reSee.it - Related Video Feed

US Aid created a Twitter-like platform in Cuba to promote free speech during a time when Twitter was restricted. They funneled money originally meant for Pakistan to develop this service, initially using music, sports, and hurricane updates to attract users. Once they gained around 100,000 users, the platform began to push messages encouraging them to overthrow their government, aiming to replicate the Arab Spring movements in Tunisia and Egypt. This operation raises concerns about targeting US companies and the implications of such actions.

The discussion centers on allegations that the United States has used or could use domestic and international mechanisms to effect regime change, including through domestic unrest and foreign influence operations. Speaker 0 describes a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual, framed as a vision for 2021 and beyond, that purportedly contains instructions and examples on how the military could work with the State Department, intelligence services, and USAID to use race riots to destabilize nations. He points to examples labeled as part of this manual’s guidance for destabilization via combined military-government-civilian efforts. Speaker 1 lays out a model of how revolutions are allegedly structured, starting with a government at the top and support funneled through USAID, the State Department, or other administration entities. He then describes a degree of separation through privatized NGOs, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and similar organizations, with money flowing from entities such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations through tides and government-funded NGOs like NED. He suggests money ultimately comes from the people, and that demonstrators, youth movements, a sympathetic media, and labor unions contribute to organizing protests. He outlines conditions for regime change: an unpopular incumbent, a semi-automatic regime (not fully autocratic), a united and organized opposition, the ability to quickly frame the voting results as falsified, media amplification of that falsification, an opposition capable of mobilizing thousands, and divisions among coercive forces like the military or police. He asks whether those conditions are present and implies they are. Speaker 2 cites a declassified CIA guide from 1983 aimed at training operatives to organize riots in foreign countries, including using agitators and hiring professional criminals to manipulate mass meetings, with the goal of turning general anger into violence against the regime. The guide describes creating a climate where a few hundred agitators could mobilize tens of thousands, using 200 back channels and 200 human assets to generate a 10,000–20,000 demonstration. It also notes strategies such as setting up job fairs near riots to enlist disaffected workers. He references USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), implying that “transition” is a code for regime change, and cites a 2009 congressional report warning that OTI was a foreign operation aimed at toppling governments through organized political warfare, including mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation, hospitals, and schools. Fulton Armstrong’s quote is cited regarding government secrecy surrounding such operations. The speakers conclude by condemning actions conducted in the shadows, destabilizing nations using race wars to achieve political aims, and advocating that the military be involved, arguing these efforts occur without oversight.

A member of Congress is allegedly using tactics promoted by a Harvard Ash Center partner and calling on supporters to be "strike ready," promising violent protests. This partner is the nonviolent action lab, and its leader, Erica Chenoweth, uses they/them pronouns and has ties to USAID, the State Department, and the United States Institute of Peace. Chenoweth has lectured at USAID and authored reports on nonviolent resistance, focusing on how to topple dictatorial regimes. Their research analyzes revolutions, concluding that nonviolent resistance is the most effective tactic, not due to moral objections to violence, but because it's empirically superior. Chenoweth has written extensively on topics like how to topple a dictator, the role of violence in nonviolent resistance, and terrorism. The Ash Center, despite deleting its donor list, is reportedly funded by USAID and the State Department. Chenoweth has also lectured at and consulted for the United States Institute of Peace, receiving grants to promote regime change, not just peaceful protest.

After the War on Terror, the US and UK military's counterterrorism and counterinsurgency tactics were turned against the American people after the populist revolutions of 2016. This included efforts such as Russiagate and elaborate schemes to control the truth through censorship. The Hunter Biden laptop situation demonstrated proactive influence operations and the mobilization of the intelligence community. USAID has been overseeing a takeover of independent investigative journalism in Europe and worldwide to control information. A CIA analyst's whistleblower complaint that led to President Trump's impeachment used evidence from a USAID-funded organization, OCCRP. USAID's broader strategy includes censorship and controlling investigative journalism. USAID also uses the Aspen Institute to manipulate the media's perception, exemplified by the Hunter Biden laptop case. They train NGOs to flag misinformation secretly, and strategically leak intelligence to control news publications.

