TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I wanted to bring you an update from Washington and introduce Data Republican, a digital detective exposing government corruption. She uses AI to analyze data, revealing connections between agencies, media, and NGOs. Her research uncovered that USAID funneled nearly half a billion dollars into Internews Network, a secretive NGO working with media outlets worldwide. Interestingly, a board member at Internews is also the VP of Communications at Reddit. During the Cold War, entities like Internews aimed to prevent the spread of communism, but now, the funds continue to grow with unclear objectives. USAID also funds domestic programs, including CEPPS, which distributes billions to Republican and Democratic groups, creating a complex web of money controlled by powerful politicians, which looks like the deep state manipulating elections. Eliminating the Department of Education and empowering parents and schools would be more effective, as the current system is overly bureaucratic and fails to meet diverse learning needs.

In 2021, the special operations command, under Mark Milley, released a vision for using race riots to destabilize nations, in conjunction with the State Department, intel services, and USAID. A declassified 1983 CIA guide details how to organize riots, use agitators and professional criminals, and incite violence by turning anger into action. The CIA guide also describes recruiting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen to form cells that influence their spheres and unite to create large demonstrations. USAID's office of transition initiatives, which means government overthrow, secretly created a Cuban Twitter to stir unrest. A 2009 report warned that USAID's division for regime change mobilizes unions, boycotts, and shutdowns. A former senior analyst on Latin America for the US intelligence community stated that he couldn't get access to this secret operation being run out of USAID. According to Speaker 0, destabilizing nations using race wars and advocating for military involvement operates without oversight.

Stanford University, University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council were used as a front by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to manipulate social media during the 2020 election. The goal was to censor posts containing misinformation about mail-in ballots and other election-related topics. DHS lacked the legal authority to directly censor, so they set up the Election Infrastructure Partnership (EIP) to fill the gaps. These outside organizations received federal funding and worked closely with DHS to ban or throttle millions of posts and accounts. The entire operation was orchestrated to rig the election. The question now is whether there will be political accountability for these actions.

USAID, under Samantha Power, is accused of promoting a radical ideology that is anti-family and anti-life onto the developing world, essentially ideological colonization. The agency has been weaponized to attack conservative parties, not only in Brazil, but also in pro-America countries like Poland and Hungary. In Syria, USAID allegedly funneled over $15 billion to topple Bashar al-Assad, funding opposition groups and anti-government networks under the guise of humanitarian aid. During the Euro Maiden Uprising in Ukraine in 2014, USAID spent billions on civil society initiatives to destabilize the pro-Russian government, funding NGOs and media outlets to amplify anti-Yanukovych sentiment. When USAID acts in American national security interests, it is correct. However, it becomes detrimental when abused for political purposes and sponsoring anti-American ideologies. Pro-American propaganda is acceptable, but funding regimes that oppose American values should be avoided.

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.

After the war on terror, counterterrorism and counterinsurgency tactics were turned against the American people following the 2016 populist revolutions. We saw the Russiagate conspiracy and efforts to censor conflicting opinions, mirroring tactics used abroad for regime change. The Hunter Biden laptop situation exemplifies proactive influence operations and the intelligence community's mobilization. USAID has been taking over independent investigative journalism in Europe and worldwide to control information. A CIA analyst's whistleblower complaint, which led to the Trump impeachment, relied on evidence from the USAID-funded OCCRP. USAID views information control holistically. The FBI weaponized the Aspen Institute to manipulate the perception of the Hunter Biden laptop. USAID is also training NGOs to demand censorship.

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.

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.

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.

Project Mockingbird aimed to control the public via media, but was less effective with the rise of alternative media like podcasts. To beat the "deep state," one must challenge it in unfamiliar territory. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, passed in 2012 and enacted in 2013, legalized propaganda for US citizens, repealing the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act which had prohibited domestic release. Obama essentially reopened the door for Operation Mockingbird, allowing the CIA to propagandize Americans. High-level intelligence officials or people associated with the intelligence industry are running journals. The CIA is the biggest funder of journalism in the world through USAID. Intelligence agencies manipulated information on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Before 1975, the CIA compromised journalists from major publications, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Politicians are repeating the same talking points from a script like actors.

