reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Norm Eisen, former US ambassador and legal figure, described the Trump administration as an autocratic regime and suggested using tools designed to displace such regimes via "people powered revolutions." Eisen, who spearheaded lawfare against Trump, from impeachments to Ukraine affairs, also ran a group that sued the Trump administration hundreds of times. He wrote a playbook on orchestrating color revolutions against populist movements in Europe while at the Brookings Institution. Eisen is now advocating applying that same playbook domestically, emphasizing a legal and media fight to win hearts and minds. A concerning warning sign is the element of on-the-street action, which is a fundamental part of these color revolutions. This destabilizes countries and provides a veneer of democratic uprising against an autocratic government.

Successful covert influence campaigns don't create societal fractures. Instead, they identify pre-existing fractures and exploit them to further divide populations. This exploitation of existing divisions is presented as an "iron law of physics" governing covert influence.

China nearly met this fate during the 1980s as George Soros enjoyed vast control over China's economy and found a loyal Chinese devotee in Zhao Jiang, who became premier from 1980 to 1987 and, from 1987 to 1989, chairman of the Communist Party of China. In 1986, Zhao sponsored the first of two Soros-run think tanks with the fund for the reform and opening up of China, using a million dollar grant by Soros, followed by the Institute for Economic and Structural Reform co-run by Zhao’s close advisor Chen Yizhi. Zhao also ensured thousands of young Chinese were given scholarships to receive indoctrination into Milton Friedman’s ideology within western universities, where they were expected to return to oversee China’s inevitable perestroika as a new technocratic managerial class. All that was needed was a revolutionary shock to break the hold of China’s nationalists and force Zhao Jiang into a Pinochet-like position of dictator and privatizer who would force his nation into the IMF clutches. It was here that the CIA’s James Lilly, Ambassador to China, the National Endowment for Democracy, and George Soros deployed all of their resources to activate a full-blown color revolution on 06/04/1989, with student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square bursting into violence. What began as peaceful protests were soon infused with violent provocateurs, and efforts at peaceful dialogue were sabotaged by thousands of Molotov cocktails and dozens of unarmed Chinese soldiers who were hanged and lit on fire. Needless to say, unlike the cases of Hungary, the Philippines, or Russia, this coup d’etat failed to achieve its goals. In the wake of this attempt at a color revolution, China’s leadership immediately removed Zhao Jiang from power, placed him under house arrest for life, and arrested his leading cohorts. China also lost no time shutting down Soros’ Open Society Foundations and banned the financial terrorist for life. With the vast assistance of Hong Kong triads, the CIA and MI6 arranged Operation Yellowbird, which funneled these Western provocateurs and Soros assets out of China, where many received luxurious rewards and scholarships at Ivy League universities in the USA, forming what the Washington Post’s Gavin Hewitt described as the nucleus of a democracy movement in exile.

Amidst tributes and flowers, armed men with questionable symbols and far-right graffiti are seen in the square. Ordinary Australians, including students, doctors, workers, and families, played a significant role in bringing down the government. However, a small number of far-right groups were the most organized and effective, often being the loudest and most violent during confrontations with the police. The largest group, called the right sector, can be seen marching in Kiev with baseball bats and sometimes guns. We encountered some members posing for pictures near their burnt-out headquarters and asked about their political beliefs.

- The discussion centers on the Strait of Hormuz and the insurance aspect of shipping, including Lloyd’s of London and war-risk premiums, in the context of U.S. assurances to backstop insurance for ships transiting the strait. - Speaker 1 asserts that oligarchs at the top of global power structures originated in industries like insurance and banking, and historically use insurance to manage or erase liabilities when they wish to rebuild or replace assets. He cites asbestos abatement costs as a driver for rebuilding by burning down structures, with insurance stepping in to cover losses. - The conversation emphasizes that Lloyd’s of London has traditionally extended coverage in wartime, merely raising premiums, and contrasts this with the current situation, where Lloyd’s reportedly refuses to insure ships through the Strait of Hormuz. This is presented as unusual and indicative of a strategic shift. - The link between insurance and intelligence is highlighted: Lloyd’s and the Crown/MI6 allegedly have a close relationship, with insurance networks serving as a conduit for intelligence operations. The transition from a prewar structure (CV Star in Asia) to what is now AIG is discussed, with implications that insurance entities act as intelligence arms. - The UK’s stance is explored: Britain staying out of certain actions and not allowing U.S. bases signals a preference to maintain Iran as a regional counterbalance, preserving a strategic environment that benefits long-standing power dynamics. - A historical arc is drawn: after the 1953 Iranian coup, MI6, the CIA, and Mossad allegedly supported the SABAK (later the Republican Guard) to create a state security apparatus used to sustain a regime of tension. A legitimate government in Iran is portrayed as potentially destabilizing for those who profit from ongoing regional turmoil. - The strategy of tension is defined as creating chaos to implement control structures. The discussion outlines how external powers historically identify domestic fault lines (e.g., Shia, Ba’athists, Kurds) and stage false-flag incidents to justify regime change and sustain instability and influence. - The conversation extends to sleeper cells and “stay-behind” operations, arguing that the CIA has recruited and relocated personnel globally, including into the United States, via refugee programs and covert channels. Examples cited include links to prominent figures and longstanding patterns of CIA-backed displacement and recruitment. - The speakers connect these mechanisms to broader domestic turmoil, suggesting that refugee movements and urban unrest in places like Chicago and Minnesota are part of a deliberate plan to perpetuate chaos for geopolitical and financial ends. - The forum signals an upcoming discussion with Colonel Towner Watkins about Iran’s endgame and potential spirals of chaos, following the break.