- The transcript analyzes a declassified 1983 CIA guide intended to train operatives in organizing riots in foreign countries. It includes a section (Tab f) on using agitators, including hiring professional criminals to manipulate mass meetings and assemblies, which can result in general violence. The guide states that the psychological war team must develop a hostile mental attitude among target groups so that at the given moment they can turn anger into violence against the regime the CIA aims to overthrow. - The document describes recruiting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen into clusters of influence (ten teachers, ten lawyers, ten captains of industry, ten medical professionals) who will, in a gradual process, fuse their spheres of influence to form a united front at the appropriate moment. It asserts that with a force of 200 to 300 agitators, one can create a demonstration in which 10,000 to 20,000 could participate, given 200 back channels and 200 capacity-built assets. - The discussion situates this in the context of Nicaragua in 1983, noting the broader significance of 1983 as the year the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was founded and a reorganization of intelligence work through NGOs and democracy-promotion fronts. - The host emphasizes that the document was declassified only seven years ago and reviews the index of the guide, including tabs on interaction with the populace through group dynamics, armed propaganda, religious framing of guerrilla movements, political awareness of guerrillas, prohibitions on gratuitous violence, and, notably, the use of agitators and back-channel control. - The host quotes and highlights key passages: the CIA’s instruction that case officers’ psychological war teams must pre-create a hostile attitude in target groups so that their anger can be turned into violence against the regime; the instruction to create ethnic minority anger to be triggered at the right moment; and the explicit description of “arhat propaganda” and coercive tactics to build a nationwide front. - The discussion connects these findings to broader patterns of U.S. political warfare: the guide’s emphasis on “development and control of front organizations,” the concept of capacity building (capacity built assets with a back channel for control), and the division of labor among State Department, USAID, NED, and CIA to produce a deniable, layered influence network. - The host argues that development means capacity building of front organizations (universities, hospitals, media outlets, unions, etc.) and control is exerted through back channels to ensure these assets follow a political program, avoiding direct government fingerprints. - The transcript traces the alignment of soft power (USAID, NED, NGOs) with intelligence and military back channels to create and mobilize resistance movements. The host notes that the document’s framework envisions not only external interventions but also domestic applications, referencing the Transition Integrity Project (2020), which modeled a domestic color revolution around racial justice movements (e.g., Black Lives Matter) to influence political outcomes in the United States. - The host cites passages from the document about cultivating “front organizations,” the role of clergy, universities, unions, and media as assets, and the concept of back-channel control to prevent rogue activity while enabling covert support for a resistance movement. - The host draws connections between the 1983 Nicaragua operations and later U.S. domestic applications, highlighting that the same cluster-cell approach (organized by sphere of influence such as labor unions, youth groups, professional associations) is used to manipulate group objectives from within, steering the masses toward a justified violence moment. - The document’s section on “control of meetings and mass assemblies” describes covert commando elements within the resistance, including bodyguards, incident initiators, poster carriers, and slogan shouters, all under external command. It emphasizes turning peaceful protests into violence through inside elements, with the aim of provoking a police crackdown that can be used to legitimize international sanctions and justify diplomatic actions against the target government. - Throughout, the host reiterates that the guide is explicitly about political warfare and “psychological operations” with the target being the minds of the population, the troops, and the civil population, and that it frames the mass movement as something to be guided and provoked from within by a controlled network of trained operatives.

USAID and State Department officials are allegedly using skills developed over decades to undermine Trump's power, according to anonymous and on-the-record sources. These officials, some currently employed by the federal government, are reportedly frustrated after the disbanding of USAID and are now engaging in "minor acts of rebellion" within the office, aiming for a nationwide general strike. They are allegedly hosting secret workshops promoting "noncooperation" and circulating a CIA pamphlet called "Simple Sabotage." The speaker claims foreign interventionism has been a training ground for tactics now deployed domestically. This apparatus, funded by taxpayer dollars to influence foreign elections, is now being turned inward. A new group called Democracy Aid is holding invite-only workshops for federal employees, shifting from salvaging foreign assistance to redeploying it inside the U.S. The Brennan Center, linked to Judge Mershon's daughter and funded by Soros, released a poll about election officials fearing politically motivated investigations. Norm Eisen, an architect of USAID and State Department color revolutions, is allegedly behind a lawsuit challenging Trump's policies on birthright citizenship.

