TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Gaddafi's plan to introduce the Gold Dinar threatened Western monetary dominance. His vision of a united Africa with a common currency aimed to free the continent from Western exploitation. Economic sanctions were imposed to stop him. Despite this, Gaddafi persisted, but covert operations led to his downfall. Libya became unstable, Africa lost a visionary leader, and hopes for economic liberation were dashed. Corruption in governments continues to benefit the few at the expense of many, perpetuating economic injustice globally. Translation: Gaddafi's plan for a new currency challenged the West, leading to sanctions and his downfall. Africa lost a leader, and corruption persists, hindering economic justice.

Benghazi was a logistics hub for arming anti-Assad terrorists. Russia exposed this operation by attacking the CIA center, putting a stop to it. The Western media didn't report on it. The efforts to overthrow Assad continue, but now weapons are primarily coming from Croatia. This poses a threat to Russia, so they are waging war against America by targeting our weak economy, specifically the oil-backed dollar.

To understand the New World Order, it's crucial to recognize the Rothschild family's influence and the City of London's financial power. The Bank of England, Temple Bar, and the Rothschild estate are key players in this global agenda. John McCain sought support from the Rothschilds, who control media and academia. The socialist agenda is backed by elites, not the masses. Murdoch's media empire shapes UK policy, while Gaddafi's attempt to change currency led to his downfall. Libya's free education and healthcare were replaced by debt under international banking control. NATO's intervention in Libya was seen as a looting operation.

Mario and John discuss the potential Venezuelan regime change and the broader implications of U.S. policy. - If a coup proceeds, the first step in the plan would be to remove Maduro. There are reports that Maduro sought amnesty from the U.S. to step down, and Trump reportedly refused amnesty. - John notes that when the U.S. government is serious about attacking a country, naval movements are a key indicator he learned at the CIA. He observes that the U.S. recently sent the USS Gerald R. Ford and its 11 accompanying battleships and supply ships, signaling seriousness about action. - The CIA’s alleged use of drugs to weaken other countries is mentioned. John asserts that drugs in Venezuela are not Venezuelan; they originate in Colombia and Ecuador and transit Venezuela en route to West Africa, ultimately to Europe. - In considering what would happen in Venezuela if Maduro steps down, the expectation is chaos. The discussion notes that the narrative around Venezuela has shifted alongside discussions of Iran, Russia, Ukraine, and China, and asks what the initial reaction would be when seeing this narrative shift. - John reiterates the naval-movement heuristic for assessing U.S. seriousness about regime change, noting the presence of carrier groups as a sign of intent. He questions the upside for the U.S. in removing Maduro, given that the U.S. excludes Venezuelan oil from purchase and refining and there seems to be no clear upside. He adds that the U.S. would ideally want to strengthen Venezuela’s economy to reduce immigration, but that is not reflected in current policy. He also discusses drugs, reaffirming that Venezuelan drug flows are primarily transiting to Europe, not the U.S., and adds that China’s five-year-ago decision to build a Caribbean refinery is a factor, arguing that the refinery shift is a strategic move opposed by the U.S. - Mario notes Maduro’s offer of full access for U.S. oil, but John emphasizes regime survival as Maduro’s main concern and questions whether Maduro’s offer would be a valid solution. He points out that China is expanding and becoming a major trading partner in Latin America, but he does not see this as a direct solution to regime change. - The conversation touches on the possibility that naval movements could be a bluff to force Maduro to withdraw. John says such moves happen in the South China Sea and could lead to Maduro fleeing, but they would create a power vacuum with pro-M Maduro factions within the military and without regional support from Colombia, Brazil, or Mexico, complicating U.S. aims. - They discuss the possibility of the U.S. offering Maduro safe passage rather than an outright coup. John suggests that a large-scale ground invasion is unlikely, given public opinion and the country’s size and terrain. He compares potential post-regime outcomes to Libya, warning that U.S. attempts to impose a peace post-regime change often fail, leaving chaos and long-term instability. - The dialogue turns to the opposition figure Maria Machado, with John stating that she does not command armies and is not clearly more viable than Juan Guaidó; he suggests the next leader, if Maduro leaves, might be a senior military officer. - They consider the long-term consequences of regime change, including the risk of chaotic transitions and a military-based government. John shares a cautionary Libyan analogy about a constitutions project that never materialized into stable governance. He recalls a 2003 Iraqi intervention example to illustrate misjudgments that history often repeats. - The discussion closes with references to Hezbollah and Iran connections in Venezuela and the hope to avoid another Libya-like outcome, emphasizing the potential heartbreak for Venezuela and the complexity of foreign involvement.