This is USAID's Strengthening Transparency and Accountability Through Investigative Reporting program for Europe and Eurasia. USAID funding is $20,000,000. They don't report on kittens being saved, but rather corruption. This is all built under capacity building, meaning pumping up the blob's assets. With this $20,000,000 investment, at least $4,500,000,000 in fines were levied against targets. The head of the OCCRP said it's now over $10,000,000,000, a 20000% return on investment because all these dollars were returned to government coffers. Additionally, there were 548 policy changes by the government or actions by civil society and the private sector. They proudly sponsored hit piece journalism to ruin people's lives and go after political targets in order to change the policies of foreign governments from the inside.

USAID, often seen as a humanitarian organization, has increasingly acted as a tool for domestic control, particularly through its efforts to censor information online. This shift became evident when USAID began targeting American social media platforms to combat disinformation, impacting domestic politics. They have funneled significant funds to organizations that influence U.S. affairs, including those connected to George Soros. USAID's actions reflect a broader agenda against populism, which they view as a threat to democracy. Their funding has supported initiatives that undermine populist movements globally, including in Brazil, where they contributed to censorship efforts against former President Bolsonaro. Ultimately, USAID's role has evolved into a mechanism for enforcing foreign policy goals by stifling domestic dissent.

Under USAID's independent media and media sustainability branches, half a billion dollars a year funds a network of over 4,000 media outlets, reaching 778,000,000 people and training 9,000 journalists. This includes training by organizations like the Atlantic Council, funded by USAID, the State Department, and the Pentagon. USAID funds both sides of the issue, including a $500,000,000 mercenary media operation. The CEO of Internews, which is funded by USAID, is advocating for a global advertising exclusion list to censor disinformation by targeting ad revenue. USAID also gave $68,000,000 to the World Economic Forum. USAID's internal documents show explicit political targeting of advertiser networks.

I have a picture here of an Al Qaeda leader and they are in a USAID tent. Look who signed the check for the initial $200,000 payment to the Islamic Relief Agency, the United States Agency for International Development. USAID was running a top secret espionage program to undermine Cuba and push people to dissent. Now let me show you how much money we're talking about. It included a billion dollar sovereign loan guarantee, $320,000,000 in general assistance. Judicial Watch found that the US State Department and USAID had been giving millions to the Macedonian arm of George Soros' Open Society Foundation. To train youth movements. So USAID and those are always they're known by anybody who pays attention as CIA fronts. This is you know, the the USAID comes into a country. they start doing things, and next thing you know, we've got a revolution on our hands because that's the CIA.

The U.S. secretly developed a Twitter-like program called Zunzunio to undermine the Cuban government, as revealed by an Associated Press report. Funded through shell companies and foreign banks, the initiative aimed to attract young Cubans by initially sharing non-political content. Once a subscriber base was established, political messages would be introduced to inspire protests. This program, run by USAID rather than a spy agency, has drawn criticism for its covert nature and lack of transparency. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy expressed skepticism about its effectiveness, while Peter Kornbluh highlighted the program's failure and its detrimental impact on U.S.-Cuba relations. The discussion raises concerns about the broader implications of U.S. covert operations in Cuba and the need for a shift in policy towards normalization.

"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."

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

Speaker 0 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."

During the Obama administration, USAID reportedly ran rogue operations in Cuba, including a Twitter knockoff called Zunzanillo, marketed to Cuban users. The goal was to create an Arab Spring-style social media revolution. Because Cuba didn't allow US social media, USAID created a platform with the same user interface as Twitter, using the Cuban slang word for hummingbird. Millions of dollars were concealed as humanitarian funds designated for Pakistan and funneled through Creative Associates International (CAI), using Cayman Islands bank accounts and unsuspecting business executives. The network reached 60,000 Cuban subscribers and gathered data on users' demographics and political tendencies. The plan was to initially use noncontroversial content like sports, music, and hurricane updates to build a subscriber base, then introduce political messages to encourage dissent. The aim was to organize "smart mobs" to trigger a "Cuban spring." USAID documents show the US government planned to build a subscriber base through noncontroversial news content, later introducing political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize.

