reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A Substack article claims USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the article, the House of Representatives impeached President Trump in December 2019 based on a memo written by a CIA analyst held over from the Obama White House. The memo relied heavily on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization funded by USAID. The article claims OCCRP was created as an extension of the State Department and USAID. The author asserts that USAID is about regime change abroad, a public-facing version of CIA operations. The author concludes that USAID was involved in regime change both abroad and at home, creating a predicate for Trump's impeachment.

A USAID-funded organization, OCCRP, created key evidence that led to President Trump's impeachment. This same organization also participated in the Russiagate hoax. USAID has a broad strategy for information control that includes censorship and control of investigative journalism worldwide. Organizations that participated in violations of the First Amendment should face consequences. Weaponizing organizations like DHS, FBI, and CISA constitutes treasonous regime change activities redirected against the American people and our representatives.

Speaker 1 states that a CIA analyst's whistleblower complaint, which led to President Trump's impeachment, relied on evidence from the USAID-funded OCCRP. Speaker 1 claims OCCRP also participated in the Russiagate hoax, and that USAID has a broad strategy for information control, including censorship and control of investigative journalism worldwide. Speaker 1 believes organizations like CISA that participated in First Amendment violations should be shut down, even if they perform valuable functions. Speaker 0 suggests government funding of foreign regime change is known, but questions if it's "borderline treason" when organizations protecting the U.S. undermine the government. Speaker 1 agrees, stating that weaponizing DHS, FBI, and CISA for regime change activities against the American people is "treasonous" and remains unresolved.

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.

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 left is allegedly using a "color revolution" playbook to remove President Trump, after being caught off guard in 2016. These color revolution specialists, like Michael McFaul and Norman Eisen, allegedly honed their skills in Eastern Europe during the Obama administration. Eisen wrote "The Democracy Playbook," which includes impeachment as a strategy. Eisen and David Brock of Media Matters allegedly collaborated on a plan to remove Trump before he was even sworn in. Their action plan stated that Trump's election put the nation "under siege" and that their "infrastructure groups" would be the first line of defense. The speaker claims that the media has pushed the narrative of Trump's unpopularity to create the perception that he cannot win a legitimate election. Democrats are allegedly setting the stage to claim election results were falsified. Fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact are funded by groups with a left-wing agenda, such as George Soros' Open Society Foundations and Facebook. Steve Dace believes poll numbers are part of a spin to set up a narrative to challenge the election.

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

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

The administrative state is rapidly being dismantled, particularly in relation to President Trump. Before his inauguration, Norm Eisen's Democracy Playbook outlined strategies to counter Trump, labeling him an autocrat. This playbook emphasizes the role of USAID in funding independent media and civil society to resist Trump’s administration. The focus is on building international alliances and networks to oppose him, as they lack influence domestically. Recent actions have limited their ability to leak information and organize resistance, leading to a decline in their power. Marjorie Taylor Greene is proposing legislation to further dismantle these efforts, indicating a strong push from the White House to eliminate these resistance structures permanently.

A small group of government contractors were allegedly hired to frame the Trump campaign, set him up for the Russia collusion investigation, provide impeachment witnesses, and provide administrative support to the DOJ during the Mueller investigation. This same group is also allegedly behind fake news, social media influence operations, and the defund the police movement. Both parties are allegedly covering up an even bigger scandal, Shadowgate, and the tactical role the shadow government played in a coup against President Trump. The shadow government consists of government contractors in defense, intelligence, and security. The government consists of compartmentalized desk jockeys to cover up that the real work is outsourced to contractors. These contractors have allegedly created an international criminal enterprise where blackmail is traded and personal data is gold.