Training that we go through is in order to go into another country, link up with an indigenous population in force, train, advise and equip it so that we flip their government. Meaning, train insurgents to overthrow a government so that the government then becomes friendly with The United States in their own language. Is that how they took out Muammar Gaddafi? Was it the Green Beret? Because, you know, they got insurgents to take him over and supposedly if you look at the conspiracy of that I think the best model to explain that, what I just described is, remember when the link up with the Northern Alliance after nineeleven? That's probably a good example. That's probably a good example. Because, you know, Hillary Clinton laughed. She basically admitted that she killed Muammar Gaddafi or had him killed. And you watch him talk What difference does it make? Well, she said We can't

Speaker 0 discusses the reasons behind the death of someone, stating that it was not because he killed his people but because of a sensitive question. The speaker then highlights some positive aspects of Libya, such as the absence of homelessness, free education from kindergarten to college, and government-funded education for Libyans wanting to study in America. They also mention a $500 million hospital and the availability of free medical attention for all citizens. Additionally, the speaker mentions that every Libyan citizen received a stipend from oil money and that the country had no debt. The speaker suggests that this man aimed to provide similar benefits to all of Africa.

Muammar Gaddafi of Libya built the great man-made river, offering incentives for farming and family-building. He aimed to transition the Libyan dinar to the gold standard, threatening western banking powers. The powers bombed the river and pipe factory. The speaker writes children's books on banking to educate about misinformation, freedom, and American rights.

ISIS fighters were airlifted by Western Coalition helicopters from Syria to Afghanistan, not reported by Western media. The US allegedly left behind ISIS fighters in Afghanistan to create chaos and hinder development in the region, potentially to benefit China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan. The speaker suggests that ISIS is a US construct, specifically orchestrated by the CIA.

Ashwin Rutansi opens from The UAE, noting the expiration of the nuclear arms treaty and highlighting global flashpoints: a USS Abraham Lincoln shot down an Iranian drone in the Gulf, ongoing talks among Witkoff, Arakashi, and Kushner in Oman, Russia–USA discussions in the UAE, the Rafa crossing between Gaza and Egypt amid continuing Palestinian violence, and Washington’s deployment of troops to Nigeria with 26 airstrikes in Somalia in January. He mentions the UK-backed assassination of Saif Gaddafi in Libya as an example of NATO’s impact on Africa, and notes BRICS’ alignment with Iran, China, and Russia against NATO actions. The discussion of who really controls NATO is framed around the 3,000,000 Epstein files, suggesting they reveal Zionist nuclear strategies and naming Ari Ben Menashe, an Israeli intelligence asset, as a figure connected to these issues. Ari Ben Menashe joins from Montreal to discuss the Epstein materials and their potential impact on Trump. He says the Epstein files appear to be a distraction from broader world events, with some material out and some not, and asserts there is “nothing about Trump really in what they released recently,” calling it a distraction. He suggests Israelis hold sensitive information and might release it when threatened by Trump, implying Israeli influence over the DOJ’s handling of the material. Rutansi presses on whether the Times of Israel’ s focus on Trump being compromised by Israel and Jared Kushner is connected to Chabad Lubavitch, and Ben Menashe traces Epstein’s recruitment to Maxwell and Ehud Barak in the 1980s, alleging a broader network compromising American and other politicians. The conversation touches Tony Blair’s alleged role in Gaza peace plans and the suggestion that Blair is a “wrong choice.” Ben Menashe recounts that Ehud Barak previously had an East Jerusalem office under Israeli control and notes changes in Israeli policy toward Hamas under Netanyahu. They discuss MI6’s involvement in a Libyan assassination and whether Epstein’s material implicates Putin or Russians, with Ben Menashe asserting that portraying Epstein as a Russian agent is a cover‑up linked to Israeli interests. Rutansi and Ben Menashe discuss ongoing US–Iran talks, with expectations of an embassy exchange and sanctions relief, while Netanyahu might sabotage any real deal by releasing Epstein material against US officials. Ben Menashe asserts Trump would like a deal with the Iranians, a view tied to past efforts at ending hostilities in the region. The dialogue covers Epstein’s network, alleged Israeli and MI6 involvement, and the role of Tony Blair and Qatar’s prime minister in the files. Ben Menashe describes Netanyahu as a “real problem” for the US and regional stability, and claims that Netanyahu could press a nuclear button if needed, illustrating the “Sampson Option” by Sy Hersh. They debate the possible collapse of Netanyahu’s leadership and the risk of a nuclear exchange in the region. Toward the end, Rutansi asks about justice for women trafficked by Epstein, and Ben Menashe doubts that families will receive justice, predicting more noise rather than accountability. The program closes with a preview of reporting on the World Government Summit in Dubai and a promotion of Going Underground’s online channel.

