TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 states the following South American countries that have had their government overthrown by the CIA since 1947, with the years: - Costa Rica in 1948 - Guatemala in 1954 - El Salvador in 1979 - Nicaragua in 1981 - Panama in 1989 - Paraguay in 1954 - Brazil in 1964 - Peru in 1968 - Chile in 1973 - Uruguay in 1973 - Argentina in 1976 - Venezuela in 02/2002

The US has engaged in 70 regime change operations. 64 were covert, primarily led by the CIA, and 6 were overt, involving open war to topple governments. Regime change is presented as the opposite of diplomacy, focused on control or overthrow through tactics like assassination, coups, election manipulation, and creating unrest. Covert operations are defined as those where the US denied involvement, despite it being apparent to the affected population.

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.

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.

US politicians accuse other nations of election meddling, but the CIA has a long history of interfering in foreign affairs through military coups. In one example, the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's prime minister for nationalizing the oil industry, leading to widespread violence and the installation of a US-friendly government. Declassified documents reveal the CIA's involvement in the coup, highlighting their use of propaganda and bribery. Despite claims of no longer meddling in elections, the CIA director openly admitted to continuing such actions for "very good reasons."

Here's a list of South American countries where the CIA has overthrown the government since 1947: Costa Rica in 1948. Guatemala in 1954. El Salvador in 1979. Nicaragua in 1981. Panama in 1989. Paraguay in 1954. Brazil in 1964. Peru in 1968. Chile in 1973. Uruguay in 1973. Argentina in 1976. And Venezuela in February 2002.

The speaker asserts that the United States bears responsibility for Iran’s later radicalism, contending that the American government is the reason Iran became radical. The reasoning given is that Iran had a democratically elected leader, Mossadegh, whom the speaker claims the U.S. did not like because he wanted to nationalize the oil. The speaker notes that the British also disliked Mossadegh for the same reason, and references a historical moment—1953—described as the Iranian coup d'etat, stating that it was aided by intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. Following this intervention, the speaker claims that the United States and its allies “put the shah back in,” describing the shah as physically sick and unpopular. This sequence, according to the speaker, established conditions that paved the way for a rise in and persistence of radical elements within Islam for many decades. The points are presented in a causal narrative: U.S. opposition to Mossadegh over oil nationalization contributed to intervention in Iran, which led to restoring the Shah; the Shah’s unpopularity and ill health, under this arrangement, helped create an environment that empowered radical Islamist forces for an extended period. Key claims highlighted include: - The American government is depicted as the root cause of Iran’s later radicalism. - Mossadegh’s push to nationalize oil made him a target of U.S. and British opposition. - The 1953 coup d'etat in Iran was aided by intelligence agencies from the UK and the United States. - The Shah was reinstalled after the coup and is characterized as physically ill and unpopular. - This sequence is said to have paved the way for the most radical elements of Islam for many decades. The speaker emphasizes the continuity of this historical arc as a justification for present-day views on Iran, linking early mid-20th-century foreign intervention to long-term Islamist radicalism. The narrative is presented as a straightforward cause-and-effect chain, with the 1953 coup and the Shah’s reinstatement identified as pivotal events leading to subsequent decades of radicalization.

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.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq would sell oil in euros instead of dollars, leading to the US invasion in 2003. Similarly, Venezuela's plan to sell oil for euros in 2002 resulted in a failed coup backed by the US. Despite having the largest oil reserves, Venezuela is now one of the poorest economies. Libya, with the largest oil reserves in Africa, also faced consequences when Muammar Gaddafi suggested selling oil for gold instead of dollars. NATO intervened in Libya, leading to Gaddafi's execution. These countries wanted to break away from using the dollar for oil payments, but faced the wrath of America.