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.

- 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.

Speaker 0 describes the situation as not a lone incident but an intentional design to start an internal component of what he calls a color revolution, one among many to expect. Speaker 1 asks for clarification on what is meant by a color revolution, who is driving it against the United States, and who is in charge. Speaker 0 replies that a hard look back to 2016 under Obama is necessary and believes Obama is still in the mix, with John Brennan as the operational commander on the battlefield in the United States. He says there are indicators from Brennan’s statements and actions, and that Obama is part of the command structure. He mentions an international component he calls the axis of resistance, consisting of communists emanating from the CCP’s control and communists inside the United States, arguing that there are communists in Congress who voted in 1992 not to vote against socialism. He adds Islamists, narco cartels, and terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, and the Cartel del Sol as part of this axis, with people at the “pincer” of it organizing and controlling the activities. He asserts the color revolutions in Ukraine as an example and claims the war there is a “total loser war” that must end. He says Trump must tell his team to ensure executive orders are implemented at all levels and emphasizes the phrase, “lawyers advise, leaders decide,” urging President Trump to gather all relevant agencies (CIA, DNI, Sec War, Sec State, Sec Commerce, and especially the Secretary of Homeland Security) and make a decision. He states that the color revolution is a long-term effort that accelerated after Trump’s 2016 victory, with ongoing actions described as economic warfare, cyber warfare, and political interference. He cites the New Virginia Majority, a communist movement inside the United States aiming to place communists in local government and school boards, and mentions contrived cultural shifts including Islamification in various parts of the country, including Florida, Dearborn, and Houston. He asserts Islam is not compatible with Christianity and Sharia law is not compatible with constitutional law. Speaker 1 agrees there were people who served their country; she supports removing those who served but opposes letting any of them into the United States, emphasizing a different culture. Speaker 2 agrees. Speaker 1 notes the large Muslim population spread across many regions, suggesting others could have taken Afghan refugees, but questions the appropriateness of bringing them in. Speaker 2 states it is not surprising that a CIA-trained individual who previously appeared untroubled could appear in Washington, D.C. to shoot at troops, and explains a broader pattern: old-school descendants became part of a strike force, loyal at one time but funded and equipped by the U.S., who were later abandoned during the Obama–Biden period. He describes withdrawal from bases and overnight equipment removal, followed by a lack of transition to self-sufficiency, leading to brought-in desperate fighters who may be paid to kill National Guard members. He asserts these events demonstrate a deep state pattern involving Biden, Obama, and Brennan.