The speaker believes those hiding the truth about 9/11 are capable of murder. They claim the U.S. caused Gaddafi's death because Hillary Clinton played a "game." The speaker says they went to Libya during the war with a Biden staffer, a Bush staffer, and a film crew, and hand-carried a letter from Gaddafi offering to resign, but the U.S. wanted him dead. According to the speaker, Gaddafi wanted to unite Africa economically on the gold standard, but the U.S. and Europe wanted control of his oil and sovereign wealth. The speaker took Biden to Libya on their second trip. The speaker feels it is outrageous that people who have never served in the military make money off conflicts while kids are drawn into them and killed.

NATO's first shot was modest, expansion costs are real but manageable. Our mission is to fight for freedom. Libya announced Gaddafi's death. Condolences for lives lost in 90s wars. North Stream 2 will no longer continue.

- Training that we go through is in order to go into another country, link up with an indigenous population in force, train, advise and equip it so that we flip their government. Meaning, train insurgents to overthrow a government so that the government then becomes friendly with The United States in their own language. - Is that how they took out Muammar Gaddafi? Was it the Green Beret? Because, you know, they got insurgents to take him over and supposedly if you look at the conspiracy of that I think the best model to explain that, what I just described is, remember when the link up with the Northern Alliance after nineeleven? - Yeah, without KDAN. And then put That's in an example of that. That's probably a good example. Because, you know, Hillary Clinton laughed. She basically admitted that she killed Muammar Gaddafi or had him killed. - And you watch him talk What difference does it make? Well, she said We can't

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

News at midnight from The Gulf reports a second Iranian drone dispatched to the USS Abraham Lincoln after the first was shot down by Trump's forces, amid global worries that he could be distracted from the Epstein files to start Israel's war on Iran with US money. At midnight also comes news that Seyfal Gaddafi, who could reunite what was once Africa's richest per capita country, Libya, has been killed in his garden by militias and mercenaries with British involvement. Sources say MI6 was deeply involved. Britain was reportedly deeply involved fifteen years ago with France in trying to destroy Africa's richest per capita country because it was a beacon of high living standards and Gaddafi himself was proposing some sort of Gold Dinar system, not to mention that France, according to WikiLeaks papers from 2011, wanted 35% of Libyan black gold. The transcript notes that Seyfal Gaddafi is not being covered in the NATO nations that destroyed Libya and used Gaddafi in horrific ways, allowing slave markets to open there. It states that Seyfal Gaddafi has been writing articles supporting the Palestinians and Arab sovereignty while in hiding, because he was the most popular leader in Libya, across both halves, and could have reunited it. He is described as visiting places around Libya ahead of putative elections that will now, of course, happen because that’s what the colonial powers were desiring. The end of Seyfal Gaddafi is proclaimed. As a reminder of imperial policies, the Epstein file is cited: in the latest 3,000,000 documents, the Department of Justice released an email saying, “I also have friends formerly with MI6 and Mossad willing to help identify stolen assets and get them recovered.” He was described as being involved in trying to get hold of Libyan assets, many of which, of course, have been stolen. The Epstein oligarchs with their depraved alleged cannibalism and mass killing of children have not gone away. While people begin to report repercussions of the Epstein files, the same forces are present, which may explain why the personal lawyer to Donald Trump at the DOJ said, on the release of them, that no one is going to be prosecuted. What this means for Africa, amidst all these global tensions, is tied to the expiry of the START treaty within the next 24 to 48 hours, which would allow unlimited warheads, the end of nuclear inspections, and perhaps a nuclear arms race that has never been seen before on this planet. We will have to wait and see.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOAR) reported that Western coalition helicopters were airlifting foreign ISIS fighters out of Deir Zor in Syria. Two sources told the speaker that the US coalition was airlifting foreign ISIS fighters into Afghanistan. The speaker didn't understand this at the time. The speaker believes the US needed to leave behind a dirty fighting force to blow up mosques, schools, and infrastructure to continue chaos after US forces left. This would impede the development of pipelines and roadways, preventing China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan from connecting with Afghanistan. The speaker believes ISIS is potentially a US construct, and ISIS K is a US CIA construct.