Speaker 0 describes a scandal during the Obama-era USAID operations in Cuba, stating that rogue activities were run and that the aim is to reveal to the American people where tax dollars are going and how programs are structured to fool Congress and the White House. Key points: - Zunzanillo was an online social networking microblogging service created by USAID and marketed to Cuban users. It was a Twitter-like platform with the same user interface and like/retweet features, referred to in Cuban slang as the “bird.” The operation spanned roughly 2009–2014. - USAID invested about $1,200,000,000 in promoting Arab Spring–style social media revolutions, funding activist groups and civil society organizations to learn to use Facebook, Twitter, hashtags, and to coordinate street protests to topple governments. - Because Cuba did not allow US social media, the operation recreated a Cuban-looking Twitter-like service. The project began in 2010, using funds concealed as humanitarian aid for Pakistan, even though Cuba is not near Pakistan. The main contractor was Creative Associates International (CAI), with CAI designing the network. - The funds were concealed in the budget as humanitarian aid for Pakistan, routed through front companies using Cayman Islands bank accounts, and recruiting business executives who were not told of ties to the US government, according to the AP. - The network reached about 60,000 Cuban subscribers. The initiative reportedly included a surveillance dimension, building a vast database of Cuban subscribers (gender, age, political tendencies) that could be used for political purposes. The data were to be used for micro-targeting anti- and pro-government users. - Initial content would be noncontroversial, focusing on sports, music, and hurricane updates. The internal plan was to lure users in with these topics, then, once a critical mass was reached, gradually introduce political messages via social bots to encourage dissent and organize “smart mobs” or rental riots. - The strategy mirrored tactics used in Egypt and Tunisia, aiming to trigger a Cuban spring and “renegotiate the balance of power between state and society.” The Guardian has a detailed piece on this, describing the internal files that outlined luring Cubans with music, sports, and hurricane updates before pushing political content. - To conceal involvement, the operation reportedly used Cayman Islands front companies and designated funds as humanitarian aid, raising questions about US fingerprints. The discussion suggests this approach raises diplomatic blowback concerns and implies a preference for formal intelligence agencies in such operations. The speaker emphasizes that the material shows how the programs were structured to influence Cuba, how funds were misrepresented, and how data collection and targeted messaging were planned for political outcomes, reminding listeners of the broader implications for US statecraft.

We have manuals and SOPs on how to use individuals to stir up rivalries between tribes in places like Afghanistan. Special operations can manipulate someone with radical ideologies to incite violence between villages. This tactic is not uncommon and has been successful worldwide. Utilizing individuals as "village idiots" to create chaos is a known strategy in our government. Former members agree with this approach.

During the Obama era, this was a scandal about rogue USAID operations in Cuba. Zunzanillo, an online social networking microblogging service created by USAID and marketed to Cuban users, ran from 02/2009 to 02/2014 as a Cuban Twitter clone; the network reached about 60,000 Cuban subscribers. USAID and the State Department pumped $1,200,000,000 to sponsor activist groups to learn Facebook, Twitter, hashtags, and how to coordinate protests, aiming to spark Arab Spring–style social media revolutions. Funds were concealed as humanitarian funds designated for Pakistan; contractors funded by USAID, main contractor Creative Associates International, designed the network and used a Byzantine system of front companies with Cayman Islands bank accounts, recruiting unsuspecting executives, “according to the AP.” Data would be used for micro targeting towards anti and pro government users in Cuba, building a vast database of Cuban Zunzanillo subscribers, including gender, age, and receptiveness and political tendencies. Initial content included “noncontroversial” sports, music, and hurricane updates; once subscriber mass was reached, political messages via social bots would be introduced to encourage dissent in this astroturfing, aiming to organize “smart mobs” and mass gatherings to topple the regime—“renegotiate the balance of power between state and society.” Guardian coverage and internal documents describe the plan, noting “this is classic CIA work.” If US fingerprints risk diplomatic blowback, “we need a formal intelligence agency.”

"This was a scandal, during Obama the Obama USAID, era." "Now we were running a number of of rogue USAID operations in Cuba at the time." "This is an online social social networking microblogging service created by USAID and marketed to Cuban users." "This was a Twitter knockoff." "02/2009, 02/2014." "they took funds, millions of dollars of funds that were concealed as humanitarian funds designated for Pakistan." "The network dubbed the Cuban Twitter reached about 60,000 Cuban subscribers." "The data would then be used for micro targeting efforts towards anti and pro government users in Cuba." "Once they hit a critical mass, they would begin to introduce political messages through social bots and encourage dissent in this astroturfing." "There would be 'smart mobs' and rental riots." "If something has diplomatic blowback and we don't want US fingerprints on it, we need a formal intelligence agency because there's diplomatic blowback."

Remember during COVID and the George Floyd protests? It seemed like money was being poured in to create outrage and destabilize the country in 2020, even though it felt artificial. It started after President Trump's inauguration with the pink hats, then transitioned into BLM and Antifa. The funding behind all of this seemed suspicious. Recently, we discovered USAID is one source. And just wait until we get to the Department of Defense and other departments! We've only scratched the surface of where this money is coming from.

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.

In 2021, US Special Forces outlined a manual for orchestrating a rental riot to destabilize a country for negotiation. An example in West Africa involved a social media campaign to incite labor strikes against Chinese investments. This tactic aimed to pressure the government to reject Chinese development projects. The goal was to force concessions through destabilization rather than military conflict. This strategy is part of current US diplomatic efforts.

