TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Governor Tim Walsh of Minnesota allowed cities to burn during George Floyd protests. Black Lives Matter and Antifa were involved. Police were told to stand down. Residents had to protect themselves. Kamala Harris supported bail funds for protesters. They are working together to destroy America.

Speaker 0: This is not just a story about violence and chaos; this is a money story. At the Government Accountability Institute, Peter Schweitzer and I followed the money to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc. We found a network of NGOs—not just the Soros/Open Society network, but also the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash, and other big left-wing funders, including Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. They’re pouring money into this ecosystem. Here are three money facts about Riot Inc. Number one: Riot Inc. has many divisions like any corporation. It doesn’t just have the Antifa boots on the ground division; it has PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a well-funded legal division to get these boots back on the ground as quickly as possible. It has investors I mentioned. Number two: We have identified dozens of radical organizations—not just decentralized Antifa groups, but dozens of radical organizations—that have received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors. These include lawyer groups and groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists, etc. Number three: More than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves. There was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City; over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money for that from both the billionaire class and taxpayer money. Additionally, this money helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms that support Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork (which had links to the ICE facility attack), the Socialist Rifle Association, and others. Even though some groups don’t have LLCs or EIN numbers, they can still get paid. Some funding platforms are funded by this network that we call Riot Inc. Speaker 1: Do you know the name of any of the funders? Do you know the names? Because if you do, I’d like you to give them to Cash or Pam—or Christie? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Or Christie? Speaker 0: Yes, we’ll do that. Speaker 1: As soon as you can. That’s all of you. Because you probably know the names after a certain period of time, you tend to find out. But these are people that do not have good intention for the country and that’s treasonous probably. So if you could, it would be very important if you could do that, it would be great. Speaker 0: it

The transcript centers on allegations that Naftali Aaron Kranz is a paid protester and that a group called GetFree recruits and deploys paid demonstrators. A journalist questions whether there is someone they can speak to, and the conversation suggests the person of interest is on the other side of a park. The speaker asserts that Naftali Aaron Kranz is “a paid protester through and through,” and that he posts on LinkedIn to hire paid protesters for GetFree, a company advertising itself as a grassroots organization while paying people to protest. GetFree is described as hiring for part-time mobilization support contractors, seeking individuals with four-plus years of experience in leading direct action, large-scale mobilizations, demonstrations, and civil disobedience (which is described as experience getting arrested). Compensation is reportedly 3,500 to 4,200 dollars per month for an average of twenty hours per week. The speaker claims GetFree’s stated mission is to undo white supremacy, despite the assertion that Kranz and others are paid to protest. The narrative highlights Kranz’s participation in protests, including celebrating vandalism, with an example cited of “Crown Heights stay winning” after an egg was thrown at a stranger’s cyber truck and dog feces placed on it. The speaker places Kranz at an abolish-the-police rally, noting he is not leading the protest but blending in with recruits, enabling a later photo op. The claim is that this recruitment tactic blends various leftist causes to inflate the appearance of each individual cause. The speaker also states Kranz works with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and was encountered at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. LinkedIn activity is cited again, with Kranz posting about paid protester roles and recruiting nationwide in Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore to expand turnout at events. When clicking a linked job posting, the contract is described as nine weeks, part-time, paying about 3,400 dollars in stipends issued biweekly, with responsibilities including recruiting and training people to drive turnout. The speaker identifies Nicole Cardi at the top of the Get Free movement and attributes a belief that George Floyd protests were a factor in Biden’s 2020 victory. The transcript connects protest NGOs to political goals, claiming donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the Department of Justice is investigating for foreign contributions. It also asserts ActBlue funds activists like Indivisible Twin Cities, which allegedly orchestrates resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis and has been paid protesters, receiving over 7.6 million dollars from Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros. The speaker concludes with a personal note to stay away, and the journalist states they have to go.