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

The speaker dismisses Western predictions of Russia's collapse, citing historical invasions that failed. Ukraine is described as a Western tool and a future source of terrorism due to its use as a "laundering machine." The speaker accuses the British Secret Service of orchestrating attacks on Russian strategic bombers and warns that further aggression could lead to Russia demolishing Britain with nuclear strikes. Russia possesses the capacity to damage Western interests globally through asymmetrical responses, but refrains due to moral principles. The speaker denies Russian involvement in attacks like the Skripal poisoning, questioning the British narrative. African countries are increasingly partnering with Russia and China due to Western exploitation, with Russia offering security and lacking a colonial past. The U.S. failure against the Houthis reflects a misunderstanding of modern warfare. The speaker believes globalists are a "Satanist cult" aiming to reduce the world population and are experimenting with societal destruction in the West through deindustrialization, "sex revolution," and promotion of LGBT ideologies to destroy the family unit. The Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan is framed as a U.S. failure that enriched individuals and enabled drug trafficking.

The conversation centers on Iran, potential U.S. action, and the wider strategic spillovers across the Middle East and beyond. The speakers discuss what prompted a delay in striking Iran, the likelihood of a broader attack, and how regional and great-power dynamics might unfold. - On why a strike against Iran was postponed, the consensus from the guest is that Netanyahu asked for more time to prepare for defending against Iranian missiles and to enable a larger attack footprint. The guest also cites public statements by U.S. figures supporting a bigger operation: Lindsey Graham emphatically said last Friday that the delay was so we can go bigger; General Jack Keane stated that military operations would target political and military leaders and destroy their military infrastructure to take the regime out. The guest emphasizes that the most likely scenario is an expanded target set and greater combat power in the region to defend bases and improve the attack’s effectiveness, rather than a symbolic strike. - Regarding whether Russia or China would become involved, the guest doubts active involvement by either country, but suggests indirect support or intelligence help could occur. The logic is that direct involvement would be costly for these powers, though they might assist Iran indirectly. - On the readiness and capability of Iran, the guest argues Iran is now far more prepared than in the twelve-day war. They note that insiders were purged after the prior conflict, defenses were strengthened, and missile production likely accelerated since June, with production areas shielded from prior attacks. Iran’s ability to respond quickly and with significant damage is viewed as higher, and the guest warns that if Iran experiences an existential threat, it could abandon restraint and retaliate in a way that makes a broader war more likely. - The discussion covers U.S. bases in the region, where the guest concedes that the U.S. air defense is not at the level of Israel’s Iron Dome and David Sling, THAAD, and other integrated systems. Some bases lack robust defense against ballistic missiles, drones, and other threats, and, while 30,000 U.S. troops remain in the area, the overall air-defense capability is described as insufficient to stop all Iranian missiles. - Would Iran strike Gulf nations directly to pressure them to push the U.S. to end the war? The guest says not likely, arguing that Iranian leadership has signaled a preference for good relations with Gulf states and that attacking Gulf bases or cities would create more enemies and complicate Iran’s strategic posture. - A decapitation strike targeting leadership is considered plausible by some but deemed risky. The guest notes Iran has continuity of government plans and could designate successors; even if leadership is removed, a power vacuum could ignite internal fighting. The possibility of an existential attack by Iran—coupled with a broader regional war—could be catastrophic and is something to avoid. - The discussion turns to Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and the broader spillover risk. The guest suggests that if Iran’s retaliation is strong and Hamas or Hezbollah see an opportunity, there could be escalations, including potential involvement by Turkey. However, Iran would likely avoid opening new fronts that would diffuse its capability to strike U.S. bases in the region. - The problem of Iran’s internal diversity is highlighted: Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Lurs, Arabs, Baluchs, and Turkmen, among others, complicate any post-regime-change scenario. The guest argues Iran could fragment, but emphasizes that a successful Western-backed regime change could still lead to civil strife rather than a stable replacement, warning of a “textbook failed regime change” akin to past Middle East interventions. - On NATO and Western unity, the guest asserts NATO is dead or in deep trouble, citing European leaders who doubt U.S. stability and reliability. He notes European politicians discuss building an autonomous European security architecture, implying growing European reluctance to rely on U.S. leadership for defense. - Greenland as a strategic issue: the guest argues there is no rational military need for Greenland for security, and that the notion of occupying or militarizing Greenland is driven more by Trump’s personal preferences than strategic necessity. He points out that even if Greenland were militarized, Russia and China would have little to gain, given logistical and strategic barriers. - Finally, the future trajectory: the guest predicts Iran will likely be pressed hard in a large strike but warns that the consequences could be severe, including regional destabilization, potential civil conflict inside Iran, and long-term strategic costs for the U.S. and its European partners. He suggests that as long as the U.S. overextends itself in multiple theaters (Iran, Greenland, Ukraine, Venezuela), global stability and the U.S. economic footing could be endangered. The guest closes by highlighting the uncertainty of Trump’s next moves, citing possible abrupt shifts and cognitive concerns that could influence decisions in unpredictable ways.