Mike Benz outlines a conspiracy tied to the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and a June 2020 war game that purportedly sought “a way to use riots, nationwide riots, and do favors to the Black Lives Matter movement so that they would owe them favors back to take to the streets against Trump if Trump won the election fair and square,” while also needing “a robust, intentional, and specific strategy to go after the networks that enabled Trump's rise to power” so they could be jailed after Trump left office. Bubba Boyd, who has written about the event since August 2020, explains that the discussion will cover the key players in TIP, the plan to subvert the 2020 election, how rigging the election and four prosecutions of Trump flow from the June 2020 conspirators’ meeting, and excerpts from a January 2020 Donald Trump speech to the World Economic Forum that allegedly signals why Trump and Trumpism had to be eliminated. The publicly named sponsors of the war game are Rosa Brooks and Niles Gilman of the Berggruen Institute in Los Angeles, described as the “globalist home of Silicon Valley’s anti-Trump billionaires,” with branches in Venice and Beijing and a China branch in direct dialogue with Xi Jinping. Michael Anton is cited as the author of a Trump national security document who criticized TIP’s war game, stating they were planning a coup against the election and publicizing the war game to normalize the idea. Brooks’s background is summarized as a lawyer for George Shullis at the Open Society Institute, then a State Department attorney for regime change, then a Pentagon policy lawyer under Obama, while teaching at Georgetown Law. The narrative asserts she advocated impeaching Trump and a potential 25th Amendment move, and even a military coup, in a 2017 Foreign Policy piece titled “three ways to get rid of president Trump before 2020,” including the sentence: “For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officers might simply tell the president, no, sir. We’re not doing that.” The claim is that she “couldn’t wait to launch a coup against Trump,” a portrayal attributed to a New York Times editorial response. In June 2020, Brooks and Gilman allegedly convened TIP’s war game about the 2020 election and its possible aftermath, with over 100 participants and 76 role players drawn from former Pentagon officials, the intelligence community, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the media, and Republican and Democratic institutions. Names publicly associated with anti-Trump activity are listed, including John Podesta, Donna Brazile, Bill Kristol, Michael Steele, Jennifer Granholm, and other unnamed figures, all described as major players in attempts to nullify the 2016 election and overthrow the government. Benz is said to detail the TIP war games and concludes that to prevent a second Trump term, Biden would need a large victory margin to overcome fraud perceptions, with the insurrectionist scenario calling for control of the military, Black Lives Matter, and other street rioters. The narrative asserts that BLM raised about 90 million in 2020 with donors like the Democracy Alliance and the Ford Foundation, and that Mark Elias led financial filings associated with the effort. The discussion further cites Defense One articles from August 2020 that reportedly called for a military coup and a subsequent open debate within the military about accepting orders, and claims that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley “was not about to obey any order from the president.” The appendix to TIP’s report allegedly debated criminally proceeding against Trump after leaving office and wiping out his “white supremacist and extremist base,” with a quote describing the need for a strategy to challenge networks that enabled Trump’s rise and remained “imbecible to the kind of pluralist democracy the founders intended,” implying a path toward removing Trump’s influence even after his presidency. The transcript also notes contemporary references to Arctic Frost, an FBI investigation linked to 2022 midterms, and alleged targeting of Republican election operations and other figures by the FBI. Excerpts from Trump’s World Economic Forum address and a January 2020 speech are presented to illustrate a moral and strategic framing against globalism and “radical socialists.” The presentation ends by inviting audience support and promoting further engagement, including a free newsletter.

I discovered a clip from a nine-hour conference I watched in 2019, which reveals how the Atlantic Council, funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars, trains journalists from major media outlets to censor information that undermines government narratives. This organization, known as NATO's think tank, has seven former CIA directors on its board and receives annual funding from various military and intelligence agencies. They promote a framework called the "four D's" of disinformation: dismiss, distort, distract, and dismay. This training aims to suppress populist sentiments, particularly during the 2020 election cycle, by labeling factually true information as disinformation if it contradicts preferred narratives. The Atlantic Council's collaboration with Burisma, signed just before Trump's inauguration, highlights the intertwining of corporate interests and government actions in shaping public discourse.

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."

A Substack piece alleges USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the speaker, a CIA analyst leftover from the Obama White House wrote the memo that led to the impeachment based on hearsay. This memo relied heavily on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization funded by USAID. The OCCRP was allegedly created as an extension of the State Department and USAID. The speaker claims USAID was about regime change abroad, a public-facing version of covert CIA operations. The speaker suggests that, similar to censorship tools used abroad being brought home, the predicate for Trump's impeachment was created abroad. The speaker believes this is one of many revelations to come.

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.

