities while valuing him as a political partner. The Fast and Furious program is mentioned, alleging that the US armed Mexican cartels to track guns, and a 2011 federal court testimony by a Chapo Guzmán lieutenant claimed the US armed the Sinaloa cartel to defeat rivals like the Guadalajara cartel. A recent raid in Oakton, Northern Virginia, on Paul Campo, former director of the DEA’s financial division, is described. Campo was in charge of money laundering investigations and was associated with a CIA asset named Robert Sensi to launder $12,000,000 for the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. The speaker notes ongoing exploration of these connections. Historically, the CIA is said to have worked with narco cartels to fund black operations, funding proxy wars in Central America with off-the-books money. The Guadalajara cartel allegedly funded the Nicaraguan Contras through cartel profits. Enrique “Kiki” Camarena, a DEA agent, reportedly discovered the Guadalajara cartel’s involvement in black operations and was captured and tortured, with alleged monitoring by CIA operatives including Felix Rodríguez, who supervised the capture of Che Guevara. This is tied to a documentary on Amazon called The Last NARC.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

The cocaine networks in Venezuela were set up by the CIA, not by Maduro. A 1993 60 Minutes episode with Mike Wallace reportedly revealed that the CIA had set up an anti-cocaine warehouse in Venezuela and struck a secret agreement with the Venezuelan National Guard to traffic 1,500 tons of cocaine into Miami, with the proceeds sold on the streets of Miami to support CIA black operations and paramilitary groups. The opposition backed by the US inside Venezuela in 2019 is deeply affiliated with the CIA cocaine networks. There are probably international crimes that Maduro committed, but the idea of charging him with running a cocaine conspiracy, which Venezuela inherited from the central intelligence agency itself, has made this case very tenuous. There is concern that the case could be dismissed because there will be considerable last-minute activity inside the DOJ as the CIA is expected to lean on the DOJ to limit discovery.

The speakers discuss a “most dangerous game” involving human hunting conducted by high-profile figures, described as being driven by mind control and the pleasure those involved received from the act. The narrator, identified as a mind-controlled slave, says he was stripped of clothes and hunted in the woods by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Bill Clinton, among others, asserting that these individuals subjected him to trauma beyond what was necessary given his preexisting conditioning from mind control programs. Speaker 1 asks for specifics about the base and era when Clinton and Bush were involved. Speaker 0 identifies Lampy, Missouri—just across the Arkansas line—as the location. He notes Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas at the time and claims Mina, Arkansas was a main hub for bringing people into a CIA compound. He describes a CIA facility in Lampy as an amphitheater-like Swiss villa complex in the woods, with military fencing and mind-control training happening in one building, offices in another, and Swiss-style villas or cabins where officials from the military, CIA, or politics would stay during activities or paramilitary operations. The speaker claims black helicopters and robotic “special forces” were used. Speaker 1 asks which special forces were involved and mentions Delta Force and Navy SEALs, seeking more detail. Speaker 0 answers that Delta Force and Navy SEALS are elite units that are mind-controlled like mercenaries, but says he is more familiar with mercenaries trained to carry out international operations not necessarily sanctioned by Congress, brought into other countries (such as South America) to fulfill orders. He asserts airplanes would return with the driver and be sold on the streets in the U.S. and worldwide. He ties these activities to the CIA’s so-called war on drugs, claiming it was really about eliminating competition and taking over the drug industry, with all components interlinked. The conversation links the Lampy compound to UN-related paramilitary operations. He claims operatives wore black uniforms and used black helicopters, and that the activities were connected to implementing the “new world order” rather than traditional national defense.

Speaker 0 argues that deeply involved drug smuggling operations include providing airplanes for smugglers and that big bankers laundering money back into the system are crucial to the drug economy. He contends that if they were really interested in purging society from drugs, they could do it quickly by going after the bankers so they couldn’t profit from it anymore, then impeaching Bush and Jay Olim and a bunch of other people at that level, locking people up at that level, and then starting down, to dry the system up. He asserts that this is the big money and the big bucks, and that those at the top don’t like civil liberties and would rather have more control over people. Speaker 0 continues by alleging that the White House was involved, with Oliver North sending memos to Robert Owens indicating that these people were working or smuggling drugs, knowing about it, and giving protection, while Ed Meese provided protection and helped fend off investigations. He claims that George Bush, through Greg Rodriguez and others, was running and flying the drugs. He states that this makes a complete mockery of the administration’s war against drugs. He then questions the purpose of drug testing, arguing that they’re not interested in cleaning drugs out of society, and suggests that the testing is suspicious because it is a tremendously effective tool for population control. Speaker 1 adds that drug testing is a means of social control, and that this is another reason why drugs are tolerated in The U. S. and other capitalist countries, because it keeps people stoned, addicted to drugs, and not social rebels. Speaker 0 interjects with a brief continuation: “going.” Speaker 1 reiterates the idea that, between commercial television and widespread crack, you can erode the guts of society without question.