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.

The speaker stated the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi in power. Iraq used to kill terrorists immediately, but now it's the "Harvard of terrorism." The speaker said that while Hussein was a horrible guy, Iraq was better then than it is now, as it is currently a training ground for terrorists. The speaker stated nobody even knows Libya, and there is no Iraq and no Libya anymore because it's all broken up. Human rights abuses are happening now and are worse than under Hussein or Gaddafi. Libya is a catastrophe, Iraq is a disaster, and the whole Middle East blew up around Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Gaddafi's plan to introduce the Gold Dinar threatened Western monetary dominance. The West imposed sanctions, leading to Gaddafi's downfall and a fractured Libya. Africa lost a leader with a vision for economic liberation. Corruption in governments perpetuates a system benefiting the few at the expense of many, hindering economic justice and self-determination globally. Translation: Gaddafi's Gold Dinar plan challenged Western power, leading to sanctions and Libya's instability. Africa lost a leader aiming for economic freedom. Corruption hinders global economic justice and self-determination.

Muammar Gaddafi was killed because he was working with other African leaders to establish Africa's first Central Bank, which would have backed its currency with the continent's natural resources. This move threatened the global economic order dominated by currencies not backed by resources. Gaddafi's assassination was to prevent the creation of a Central Bank of Africa and the end of modern slavery and neo-colonialism on the continent.