An individual claims they were offered $200 a day by an organization called No Kings to protest ICE in New York on June 14. The instructions allegedly involved causing chaotic disruptions in specific streets, with pallets of bricks available for protesters to use. The speaker believes this is unpatriotic and suggests the organization wants to wreak havoc. They speculate that wealthy individuals are funding these protests, possibly to remove Trump from power. The speaker asserts that while they need money, they will not participate, but others will be tempted to destroy the city for the payment. They believe the situation reveals corruption at the highest levels.

The speaker claims that the Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots, the antisemitic riots after October 7, and current pro-illegal immigration protests are not organic, but funded by radicals, Marxists, and jihadists. These groups are allegedly funding violence and extremism. The speaker has introduced the Stop Funders Act, which adds rioting to the list of predicate crimes under RICO. This would allow federal prosecutors to target those who are financially supporting these activities. The speaker suggests that the Department of Justice should follow the money and prosecute those funding violence, harassment, and actions aimed at tearing down the country. The speaker believes that those funding these attacks on America are more dangerous than the mafia.

Someone is financing the armor and face shields used in attempts to infiltrate and occupy federal buildings. Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice are investigating the source of this funding. The speaker asserts that under the Trump administration, such anarchy will not be tolerated. They state the administration will not allow federal agents to be attacked, nor an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy, characterizing the perpetrators as such.

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.

People need to start taking to the streets because this is a dictatorship. There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. The biggest terror threat in this country is white men. They're not going to stop before election day in November, and they're not going to stop after election day. If you think things are bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet. The speaker doesn't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country.

The speakers discuss how COVID lockdowns and the George Floyd protests created a perfect storm, alleging certain groups encouraged, organized, and funded the unrest, even providing pallets of bricks. They claim these groups profited by pushing new laws, tightening censorship, and controlling social media, funded by tax money filtered through NGOs. They believe the events of the last four years revealed how many people are easily coerced and how unscrupulous groups in power will exploit people for profit and control. They assert that these groups use progressive or other guises to rationalize behavior that undermines the principles the Founding Fathers fought against. The speakers also discuss the concept of the "deep state," citing examples like the Kennedy files and a specific incident involving a rangefinder, suggesting organized cover-ups and hidden agendas. They question why certain information remains unreleased after many years, implying the public may not be ready for the truth.

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.

The discussion centers on the complex relationship between U.S. foreign policy and domestic impacts, particularly through agencies like USAID. It highlights how USAID funds various initiatives that often lead to unintended consequences, such as destabilizing foreign governments while simultaneously affecting American citizens. The conversation touches on the troubling nature of funding organizations that promote censorship and social unrest, drawing parallels between foreign operations and domestic issues like the Black Lives Matter movement. There is a call for reform, emphasizing the need for accountability and transparency in how taxpayer money is used abroad, with suggestions for legislative changes to prevent misuse and ensure that U.S. interests are genuinely served. The overarching theme is the necessity of aligning foreign policy with the well-being of American citizens.

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.

We followed the money to what is described as the protest industrial complex, referred to as Riot Inc., and to a network of NGOs funding it. The network includes not only the Soros/Open Society network but also the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash, and other large left-leaning funders, with some participants not citizens of the United States. Mr. Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland is cited as recognizing this international funding flow into the ecosystem. Three money facts are shared about Riot Inc. First, Riot Inc. operates like a corporation with multiple divisions beyond the visible “Antifa boots on the ground” unit, including PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a well-funded legal division designed to keep these boots on the ground on the streets as quickly as possible, in addition to the investors previously mentioned. Second, dozens of radical organizations have received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors. These include lawyer groups and other organizations that advocate for portraying good, honest Americans as fascists, among other activities. Third, more than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, with at least $4,000,000 directed to the groups themselves (not only Antifa-type groups). An example cited is an Atlanta event called Stop Cop City, where over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism, and these groups reportedly received money from both billionaire donors and taxpayer funds. The speaker notes that this money also supports decentralized crowdfunding platforms, which facilitate funding for groups such as Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork (linked to the attack on the ice facility), and the Socialist Rifle Association. The absence of LLCs or EIN numbers for some of these groups does not prevent them from getting paid. Crowdfunding platforms are funded by the network identified as Riot Inc., enabling these groups to receive funds despite organizational formalities. The speaker concludes by thanking leadership and promising to continue following the money, emphasizing the cabinet’s leadership in this effort.