Speaker 0 asks about the organizing principle behind the activism, noting a lack of a specific list of grievances beyond longtime Democratic criticisms, and wonders if there is something truly animating the movement. Speaker 1 responds with the hammer analogy: for thirty years since the end of the Cold War, the instrument used to overthrow democratically elected governments has been that a country with an autocracy may have voted for its leader, but it functions like an autocracy. This justifies overthrowing governments that people voted for in the name of democracy, with examples including Hungary under Orban, which is hugely popular but autocratic, and El Salvador, where protests faded once USAID money stopped. The president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, embraced the shutdown of USAID, which has been used to influence internal politics there. A notable article in Notice about four months earlier defended USAID employees and warned the Trump administration that shutting down USAID would be a big mistake because it would unleash professional government toppling specialists. This professional class is described as a career path to learn how to network with organizations that topple governments on behalf of the State Department, the CIA, USAID, and their donor-drafted class in private equity, hedge funds, and multinational corporations that profit from post-coup governments. Speaker 1 explains that activists label these efforts as “no kings,” attempting to frame the issue as autocracy. He notes the irony that these activists are partnered with global networks in Canada and the United Kingdom that have kings, and they have had to rebrand in different countries. He recounts a scene in London where their network protested outside the US embassy, shouting “no US kings,” while in the same context they themselves are connected to monarchies. He emphasizes the incoherence of the current stance, especially given that we are less than a year out from a sweeping democratic victory—control of the House, the Senate, the electoral college, and a popular vote—defined as the opposite of a king-like monarchy. Speaker 1 concludes by saying that with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and that all these NGOs are set up for democracy promotion against autocracy, which is how they obtain 501(c)(3) tax-deductible status. They must label regimes as autocracies even if they are far from that description.

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 addressed the Security Council on the issue of whether any member state may determine Venezuela’s political future by force, coercion, or economic strangulation, stressing that the question concerns the prohibition on the threat or use of force against a state's territorial integrity or political independence under the UN Charter. The council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned. Background is offered on U.S. foreign policy, described as repeatedly using force, covert action, and political manipulation to achieve regime change since 1947. The speaker cites Lindsay O’Rourke’s documentation of 70 attempted U.S. regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, noting that such practices continued after the Cold War. Regime-change actions attributed to the United States since 1989 include Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria beginning in 2011, Honduras 2009, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela from 2002 onward, employing methods such as open warfare, covert operations, instigation of unrest, support for armed groups, manipulation of media, bribery, targeted assassinations, false flag operations, and economic warfare. These measures are described as illegal under the UN Charter and typically yielding ongoing violence and civilian suffering. Specific Venezuelan-related actions cited include: the April 2002 coup attempt known to the U.S.; funding of civil-society groups engaged in anti-government protests in the 2010s; sanctions following crackdowns; in 2015, President Obama labeling Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat”; in 2017, President Trump discussing invasion options at a UN General Assembly margin dinner. Between 2017 and 2020, sweeping sanctions on PDVSA reduced oil production by 75% from 2016 to 2020 and dropped real GDP per capita by 62%. The UN General Assembly is said to have repeatedly voted against unilateral coercive measures, and the speaker asserts that under international law only the Security Council may impose such measures. On January 23, 2019, the U.S. unilaterally recognized Juan Guaidó as interim president and soon after froze about $7 billion of Venezuelan sovereign assets abroad. The actions are framed as part of a two-decade-long regime-change effort. The speaker notes U.S. bombing operations in seven countries in the past year without UN Security Council authorization or lawful self-defense, listing Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela, and cites threats by President Trump against six UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela. The speaker invokes realist theory and the League of Nations’ failure, arguing the UN was created to place international law above anarchy and urging that failure to uphold the Charter would threaten humanity. The proposed resolutions call for: the United States to cease all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela, terminate the naval quarantine and related coercive measures without UN authorization, withdraw all military forces and forward-deployed assets from Venezuela’s vicinity, and require Venezuela to adhere to the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The secretary-general should appoint a special envoy to engage Venezuelan and international stakeholders and report back within fourteen days with Charter-consistent recommendations; the Security Council should remain urgently seized of the matter. All states should refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions outside the Security Council’s authority. The speaker closes by emphasizing that the UN Charter must remain a living instrument of international law.

We've set out to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies in over 20 countries. We manipulated elections in dozens of countries. We created standing armies and directed them to fight. We went after to organize ethnic minorities to encourage them to revolt. In Nicaragua, "the Mosquito Indians ... given them more money than they had seen in the entirety of history and arms and training" were sent into Nicaragua to attack, kill, fight, rape, burn, pillage. This is an insidious thing. "This has been a technique the CI has used in Nicaragua, in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Laos, in The Congo, and in Iran Iraq with the Kurds." We created, trained, and funded death squads like the treasury police in El Salvador that are responsible for killing as many as 70,000 people according to the count of the Catholic church. "We've assassinated world leaders, including The United States president in 1963." Chile 1973: CIA organized the overthrow of Salvador Allende, Allende killed, Schneider killed, Pinochet in power. Kissinger: "the issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." "6,000,000 people killed" minimum; "22,000 in Nicaragua"—mostly "rag poor peasants, including a high percentage of women and children."