Afshuner Atansi hosts Going Underground, opening by noting two anniversaries: the 23rd anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq and the 15th anniversary of the NATO war on Libya, framing them as part of a broader US-led aggression in the region. He suggests the US war on Iran may be the empire’s biggest defeat, and argues Israeli-US carpet bombing has wounded the world’s poor via higher prices for transport, medicine, food, and housing. The Strait of Hormuz is highlighted as this war’s most notable weapon of mass destruction. Admiral William Fallon, former commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), is introduced by Atansi from Alexandria, Virginia. Fallon discusses his memoir, Decisions, Discord, and Diplomacy from Cairo to Kabul, and comments on Trump’s description of the region-wide conflict as a short-term excursion, asserting in his view that “short term military action over prudent long term strategy” has been a recurring theme. He counters the characterization of “carpet bombing,” saying “there's no carpet bombing going on anywhere” and questions the notion of nuclear weapons as a plausible US option, suggesting that if a US weapon was used in the Iranian strike on a school, “it was a mistake” and that the school sat on the fence line of a military base, implying an inadvertent targeting outcome. The host presses Fallon on a Tomahawk strike that reportedly hit a girls’ school in Minab, Iran, and whether the strike was targeted. Fallon maintains that the intent was to strike Iranian Navy or military-related activity to affect the Strait of Hormuz, and refuses to assign blame to deliberate civilian targeting. He notes that once fighting begins, many prior assumptions fall away, and emphasizes the need to think through potential outcomes before escalation. Atansi pushes back by pointing to civilian casualties in Lebanon and Iran, noting the deaths of 83 children in Israeli strikes and broader harm to civilians, urging consideration of the “collateral damage” that can shape conflicts. Fallon reiterates that civilians bear the brunt in most conflicts but asserts that the intention was to damage military targets. Discussion then shifts to accountability for civilian casualties and the chain of responsibility, with Atansi asking whether the intelligence, legal, strike cell, field commander, or theater commander bears responsibility. Fallon suggests that in practice, decisions in international affairs lead to unforeseen consequences and that forethought is essential before beginning conflicts. He references media narratives and claims about the Esquire article undermining confidence in US leadership, noting that the NIE from 2007 reportedly concluded Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, but that Iran later expanded its program. On oil and economic repercussions, Atansi mentions estimates of US costs in days of the conflict and claims about Europe and Asia’s economic impact, while Fallon questions the reliability of those figures. Fallon argues that while oil reserves were manipulated and sanctions were applied, the Strait of Hormuz remains challenged by strategic behavior but not fully severed, asserting that other oil movements continue outside the Gulf through sanctioned channels. The host asks about domestic support for Trump’s war—“70% of Americans oppose Trump’s war”—to which Fallon casts doubt on poll accuracy and stresses that public opinion polls are reactive. He affirms that he would prefer not to have further wars and reiterates that Iran has engaged in malign activities historically, while Atansi counters by highlighting US alliances and alleged cooperation with extremist groups, including Al Qaeda, as a counterpoint to Fallon’s positions. Fallon rejects the notion that Israel controls CENTCOM, noting Israel was not part of CENTCOM during his tenure, and dismisses conspiracy claims about Israeli influence on US military policy. The program closes with Fallon reiterating his position against further wars and acknowledging the complexity and longevity of Middle Eastern conflicts, thanking the host, and promoting his book, Decisions, Discord, and Diplomacy from Cairo to Kabul.

Afshin Ratanzi and the guest discuss the Epstein files and how they are being linked to Russia and Western power structures. The guest says 3,000,000 Epstein files have not been released by the Department of Justice, with Trump administration’s attempts to block them and congressional efforts by Thomas Massie and Ro Conner to release them. He notes the files describe how a former Russian deputy, Ponomarev, allegedly wanted to incite a coup in Russia and the assassination of President Putin, and mentions interest in interviewing Ponomarev, who reportedly lives in Kiev. The guest adds that Going Underground has interviewed some people from the Epstein files, including Noam Chomsky, who he says criticized how NATO media prevent understanding of world events and support Russiagate. He mentions Ehud Barak walked out of the show, and notes FBI sworn statements containing disturbing allegations such as child cannibalism, and says these are “allegations, of course.” He asserts Western media will blame Putin and Russia to avoid confronting the broader “dump of redacted 3,000,000 files,” portraying Washington, London, and Brussels as oligarch-dominated and condemning Western democracy while accusing elites of trafficking children and influencing tax legislation to enrich the rich. The host asks what fears the Epstein links raise. The guest explains that Epstein, described as a Mossad asset, purportedly sought to destroy the Russian Federation because a multipolar world involving China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran challenges Zionist expansion. He argues leaders from those countries aren’t in the Epstein files, contrasting them with Western elites. He discusses why media might link Epstein to Russia, noting that Trump’s handling of the files has caused concern in West Asia; the guest suggests Trump could launch wars (e.g., Iran) to distract from links to Epstein and to avoid scrutiny of his own associations, which could have global economic consequences if Straits of Hormuz were affected. Addressing why the “Russia hoax” persists, the guest emphasizes the existence of a captive population in NATO countries through propaganda and restricted access to alternative outlets (citing bans on Rumble in France and RT in Britain), arguing Western oligarchs control cultural and media sectors. He contends that Western systems have historically supported wars in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria, and claims public belief about events like Bucha could be shaped by NATO media. Regarding Britain’s role, the guest claims MI6 is heavily involved in wars including Syria, with Epstein-linked interests tied to overthrowing Assad; he notes Peter Mandelson’s resignation from the House of Lords and his appointment as British ambassador to the United States, highlighting Britain’s investment in destroying Russia since the Crimean War. He cautions that Britain’s diplomacy may be a lie and urges BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization members to reassess Western leaders, suggesting distrust toward Western diplomacy and warning that leaders in global South should recognize a pattern of destruction propagated by Western powers. The interview ends with thanks to Afshin Ratanzi.