The discussion centers on a sequence of events and documents that connect pipe-bomb material purchases in 2020 to a high-level, bipartisan war game and contingency planning around the 2020 election, with implications for how the transition away from Trump was imagined by prominent officials. Key facts cited: - Cole purchased pipe-bomb parts in June 2020 in two phases: June 1 and June 8, with additional purchases around June 20 and timers bought on June 3. - The timing aligns with the Transition Integrity Project, a war game exercise organized in June 2020 by Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration senior official who led the project, and involved figures from both parties including Michael Steele (former head of the Republican National Committee), Donna Brazile (former head of the DNC), and John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager). The participants allegedly included other high-ranking political, military, and intelligence figures from both sides. - The project is described as a bipartisan “war game” that examined how to handle a contested election and to plan for preventing Trump’s inauguration if he won, or managing Trumpism after a loss. The document referenced is a 22-page memo with an annex (appendix C) focusing on “clear Trump win” scenarios and alternatives to ensure a Biden victory or to defeat Trumpism permanently. - The narrative asserts that the Transition Integrity Project produced recommendations for handling a contested election through street protests, electoral strategies, and political pressure, with emphasis on mass mobilization, particularly with Black Lives Matter, to influence outcomes or to force changes in leadership if necessary. - The participants allegedly discussed provocative strategies to destabilize outcomes through street actions, including plans to mobilize protests and to leverage or fund Black Lives Matter and other networks to pressure the political process. They also allegedly discussed concepts such as alternate slates of electors, secession discussions in Western states, and the possibility of arresting Trump and his associates under various circumstances. - The discussion references a sequence of events and media coverage surrounding the 2020 election, including the “Red Mirage Blue Shift” concept (the idea that results might shift after Election Night) and the goal of mitigating perceptions of illegitimacy through censorship measures and strategic messaging. - The speakers connect the June 2020 war game to events around January 6, including the notion that the plan contemplated provoking a breakdown in the joint session of Congress and coordinating demonstrations that could impact the certification process. - The dialogue also ties the Transition Integrity Project to broader discussions about preventing Trumpism from enduring post-election and to “robust, intentional, and specific strategies” to dismantle networks associated with Trump’s rise to power. They discuss the role of mass protests, the potential use of the National Guard, and concerns about preventing or countering demonstrations in the lead-up to and during the certification of the election results. - The conversations reference mainstream outlets (e.g., The New York Times, Molly Ball’s Time Magazine piece) and insist that the Transition Integrity Project’s work was widely discussed and reported, with emphasis on its admission of planning to test receptivity of protests and to coordinate with foundations, corporations, and donor networks to fund and sustain street action if needed. - Throughout, there is an emphasis on not allowing Trump or Trumpism to demobilize automatically after the election and on preparing a comprehensive, multi-front strategy to address a perceived threat to democratic order. Notable participants named or implied include Rosa Brooks; Michael Steele; Donna Brazile; John Podesta; Bill Crystal; David Fromm; and Hillary Clinton’s campaign apparatus. The discussion ties these figures to both the June 2020 pipe-bomb purchases and the broader Transition Integrity Project, framing the war game as a blueprint for how to stop Trump, manage protests, and dismantle the networks that supported Trump’s rise.

An ex-Data Republican has identified seven NGOs, partially funded by American taxpayers, as key players in the "deep state Uniparty." These organizations have allegedly shaped public discourse, portraying Trump as a threat to democracy, when actually, he challenged their political regime. These NGOs receive substantial funding from USAID/State Department and frame their mission as protecting democracy. They were originally created to support US Democratic efforts abroad but redefined their mission after the Soviet Union's fall. These NGOs function as a shadow US government, with the National Endowment for Democracy unifying efforts against perceived enemies. Recent actions by Trump, like sending Elon Musk into federal agencies, have disrupted the Uniparty's alleged grift and misuse of taxpayer funds. As the Uniparty panics, the deep state will become more desperate. For personal health preparedness, The Wellness Company offers prescription medical kits (twc.health/blackout, promo code blackout for 10% off).

The speaker claims that after the war on terror, the US and UK military employed counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and counter-populism tactics, initially used in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, against the American people following the 2016 populist revolutions. These tactics allegedly included social media manipulation to foment revolutions and censorship to repress conflicting opinions. The speaker cites Russiagate and the Hunter Biden laptop situation as examples of these tactics, along with the mobilization of the intelligence community. They further claim that the Agency for International Development has overseen a takeover of independent investigative journalism in Europe and worldwide via OCCRP and other supposedly independent organizations to control information and major news media.