The transcript argues that the primary reason the United States would invade countries like Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan is because those countries do not have a Rothschild banking presence. It claims that “if they don’t have their banks, the Rothschilds don’t have their banks in the country, then they go in it,” and that these invasions are about establishing a banking system rather than helping the local population. The speaker asserts that the stated rationale is “democracy and saving them and all these other things,” but contends the real motive is banking control. The speaker extends this logic to a broader pattern, stating that the government’s refrain of “we are the government, and we’re here to save you” is a cue to run, and cites Reagan as having said that quote. The argument continues by urging people to be aware of the banking system as the core driver of foreign interventions. It credits Eustace Mullins with explaining and putting this perspective into focus, claiming Mullins described how invasions are carried out to install a banking system in those countries. The speaker then shifts to a geopolitical critique, arguing that current actions are contributing to World War III. Additionally, the transcript references Albert Pike, describing him as a “demonic freemason” who allegedly predicted all of the wars. It is claimed that Pike predicted a third world war where people would fight against each other, and that in the end “the tiny hats” would win, implying a conclusion about Jewish influence or control. Overall, the main points assert that: - Invasions of certain countries occur to install banking systems, not to promote democracy or save people. - The supposed recurring line “we are the government, and we’re here to save you” signals a manipulative motive, with Reagan cited as having said it. - Eustace Mullins is credited with explaining this banking-focused perspective on interventions. - The actions are framed as contributing to World War III. - Albert Pike is invoked as having predicted wars, with the claimed outcome that “the tiny hats” win.

We create a secret global empire by targeting resource-rich countries and arranging massive loans that benefit our corporations instead of the people. These countries end up with crippling debt, and we use this leverage to gain cheap oil, political support, or military bases. If our tactics fail, we resort to overthrowing or assassinating leaders. This predatory form of capitalism has led to an unstable and dangerous world. To eliminate terrorism, we must address the root causes and understand that the entire planet is our homeland. Neoliberalism initially aimed to define humans by the market but quickly became a self-serving racket that exempted billionaires and corporations from democratic constraints.

I outline the speaker’s central claims about George Soros, the CIA, and global political influence. The speaker contends that George Soros has been one of the CIA’s most valuable private assets for over forty years, acting as the civilian, deniable funding arm of American regime-change operations worldwide. Because of this, Soros is not only allowed in the United States but protected there, enabling him to operate with impunity, which the speaker says explains his arrogance and continued influence. The speaker traces a pattern of Soros-backed “color revolutions” starting with Serbia in 2000, refined in Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and the Arab Spring in 2011. They assert that logos for USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the Open Society Foundations appear in all these cases, framing Soros as central to these movements. According to the speaker, the Arab Spring served as a trial run for Europe’s migrant crisis. They claim that in 2011 the CIA and Soros turned that playbook on Libya and Syria. Gaddafi allegedly warned in March 2011 that removing him would unleash millions to flood Europe from Africa; eight months later, Gaddafi was dead, Libya descended into chaos, and migrant waves began as predicted. By 2015–2016, the speaker asserts, battle-hardened jihadists and economic migrants were crossing the Mediterranean with iPhones, prepaid cards, and Twitter guides written in Arabic, described as the same social media mobilization tactics used in Kyiv and Tahrir Square. Wayne Madsen is cited as having called this pattern out in 2015, described by the speaker as a deliberate CIA social-engineering operation to fracture Europe from within, applying the same playbook to new targets. The speaker then asserts that the United States has been subject to this strategy from 2020 to the present, pointing to the summer riots of 2020 as an example. The claim continues that Soros’s Open Society Foundations donated at least $33,000,000 to groups that organized and sustained the 2020 riots, and that Soros-backed NGOs provided lawyers, maps, and logistics for the southern border caravans, as well as funding to influence police departments and district attorneys in major cities, effectively helping to elect them. The speaker argues that Soros is implementing the color-revolution playbook “on us now,” with the target being ordinary Americans rather than foreign nations. A historical reference is made to JFK, who allegedly spoke of splintering the CIA after the Bay of Pigs betrayal, a chance JFK did not realize, leaving the world the speaker claims the CIA built. The speaker notes that Hungary, a country of 9 million, has passed Stop Soros laws and expelled his operations, asking why the United States cannot do the same, and suggests finishing what JFK started.