The transcript centers on a heated, interconnected discussion about Tucker Carlson, U.S. politics, and the perceived influence of Israel, the Israel lobby, and foreign interests on American public discourse. The participants volley accusations, defenses, and conspiracy theories, with several notable claims and counterclaims. - The opening segment portrays Tucker Carlson as a target of powerful actors. Speaker 0 argues that Netanyahu and others have labeled Carlson a problem, suggesting that calling him a “fox in a henhouse” is a veiled call for violence and censorship. They warn that such rhetoric could provoke political suppression or harm toward Carlson, and they reference debates over whether Carlson’s anti-war stance and Iran policy have drawn attacks from prominent Israel-first voices. - The conversation shifts to alleged political interference and investigations. Speaker 0 references Kash Patel and a mid-September claim that Patel confronted J. D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and others about an investigation, asserting Patel was told not to involve certain intelligence matters or foreign involvement in domestic issues. They describe “the Israel lobby literally run by Netanyahu” as attacking Carlson and pressing to “neutralize” him. There is also a claim that Democrats celebrated or advocated harm against Charlie Kirk and that “six trainees” in a town suggested Kirk would be dead the next day, though no evidence is presented for these claims. - Speaker 1 introduces a harsh critique of Carlson, saying he is “the most dangerous anti-Semite in America,” accusing him of aligning with those who celebrate Nazis, defend Hamas, and criticize Trump for stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The comment emphasizes that Carlson is not MAGA, and asserts a leadership role for Carlson in a modern-day Hitler youth narrative. - The dialogue between Speakers 0 and 2 (Adam King) delves into broader political positioning. Adam King says Carlson “left MAGA,” that MAGA is a big tent whereas Carlson seeks a smaller, more controlled sphere, and that Carlson is working against the Trump agenda by attempting to influence 2028 considerations. Speaker 0 counters, arguing Tucker covers a wide range of topics and remains central to the movement, not simply fixated on Israel. - There is debate about the influence of Jewish voters and donors on the 2024 campaign, with back-and-forth estimates of Jewish contributions and skepticism about the degree to which Jews will back Vance or other candidates. The participants discuss antisemitism accusations, censorship, and the difficulty of debating these topics. They criticize the idea of labeling people antisemitic as a manipulation tactic and urge more open dialogue. - The dialogue touches on the media landscape and the limits of speaking on both sides. Adam King argues for more balanced dialogue and warns that the current rhetoric—terms like “neutralize”—fuels violence. He expresses concern about online harassment of Jews and the normalization of violent language in political discourse. - There are tangential conversations about foreign influence in U.S. affairs. Adam King mentions Qatar, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and other foreign money; he cites a Newsmax report about Mamdani’s foreign funding and discusses debates over whether Qatar has a U.S. airbase or is primarily involved in training programs. The participants debate where influence truly lies, whether with Soros, the left, or other actors. - The segment ends with a mix of promotional content and entertainment, including a satirical insert about Ultra Methylene Red, a product advertised with claims about cognitive and physiological benefits, followed by fictional, humor-laden banter about “Batman” and “the Riddler” reacting to the product. In sum, the transcript captures a multi-faceted, contentious exchange over Carlson’s position in the MAGA movement, accusations of antisemitism and censorship, perceived foreign influence in U.S. politics, and the tensions within the right-wing ecosystem, all interwoven with promotional and humorous interludes.