Speaker 0 says he began in 2020 to combine the most successful coup fighters with experts who helped study or defeat autocracy internationally, visiting Hungary, Poland, Brazil, Czech Republic, and forming a plan over four years. "twice as many protests in 2025 as there were in 2021." Speaker 2 outlines Norm Eisen’s "democracy playbook" with seven pillars: "controlling elections, controlling the courts, fighting corruption, basically, painting Trump as an autocrat, reinforcing civic and media space," and pillar six: "controlling disinformation," noting that "states may find partners in allied regulators over social media such as the EU and Brazil." Eisen recruited people for his new blob shop from folks who overturned basically regimes that he called autocratic. "All these people get paid to fight autocracy abroad through the State Department, USAID, the US Institute of Peace, the Department of Defense, Civil Military." The playbook cites USAID "37 times," funding "media allies for the blob" and projects like "the corruption reporting project in Ukraine" and "a billion dollar USAID loan guarantee" to remove Victor Shokin. It also discusses "designating elections as critical infrastructure" and a "slush fund" to pay state secretaries, plus "strategic non cooperation."

In 2021, the U.S. military, under Mark Milley, outlined a strategy for destabilizing a country to bring it to negotiations. In a hypothetical scenario involving a West African nation, U.S. special forces noticed a Chinese investment billboard linked to a naval port project. They coordinated with the State Department and intelligence services to create social media campaigns that incited labor unions against Chinese companies employing locals. The plan involved persuading the local government to deny the Chinese development license. When that failed, they aimed to generate unrest to halt Chinese operations, while offering U.S. aid to striking workers. This strategy was deemed successful when the West African government ultimately rejected the Chinese project. The approach reflects U.S. diplomatic tactics in 2021, which may also relate to current tensions involving Russia and Ukraine.

Initially, USAID was created with good intentions. However, the agency has broken the trust with the American people and hasn't been transparent about where our taxpayer dollars are going. In 2021, the special operations command put out an instruction manual with instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots in order to destabilize nations. They also advocated for setting up job fairs near some of these riots so that disaffected workers could gain employment. These operations are taking place without government oversight, without the authority of the president, without the authority of congress. USAID needs to condemn this and provide oversight to congress on exactly where our tax dollars are going. Do you agree that this is wrong?

The CIA recruits established citizens—doctors, attorneys, businessmen, teachers—as "social crusaders" for a political group to topple governments via paramilitary action. These individuals maintain their influence, recruiting others within their respective fields into an alliance supporting the CIA-backed group. Teachers' unions are controlled to influence education, curriculum, and propaganda, enabling government disruption through walkouts and strikes. Cluster cells of influential individuals in each sector work within their spheres, uniting at the appropriate time. This structure ensures that even seemingly insignificant recruits contribute to a larger effort. The Transition Integrity Project's guide highlights using BLM street muscle to stop Trump, even after an election win. The plan involved supporting new racial justice leaders, not movements, to control them through back channels. This strategy mirrors Operation Gladio and the Integrity Initiative, using cluster cells across industries and countries for censorship and narrative control. The CIA's psychological operations guide details controlling mass assemblies by using covert commandos, bodyguards, and "incident initiators" to escalate peaceful protests into violence. The goal is to manipulate groups into a "fury of justified violence" against their own government, using a small group of agitators to incite large-scale riots and provoke government crackdowns, justifying international sanctions and diplomatic action.

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.

In 2021, under Mark Milley, the U.S. military developed a manual for destabilizing countries to bring them to negotiations. A hypothetical scenario involved a West African nation where U.S. special forces noticed a Chinese investment in a naval port. The plan included coordinating with the State Department and intelligence services to create unrest by inflaming labor union sentiments against Chinese companies. They aimed to halt Chinese operations, causing economic instability while providing U.S. aid to striking workers. This strategy was intended to pressure the West African government to reject the Chinese development license, which was deemed a success by U.S. forces. This approach exemplifies a method of diplomacy that raises concerns about potential escalation, such as the current missile attacks and CIA operations near Russia, which could provoke further conflict.

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.

Here are examples of instruction manuals one and two, used to destabilize nations. In addition, they advocated for setting up job fairs near some of these sites so that disaffected workers could gain employment. As a member of Congress, I have to ask, did anyone in USAID get elected to Congress or to the presidency? When you're acting in the shadows and destabilizing nations using race wars, and then advocating that the military does it, you put future generations that would have to fight in those wars in jeopardy. Ultimately, you're operating without any oversight.

In 2021, US Special Forces outlined a manual on organizing rental riots to destabilize a country for negotiation. An example in West Africa involved a social media campaign to incite labor strikes against Chinese investments. The goal was to pressure the government to reject Chinese development projects. This strategy involved coordination with the State Department, intelligence services, and USAID to offer alternative jobs to striking workers. The end goal was to force the country to the negotiating table. This approach is seen as a form of diplomacy in 2021.

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.

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.