Jeffrey Sachs argues that "economic statecraft" is a euphemism for coercion, describing it as "war by economic means" used largely by the United States to crush other economies rather than to promote development or cooperation. He notes that treasury officials have framed it proudly as a tool to bring about regime change, citing Scott Besent’s Davos remarks about crushing the Iranian economy to foment change. Sachs emphasizes that this machinery is "warfare" aimed at destruction, not at improving well-being or enriching the United States, and it has real human costs—driving impoverishment, health crises, and rising mortality. To understand this tool, Sachs situates it within American imperial practice, which he says relies on indirect rule through puppet regimes rather than outright territorial conquest. He traces the lineage to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the phasing of interventions in Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine’s Roosevelt Corollary, and the 1954 Guatemalan coup against Jacobo Arbenz. He cites Lindsey O’Rourke’s Covert Regime Change, which counted 64 covert regime-change operations by the United States between 1947 and 1989. Economic statecraft, in his view, can function as a regime-change instrument by weakening an economy enough to destabilize a government, facilitating CIA-led or CIA-backed interventions, sometimes wrapped as color revolutions. In the Venezuela case, Sachs traces the shift from a failed 2002 coup attempt to economic coercion as the primary mechanism of pressure. He explains how Venezuela’s oil wealth, once seen as the world’s largest reserves, interacted with U.S. corporate and political power—ExxonMobil and Chevron among them—and how that dynamic fed efforts to topple the Chávez/Maduro governments. He describes the sequence starting with 2014 color-revolution attempts, the role of U.S. funding and media operations via organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, and the crackdown that followed protests. Sanctions escalated under Obama with the designation of Venezuela as a national security emergency and intensified under Trump, including confiscating foreign-exchange reserves, freezing accounts, and declaring PDVSA under sanction. This culminated in Severe economic collapse: oil production fell about 75% from 2016 to 2020, currency and import capacities deteriorated, and per-capita output dropped by about two-thirds, which Sachs characterizes as "worse than a war." He also points to Trump’s unorthodox actions, such as naming Juan Guaidó as president in IMF context, signaling a unilateral reshaping of legitimacy. For Iran, Sachs describes decades of comprehensive sanctions and Trump’s renewed push to crush the economy using OFAC and extraterritorial sanctions. He cites Scott Besant’s interview claiming that by December, the currency had plummeted and dollar shortages followed, framing this as a deliberate regime-change strategy. He notes that mainstream media largely omitted the causal narrative—U.S. role in provoking protests—despite Besant’s public account. Looking ahead, Sachs discusses the multi-polarity challenge. He suggests that the dollar's dominance is waning as alternative settlement systems emerge, such as non-dollar currencies and parallel institutions, notably driven by China and BRICS members. He envisions a shift toward non-dollar settlements—potentially 25% of global transactions within ten years—enabled by digital settlements and new infrastructure that reduces the reach of U.S. extraterritorial sanctions. However, achieving this requires new, dollar-independent institutions, since existing banks remain reluctant to abandon dollar-based business due to sanctions risk. He concludes by noting that the United States’ heavy-handed currency policy may not be sustainable in the long run, as sanctions reach could lessen once non-dollar settlement networks gain traction. The host closes, recognizing this as a pivotal moment where U.S. coercion could either deter rivals or precipitate broader self-harm, and thanks Sachs for his insights.

In 2014, riots known as the rebellion occurred in Ukraine, which were secretly financed by USAID, a CIA front, with $5 billion. These riots led to a coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government. A month before the coup, Victoria Noland, a high-level official in the State Department, had a secret call with the US Ambassador, where they discussed selecting a new US-backed cabinet for Ukraine. This raises questions about democracy and whether Victoria Nuland influenced the government. The CIA has a history of overthrowing governments, including democracies, with 83 cases between 1947 and 1997.