The speaker describes how on-the-spot protests unfold, arguing that protests that appear to erupt immediately after events, and often seem spontaneous, are in fact not organic or unplanned. According to the speaker, such demonstrations can be initiated without the traditional apparatus of organizers, music, bullhorns, or large gatherings that are typically associated with coordinated protests. Instead, the speaker notes that trucks are being loaded to depart after the protest, suggesting a premeditated or at least organized behind-the-scenes workflow that enables these protests to occur with apparent immediacy. The speaker then identifies the groups involved in the protest activity behind them. The groups named are the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Democratic Socialists of America, and a few looser organizations described as Revolutionary Communists for America. The speaker asserts that these groups, together, are responsible for the protests and the organizing of the demonstrations. A central claim of the speaker is that none of the protests seen are organic contributions arising spontaneously from local populations. Instead, the protests are characterized as well organized, implying a level of planning and coordination beyond what the public perceives. The assertion extends to the source of this organization, suggesting that the readiness and capability to mobilize protests come from structured planning and networks rather than spontaneous public sentiment alone. Building on the claim of organization, the speaker posits that the effective mobilization of these protests is supported by funding. The funding is described as coming through various campaigns, with two described pathways: foreign influence campaigns and domestic political campaigns, specifically mentioning Democrat campaigns as potential sources of financial support. The speaker implies that such funding enables the rapid deployment and execution of protest activities. In summary, the speaker contends that the protests observed after events are not spontaneously generated but are the result of deliberate organization by specific political groups, with notable involvement from the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Democratic Socialists of America, and Revolutionary Communists for America. The speaker emphasizes that these protests are well funded through campaigns, including foreign influence efforts or Democratic campaigns, which facilitates their ability to mobilize quickly and appear as if they are happening organically.

Speaker 0 explains that Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia in the late 90s served as an authoritarian ruler, and presents Milosevic as a model for Americans to study. He notes that an unlikely alliance of students, unions, coal miners, police, public housing residents, businesspeople, and others used all the mechanisms of power to undermine Milosevic, achieving this with almost no violence. He mentions the documentary Bringing Down a Dictator as a resource that illustrates this process; he hasn’t watched it but plans to. The film is on YouTube, about 55 minutes long, and focuses on a group called ATPORE, a student-run organization that galvanized the country and pressured various unlikely partners to act. The documentary is narrated by Martin Sheen and includes a march on the Capitol Building to keep an election going, which creates some confusion but is described as inspiring. Speaker 1 adds that the revolution consultants follow a specific strategy developed by the Serbian organization Otpor. Otpor mobilized millions of people to bring about Milosevic’s downfall, and their strategy became a blueprint for others.

In a coup situation, one way to chip away at the systems maintaining power is to take over a local TV station to broadcast a call for people to join. In New York, three antennas control all telecommunications. It's important to consider what communication systems "we" have versus "them." The speaker advocates getting ahead of potential issues by organizing resources and knowing what actions to take so that "we" can deploy rapidly.

The speaker explains that spontaneous protests—those that appear immediately after an event—are not organic or spontaneous in the sense of arising without planning. Instead, they are described as being planned and coordinated in advance. As the speaker notes, what is happening behind them involves people loading their trucks to depart after the protest, indicating that the action is organized and time-bound rather than a casual, impromptu gathering. The speaker identifies the organizations involved in these protests, listing a coalition that includes the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Democrat Socialists of America, and a few smaller, loosely connected groups such as Revolutionary Communists for America. The implication is that a network of leftist and socialist organizations collaborates to stage protests, suggesting a broader structure behind what might appear as spontaneous demonstrations. A central claim presented is that these protests, which are often visible right after a triggering event, owe their existence to organization and coordination rather than being independent, grassroots activities. The speaker emphasizes that because they are well organized, these protests are also well funded. The funding, according to the speaker, comes from various campaigns, including possible foreign influence campaigns and Democratic campaigns. This point is presented as a causal factor in how quickly and effectively protests can be mounted in response to events. In summary, the speaker portrays a view of contemporary protests as the product of deliberate organization and financial support from multiple sources, rather than isolated, spontaneous expressions. The behind-the-scenes activity—such as loading trucks to leave after the protest—serves to illustrate the planned nature of these demonstrations. The presence of the named organizations (Party for Socialism and Liberation, Democrat Socialists of America, and Revolutionary Communists for America) is highlighted as indicative of a coordinated network contributing to the protests. The speaker’s overarching assertion is that the rapid mobilization of protests following events is enabled by these organized networks and funding streams, which shape the way demonstrations unfold and are sustained in the immediate aftermath.

Darren Beatty, a former speechwriter for President Trump, explains that what is happening in the current election is a specific type of coup called a color revolution. This regime change model, favored by US national security apparatus, involves engineered contested elections and massive mobilized protests. The same strategies and tactics used against Trump are also used against Eastern European dictators. One key figure in this operation is Norm Eisen, a Democrat operative and former Obama ethics czar. Eisen is the author of a Color Revolution Playbook and has been involved in numerous efforts to censor, sue, impeach, and overthrow the president. He plans to use lawfare to overturn the 2020 election.

The people committing violence are not the same ones peacefully protesting immigration enforcement. The violent individuals wear hoodies and face masks, using similar tactics across different civil unrest situations. They are connected, and some might call them anarchists. Many of these individuals come from other places specifically to hurt people and cause havoc.