Speaker 0 frames this as “a money story” and says, at the Government Accountability Institute, they followed the money to the top of what they call the protest industrial complex, “Riot Inc.” They identified a network of NGOs beyond the Soros/Open Society network—“the Arabella funding network, the Tides funding network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash”—and other “big left wing funders” like Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. He shares three money facts: 1) Riot Inc. “has many divisions... not just the Antifa boots on the ground division. It has PR divisions, it has marketing divisions, it has a very well funded legal division to get these boots on the ground back on the streets as quickly as possible.” 2) Dozens of radical organizations have received more than $100,000,000 from the Riot Inc. Investors, including groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists. 3) More than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves; Stop Cop City in Atlanta; over 60 rioters charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money from both billionaire class and taxpayer money; money funds decentralized crowdfunding platforms; Antifa, John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork, Socialist Rifle Association; lack of LLCs or EINs doesn't mean they can't get paid. “Absolutely”—we’ll share the names of funders; “As soon as you can.” That’s all of you... “treasonous probably.”

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.

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?

There is a call to confront congresspeople and address the issue of domestic enemies at the White House and in Congress. The speaker criticizes Democrats for ignoring the problem, citing a significant increase in shootings in New York City and Los Angeles. They commend Eric Garcetti for his actions. The speaker mentions a block party in Seattle that has resulted in violence, including murders, shootings, rape, and robbery. They advocate for the complete dismantling of the Minneapolis police department and a revolution to establish a new communist world, without waiting for the next election.

A group of public interest organizations and lawmakers are quietly planning to prevent former President Trump from pressuring the US military to carry out his political agenda. The concern is that this could undermine civilian control of the government. The article specifically mentions Trump potentially using the military to suppress domestic protests, similar to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The groups involved in this plan were also involved in previous protests against Trump. The fear is that if Trump were to win the election, these tactics would be used to destabilize his entire term and prevent him from stopping protests, even if they turned violent or occupied federal buildings. The speaker warns people to watch a movie about the Serbian revolution to understand how these tactics work.

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.

A journalist asks if there’s someone who can be spoken to about hearing, and is directed to the other side of the park. The exchange turns into a broader set of allegations about a man named Naftali Aaron Kranz and the organization Get Free. The speaker claims Naftali Kranz is a paid protester through Get Free. They present LinkedIn posts recruiting for paid protesters for the company, described as Get Free’s “part time mobilization support contractor.” The speaker asserts Get Free bills itself as a grassroots organization while Naftali and others are allegedly paid to protest. They claim Get Free aims to “undo white supremacy” and that one of the best ways to do that, in Naftali’s view, is to celebrate vandalism, citing Crown Heights, where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s cyber truck and placed dog feces on it. The speaker contends Naftali attended an abolish the police rally but was not the leader, instead blending in among other recruits, and that he works with the DSA, explaining why the speaker met him at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. On LinkedIn, the speaker says Naftali frequently posts about paid protester roles, urging people to join to “help us expand our effort to win reparations across the country,” with recruitment across Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. They describe a nine-week contract, part-time, paying $3,400 in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation who will recruit people and train them to drive turnout at events. The speaker also says Naftali is part of Jews Against Trump and urges donations to bail funds to “bail immigrants out of concentration camps,” adding a claim that a Jewish person who calls an immigration detention center a concentration camp has a serious mental illness, and criticizing colleges like NYU, the Democrat party, and mainstream media as brainwashing. The speaker asserts Nicole Cardi is at the top of the Get Free Movement and claims she says the George Floyd protests were the reason Biden won the 2020 election. They argue that protest NGO groups are about getting Democrats elected, and that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the speaker says is under investigation by the Department of Justice for foreign contributions. The speaker alleges ActBlue has funneled billions to activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which is said to be orchestrating resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis. Indivisible is claimed to have paid protesters and received over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros.

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.