Speaker 0 discusses a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual under Mark Milley, described as a vision for 2021 and beyond that contained instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots to destabilize nations, citing “examples of some of the instruction manuals here” as one and two to destabilize nations. Speaker 1 references a declassified CIA guide written in 1983 that trains operatives in how to organize riots in foreign countries. It is described as advocating for using agitators, including hiring professional criminals, to manipulate mass meetings and assemblies of people in person, which can result in general violence. The guide allegedly instructs the case officers that “our psychological war team must develop in advance a hostile mental attitude among the target groups so that at the given moment, they can turn their anger into violence demanding the rights taken away by the regime,” with a goal to make ethnic minority groups mad at their government in a general sense so that, when triggered, they will turn that general anger into physical violence against the state they aim to overthrow. The CIA guide allegedly details getting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen recruited as social crusaders for the CIA-backed cause, with a plan for gradually building clusters of influence: “these cells,” including “10 super teachers… 10 lawyers… 10 captains of industry… 10 medical professionals,” who will each operate within their spheres of influence and, at an appropriate time, fuse the groups into a united front. It is claimed that with “a force of 200 to 300 agitators,” one can create a demonstration in which “10,000 to 20,000” participate, given access to “200 back channels, 200 human assets” built up to mobilize a large riot. Speaker 0 adds that the guide also recommended setting up job fairs near protests so that disaffected workers could gain employment. The speaker then questions as a member of Congress whether anyone in USAID gets elected to Congress or to a presidency. Speaker 1 asserts that the US secretly created Cuban Twitter to stir unrest in organized smart mobs, likening them to BLM-style mobs. He notes McSpeden, who “worked for USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives,” and explains that the term “transition” means regime change. He cites a 2009 congressional report stating that the Office of Transition Initiatives runs a program to topple governments through organized political warfare, mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation systems, hospitals, and schools, and that a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Fulton Armstrong warned that even he could not obtain broad access to what USAID was doing, describing it as a secret operation. Speaker 0 closes by saying that acting in the shadows to destabilize nations using race wars and advocating that the military do it jeopardizes future generations who would have to fight such wars and operates without oversight.

Chiquita, a major banana company, has a history of smuggling guns and drugs. The banana industry's involvement in global affairs dates back to the early 1900s, with United Fruit Company orchestrating coups in Honduras and Guatemala. The CIA, founded by corporate lawyers, has been used by corporations to advance their financial interests through economic hitmen and covert operations. The Dulles brothers, key figures in the CIA's founding, were instrumental in shaping post-World War 1 and 2 financial systems, including the Bank of International Settlements. Intelligence agencies serve corporate, not public, interests, engaging in covert warfare in countries like Guatemala, Iran, and Vietnam. Mega corporations and banking interests control global affairs.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues that the current moment represents dramatic and dangerous upheaval, with the war against Iran in its second week and a “regime change operation” not going as planned. He says there is tremendous confusion about war aims and the ground situation, describing Washington as “fogged” and characterizing Donald Trump’s public messaging as “ravings” from a “madman.” He contends that escalation control is illusory and that the world is sliding toward a broader and more dangerous conflict. Sachs asserts that the war is not limited to Iran: Iran has claimed to strike U.S. bases in several countries while denying attacks on Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. He suggests the U.S. and Israel are pulling in proxies, including Kurdish fighters, and that Russia may be supplying Iran with intelligence while the U.S. supplies Ukraine. He contends that after decapitation strikes on Iran, Moscow faces pressure to deter NATO attacks, while Europe contemplates increasing nuclear weapons. He views the conflict as part of a wider global struggle, with fighting across the world and potential linkages to energy markets, indicating that an energy crisis is likely to be severe and poorly priced in by markets. He argues that if China and Russia support Iran, it underscores a broader strategic dynamic, given China’s oil interests and the U.S.’s efforts to cut off oil supplies to China from Venezuela, Russia, and Iran. On international law, Sachs reiterates his argument that the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran is also an attack on the United Nations. He asserts that the U.S. under Trump “despises the UN” and seeks to kill it “through a thousand cuts and through a devastating blow,” pointing to the U.S. withdrawal from UN agencies and rejection of key treaties. He emphasizes that Europe is complicit, with European leaders and ambassadors at the UN Security Council focusing critiques on Iran rather than on the U.S.-Israel strike. He invokes Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as the essence of the UN’s purpose to stop the use of force, contrasting this with the belief that the U.S. “rules the world” and uses violence to impose demands, including the call for “unconditional surrender” in Iran. Sachs describes the U.S. foreign policy machinery as dominated by the CIA and a network of “off the books militaries” that pursue regime change and hegemony. He recalls historical episodes: the 1953 coup in Iran, the Kennedy and Eisenhower era, and the long-standing pattern of U.S. interference in other countries’ leadership. He asserts that performance of checks and balances is deteriorating, with democracy weakening under threat and dissent punished, both in the U.S. and in Europe. He likens Trump’s rhetoric to a hyperbolic assertion that he would determine Iran’s next leader, calling this symptomatic of a broader U.S. imperial project. In discussing European responses, Sachs criticizes Germany for showing subservience to the U.S. stance, with European leaders at times prioritizing confrontation with Iran over engagement with Russia or seeking peace. He laments the decline of European strategic autonomy and the EU as a whole, noting the Danish ambassador’s focus on Iran while ignoring U.S.-Israeli actions. He argues that Europe’s leadership has failed to act in the spirit of postwar peace, contrasting current leadership with figures like de Gaulle, Mitterrand, Kohl, or Schroeder. Toward multipolarity, Sachs traces the idea back to Roosevelt’s vision for a United Nations-centered postwar order and contrasts it with the post-1990s U.S. unilateralism. He argues that the United States, Britain, Russia, and China would need to cooperate to avert catastrophe, and that the current trajectory—led by an obsession with global dominance—risks war, economic crisis, and widespread destabilization. He suggests that China and Russia are the most likely to push back against U.S. hegemony, with India possibly playing a role, though its alignment remains ambivalent. Sachs closes by noting that a move toward peaceful multipolar cooperation would require different leadership and a rejection of the Leviathan-style dominance mindset.