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.

Speaker 1: "a couple thousand people." The country was "Millions. 25, 50,000,000." How could a couple thousand take over? "People didn't respond"—they thought it would blow over. "One building" housed the entire Bolshevik party; "one building could have saved all of Russia, all of the people. No gulags, no Solzhenitsyn, none of it. No Red Terror, etcetera." The czars faced "Equal parts pride and fear." They believed "There's no way that these rebel rousers are going to provide an actual threat," and then "blood" followed. The pattern: "operational preparation of the environment" (OPE). First stage: "separation"—oppressed and oppressors; Lenin and the "coalition of the fringes" building. Then "Soviet" to Soviet—"councils of workers and factories"—not millions. Then "messaging"—"peace, land, bread" and "mass formation hypnosis" to unite; "infiltrate" key institutions; stage of revolution. "September '17."

Revolutions are set up with a semi-autocratic regime, an unpopular leader, organized opposition, media exposing falsified votes, mobilized demonstrators, and divided coercive forces. This pattern aligns with national elections, as seen in recent protest movements every 4 years.

Speaker 0 presents the argument that what is unfolding in the United States is a color revolution, described as a communist globalist playbook to take over a country without tanks, previously used in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and others. The speaker outlines the four-step manual: 1) demonize the leader of the people who were voted for; 2) flood the country with chaos such as riots, open borders, and economic pain; 3) weaponize the courts, the media, and big tech to finish him off; 4) install a puppet who sells the country out to China and the UN. Applying this to the United States, the speaker cites events from 2016 to 2020: the Russia collusion hoax, FBI spying, two fake impeachments, Antifa rioting with coverage described as “fiery but mostly peaceful” by CNN, and the aim of making people hate the voted-for leader. In 2020, the speaker alleges two ballot dumps, boarded-up windows, 51 intel agents lying about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and Zuckerberg spending $400,000,000 to help count votes in Democrat cities, with the goal of stealing the election while labeling dissent as conspiracy theory. From 2021 to 2024, the speaker asserts Biden opened the border on day one, bringing over 12,000,000 illegals, including military-age men from China and Venezuela, with free flights, hotels, and EBT cards, all at American expense. The resulting consequences are claimed as city collapse, rising crime, and strained schools and hospitals, with the goal of making Americans feel like strangers in their own country. From 2021 to 2025, the speaker lists 91 felony charges, the Mar-a-Lago raid, gag orders, and mugshots, arguing the intent was not merely to defeat Trump but to break him and other patriots who challenge the system. The treatment of Charlie Kirk is cited as a textbook color revolution. On 11/05/2024, the speaker proclaims the American people delivered a counterrevolution: 312 electoral votes, a popular vote landslide, and unprecedented turnout among Hispanic and Black Republicans, described as the greatest peaceful counterrevolution in world history. The speaker notes that the same “snakes” who funded BLM riots, the Ukraine coup, and the Arab Spring still sit in the FBI, CIA, big tech, and universities, and warns they will try again in 2026 or 2028, asserting that every time there is another mostly peaceful riot, a new crisis before an election, and a wave of experts using scripted language, you are witnessing the Color Revolution Playbook live on American soil. The message concludes with reminders of past attempts such as back mass deportations and border failures, urging continued defense of the border, teaching children the truth, and supporting the president to take all necessary measures to restore the republic. The speaker ends with blessings for the United States of America.

Color revolutions exhibit subtle patterns that reveal their true nature. To unify crowds, organizers use symbolism effectively, employing similar names and logos for revolutionary groups. These groups often appear aware and active but are actually trained radicals who initiate violence, transforming peaceful protests into coups. Their influence is evident across various color revolutions. They utilize simple tools like catchy songs and chants to energize crowds and foster a collective identity.

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.

Power is dispersed in society and concentrated in pillars of support, which are organizations and institutions that provide the necessary resources for those in power to stay in power. These pillars consist of ordinary people who contribute expertise, labor, and buying power. If people in these pillars withhold their cooperation and engage in nonviolent tactics like protests and strikes, rulers cannot maintain power, as seen in cases like the Philippines, Serbia, Ukraine, and Sudan. The loyalty of individuals within these pillars varies, with those closer to the center being more obedient. The goal of effective people power is to shift loyalties and bring people from the center to the outside. Bureaucracy is a powerful pillar, with federal workers having knowledge and influence over policies.