Speaker 0 discusses working with the Israelis, describing them as “very American” and noting that they could get into shouting matches during meetings over whose idea was best, followed by casual lunch and reconciliation. He emphasizes that Israel is a good ally that the U.S. needs to protect and support, and he asserts that CIA and Al Qaeda had worked closely together in Iraq and in Syria, and that there are times when covert action allowed meetings with the “quote unquote, enemies” to try to bring things down as CIA officers. Speaker 1 adds that most of the world has a problem with Al Qaeda and ISIS/Daesh, but there is less of a problem because the CIA worked with ISIS/Daesh and Al Qaeda. He suggests that if the CIA worked with them, it would be better to understand what they were doing, and if the plan is for the U.S. to work with them on a security agreement, which has been done with enemies before, then this has been done in concert with diplomats and other countries involved. He indicates he wouldn’t be surprised if that was happening and would call it possibly hopeful. Speaker 0 continues by noting that newspapers in the United States once celebrated Qasem Soleimani as a fighter with American troops against ISIS and Al Qaeda. He states that Soleimani “was, and now it's switched,” implying a shift in perception or policy. The overarching theme is the idea of collaboration or coordination with hostile or extremist groups in pursuit of broader strategic objectives, including countering Iran, and the possibility that such collaborations could be framed as necessary or hopeful within a complex web of alliances and covert actions. Speaker 0 ends by reiterating the shift in stance: “Now we have to go to al ISIS and Al Qaeda to go back against Iran.” This underscores a cyclical or ironic pivot in U.S. strategy, moving from partnering with certain adversaries against common threats to reengaging those same groups to counter another adversary. The dialogue presents a candid view of realpolitik, suggesting that relationships with seemingly incompatible actors and shifts in alliances occur as part of broader geopolitical objectives, with collaboration sometimes described as acceptable when it serves strategic goals, and public narratives sometimes contrasting with behind-the-scenes actions.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that conspiracy theories have been made to look like lunacy, noting that the Kennedy assassination popularized the term “conspiracy theorist.” He says it wasn’t widely used before Kennedy, but afterward it became a label for “kooks,” and he’s repeatedly been called that. Speaker 1 acknowledges this dynamic. He and Speaker 0 discuss what a conspiracy is—“more people working together to do something nefarious?”—and Speaker 0 asserts that conspiracies have always happened. He disputes the view that most conspiracies are due to ineptitude, insisting that when there is profit, power, control, and resources involved, most conspiracies, in fact, turn out to be true. He adds that the deeper you dig, the more you realize there’s a concerted effort to make conspiracies seem ridiculous so people won’t be seen as fools. Speaker 1 remarks on the ridicule as well, and Speaker 0 reiterates his own self-description: “I am a conspiracy theorist,” a “foolish person,” and “a professional clown.” He mocks the idea that being labeled foolish is a barrier, and reflects on how others perceive him. Speaker 0 then provides specific, provocative examples of conspiracies he believes are real: Gulf of Tonkin was faked to justify U.S. entry into Vietnam; production of heroin ramped up to 94% of the world’s supply once the U.S. occupied Afghanistan; and the CIA, in the United States, allegedly sold heroin or cocaine in Los Angeles ghettos to fund the Contras versus the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He states clearly that these claims are real and asserts that there are conspiracy theorists who are “fucking real.” Speaker 1 pushes back on reputation and judgment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms his self-identification as a conspiracy theorist who faces mockery. Speaker 1 suggests that this stance might give him a “superpower.”

The speaker discusses the legal jurisdiction of selling drugs, specifically within the CIA. They mention that the ultimate power over the CIA lies with the executive branch of government. They emphasize that if the executive branch approves selling drugs, then it is considered acceptable. The speaker acknowledges engaging in classified activities in the best interest of protecting Americans. They express a practical mindset, stating that they would choose to sell cocaine to impoverished Latin American countries rather than allowing a hundred Americans to die. The speaker compares their approach to the listener's, implying similarity between them.