Speaker 0: We've set out to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies in over 20 countries. We manipulated elections in dozens of countries. We created standing armies and directed them to fight. We went after to organize ethnic minorities to encourage them to revolt. The first thing we did in Nicaragua was to go to the Mosquito Indians who had never gotten along with the other people in Nicaragua very well and give them more money than they had seen in the entirety of history and arms and training and rationales and sanctuaries in Honduras and sent them into Nicaragua to attack, kill, fight, rape, burn, pillage. And this has been a technique the CI has used in Nicaragua, in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Laos, in The Congo, in in Iran Iraq with the Kurds in different parts of the world. We created, trained, and funded death squads like the treasury police in El Salvador, and we've assassinated world leaders, including The United States president in 1963, and I'll get to that in more detail in just a moment. You can never be sure how many people are killed in the jungles of of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua, but adding them up as best we can, we come up with a figure of 6,000,000 people killed, minimum figure. It has to be more than that. These things are all done in countries of the third world where the governments don't have the power to force The United States to stop destabilizing the country and brutalizing their people.

Speaker 1 argues that the United States has repeatedly engaged in illegal military actions and regime changes in multiple countries, starting with the bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state, with the aim of breaking Serbia and installing Bondsteel, a large NATO base in the Balkans, under Clinton. They claim this was done without UN authority and described as a NATO mission. Speaker 1 continues, alleging that the US has subsequently waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where, according to them, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton tasked the CIA with overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. They also claim NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and that in Kyiv in February 2014 the US overthrew Yanukovych together with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, noting that the overthrow happened the day after EU representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych for early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand-down of both sides. They assert that the US supported the new government immediately afterward, despite that agreement and without addressing it as unconstitutional. Speaker 1 asserts that Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to the 2015 Minsk two agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council, signed by the government of Ukraine, and guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. They contend that Minsk II was dismissed as a holding pattern by inside-US government circles, despite the UN Security Council approval. They claim Angela Merkel later said Minsk II was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine time to build its strength, countering the assertion that Minsk II was meant to end the war. The speaker emphasizes distrust of the United States government and calls for all sides to sit down publicly to agree on terms, with both the United States and Russia committing to specific boundaries, and for NATO not to enlarge, so that a written, global judgment can be made. Speaker 2 adds that there has been an ongoing effort to create an anti-Russian platform in Ukraine, describing it as an enclave, and accusing the US and its allies of lying about not expanding NATO multiple times. Speaker 3 states that President Putin sent a draft treaty asking NATO to promise no more enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine, and notes that this draft was not signed.

In 2014, riots known as the rebellion occurred in Ukraine, but it was not widely known that the US was financing these riots. The riots led to a coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government, which refused to align with the West. A month before the coup, a secret call between Victoria Nuland, a high-level official in the State Department, and the US ambassador was recorded and made public. In the call, they discussed choosing a new cabinet for Ukraine, essentially picking a US-backed government before the old one was overthrown. This raises questions about democracy and the role of organizations like USAID and the CIA, which have a history of overthrowing governments, including democracies.