An organization has established a task force on countering disinformation through an administrative order passed by the Arizona Supreme Court. However, recent revelations about Facebook's involvement in influencing the 2016 election contradict their claims of preventing such interference. Funding from sources like the DNC, Soros, and Obama's shadow net, a social media cyber warfare tool, were used. Social media can shape people's thoughts and beliefs, making the order to counter disinformation seem questionable. The executive order legalizes the implementation of CIA strategies in thought campaigning, which they have been doing for years. This strategy, known as gray zone warfare, has been used by the CIA in foreign countries for regime change. Now, they are openly targeting America to control not just the narrative but also the minds of its citizens. The order claims to protect against Russia's tactics, but it will use the same strategies to control information and limit discussions.

USAID has been accused of acting as a covert operations division for U.S. foreign policy, often engaging in activities that resemble those previously conducted by the CIA. This includes funding opposition groups in countries like Bangladesh, where they supported specific demographics to destabilize governments. Both Democrats and internationalist Republicans benefit from USAID, complicating efforts to shut it down. Past presidents, including Biden and Obama, have been implicated in this corruption, with connections to organizations funded by USAID. The Trump administration's foreign policy challenged this system, leading to significant pushback, including legal actions against Trump. USAID's influence extends across various sectors, including media and academia, raising concerns about accountability and transparency in U.S. foreign aid.

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.

We were covering an article about 55,000 Democrat NGOs discovered to be contributing to campaigns, moving things around, and pushing propaganda. It was discovered through AI that to figure out where the money's coming from, you have to go through layers and layers, and it's all funneling down to one group or another. It's a giant propaganda machine, a giant regime change machine.

The speaker outlines a framework for understanding current information control by the US and its allies, arguing that the State Department, the Pentagon, and the Central Intelligence Agency operate together to shape information in society. They describe three roles: the State Department conducts overt information control through funding media institutions (which are presented as “free and independent” but labeled government-backed); the Pentagon engages in information control through psychological operations; and the CIA operates covert information control, influence campaigns, propaganda, and censorship work. Between the State Department and the CIA sits a vast network of soft power institutions that implement this influence. Soft power is defined as the alternative to hard power, enabling a country to win “hearts and minds” and influence other countries’ governments by manipulating populations. The speaker connects this framework to the Brazil situation, stating at the top level the involvement of three or more organizations: the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). USAID and the NED are described as intermediaries between the State Department and the CIA, with the NED characterized as a CIA cutout established after the Church Committee era to fund dissident groups in a publicly firewalled way, though the speaker asserts there is no real divide between the NED and the CIA. The NED’s founders explicitly noted it would do what the CIA used to do, but via a private, publicly named entity. The speaker cites Christopher Walker (NED) as a participant in this ecosystem. The narrative then moves to a 2017 GlobSec video, described as the origin of today’s censorship industry’s consensus. The video’s description is read, highlighting concerns about traditional media being challenged by internet news and social networks, the spread of “unfiltered” alternative media, and the problem of algorithms that personalize content and reinforce confirmation bias. It identifies populist and extremist right-wing groups as exploiting these algorithms, and asks how to protect users from fake news and propaganda without censorship. It questions the role of information technology companies and the responsibility of social platforms for content, while debating how to fight extremism without undermining free speech. The panel includes figures tied to the CIA, DHS, and private security and consulting groups. Key participants highlighted include Michael Chertoff (Executive Chairman of the Chertoff Group, former DHS Secretary, linked to censorship governance), and Christopher Walker (Vice President of NED), among others. The speaker emphasizes Chertoff’s connections to BAE Systems and to the broader military–intelligence–policy network, noting Chertoff’s role in shaping how platforms were to police “unfiltered” content in 2017. The speaker also references Nina Janković, who was connected to the disinformation governance board and the Integrity Initiative, asserting a lineage from Chertoff to the broader censorship apparatus. The speaker then broadens the geopolitical frame to Russia’s resource wealth (citing a claim of $75 trillion in resources vs. the US’s $45 trillion), noting that the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) theater is the battleground for Eurasian influence. The montage in the video is described as starting with 1917 and Woodrow Wilson, portraying the blob’s view of democracy as a vector for hegemonic influence, and linking it to propaganda, censorship, and the need to control online discourse. The montage proceeds through references to 1936, Goebbels and the 1936 Olympics, Hitler, 1943, Elvis, 1960s–70s conspiracy theories about the CIA and JFK, and 1990s declassification of Northwoods-era plans, culminating in the framing of Internet propaganda as a modern battlefield. The session transitions to a live moderator, with a check on audio levels and an introduction to the next segment, announced as taking place in Bratislava for a global audience.