Cole notes that he purchased six galvanized pipes of this size on June 1, June 8, and November 16, and asks for receipts. The discussion shifts to what questions a point person in 2021 would face and to a theory of the case, with speculation about how individuals could be drawn into a plan to influence events, including the possibility of a “pipe bomb” plot and manipulation of associates. Speaker 1 explains that, as a federal investigator, one would use a speculative investigative lens to broaden the search to cover various permutations of the case, including the idea that there was a so-called Red Mirage Blue Shift scenario surrounding the 2020 election. They reference CNN’s 2020 reporting on deciphering red mirage and blue shift uncertainty, including pre censorship by DHS/CISA in June 2020 to suppress any social media criticism of mass mail-in ballots, so as to prevent questions about legitimacy of an upcoming Biden victory. The discussion asserts that the goal was to preempt perceptions of illegitimacy and manage the narrative around the election results. The conversation then turns to Rosa Brooks, a high-ranking Obama administration official who headed the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and wrote about pathways to remove Trump from power. Speaker 1 cites Brooks’ article “Three ways to stop President Trump before the 2020 election” and notes an assertion, reportedly in a Diet of Lisa-like coverage, that she later discussed a fourth, insurrectionary possibility: a military coup. They claim TIP was a war game conducted in June 2020 and then in November 2020, involving senior military, intelligence, diplomatic, and political operatives, with participants from both parties including Michael Steele (former RNC head), Donna Brazile (former DNC head), John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager), Bill Kristol, and others. The summary asserts that TIP’s appendix, “Will Trumpism survive a Trump loss?” warned that Trumpism could persist even after a loss, necessitating a robust strategy to eliminate Trump supporters and networks that enabled Trump’s rise. It is claimed the document discusses how to mobilize mass street protests, especially via Black Lives Matter and allied groups, to pressure a Biden administration to act against Trump, including funding and resource provisioning of protest movements to ensure their alignment with Democratic objectives. The dialogue alleges that, in June 2020, TIP proposed measures to de- legitimize Trump, including not letting Trump use the National Guard or invoke the Insurrection Act to quell protests. It is asserted that the plan contemplated mass demonstrations, the use of “street protests” as decisive leverage, and the establishment of communications infrastructure to support mass mobilization for street action if Trump won, or to counter him if he did not. The participants allegedly favored aligning with groups like Soros-funded Indivisible and Hold the Line, and urged resourcing new racial justice leaders and major philanthropic/foundation channels to fund these movements, including a claimed $50 billion in funding to Black Lives Matter. The transcript claims that TIP’s War Game included explicit scenarios about alternate electors, secession moves, and the potential for mass prosecutions of Trump and his associates, as well as strategic recommendations on how to proceed if Trump refused to concede. It is further asserted that a June 2020 war game considered provoking an “January 6” breakdown in Congress as a central move to prevent a contested inauguration, with participants pondering agent provocateurs and avenues to postpone certification. Throughout, the speakers connect the pipe-bomb purchases in June 2020 to the TIP war games and the broader plan to undermine Trump through street mobilization, legal maneuvers, and potential mass arrests of Trump supporters and networks, while noting the January 6 events as a focal point of these discussions.

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.

The speaker argues that whenever a country defends its own people, the United States asks, “Who owns the resources?” and if the answer isn’t The US, a coup follows. The claim is that over 80 foreign governments have been overthrown or destabilized by the United States, and that most of them weren’t dictatorships, but democratically elected governments that threatened US corporate profits. The described playbook involves the CIA funding opposition groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, planting stories in the media, bribing generals, arming rebels, or collapsing a country’s economy, with the coup replacing the leader with a pro-US dictatorship. The overarching assertion is that this is not about democracy but about power and control. Key historical examples cited include: - Iran in 1953: Mosaddegh attempted to nationalize oil; the CIA launched Operation Ajax, orchestrated protests, paid off politicians, and installed the Shah, resulting in twenty-five years of dictatorship and torture under US protection. - Guatemala in 1954: President Arbenz redistributed land from the United Fruit Company, a US corporation; the CIA branded him a communist, conducted a coup, and Guatemala descended into a civil war with over 200,000 deaths. - Chile in 1973: Allende was overthrown in a US-backed military coup, and Pinochet’s regime tortured and killed thousands after Allende’s attempts to nationalize copper. - Congo in 1961: Lumumba sought African control of African resources; the CIA helped orchestrate his assassination and installed a brutal dictator who was supported for decades. The speaker adds that there are “dozens of others” beyond these cases, including Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Bolivia, and beyond, arguing that the motive is not fighting tyranny but profits and control. When a country attempts to exit the system or nationalize resources to reduce inequality, they threaten profits and the idea that another world is possible, so the CIA sabotages such efforts to prevent successful example-making, such as Libya. The conclusion is that many nations don’t trust the United States because “we’ve been the villains throughout most of our history.” The speaker invites readers to comment to receive a “forbidden reading list” of books and documentaries that “they never wanted you to find.”

A recent report unmasks seven NGOs, partially funded by U.S. taxpayers, as key players in the "deep state" uniparty. These organizations, originally meant to support U.S. democratic efforts abroad, have redefined their mission to be the guardians of democracy itself. They receive substantial funding from USAID and the State Department. This shift explains why Trump's reelection was framed as a threat, as these NGOs equate democracy with their own survival and authority. They control the purse strings for much of America's global financial influence. These groups function as an off the books shadow U.S. government. Now, with increased scrutiny and declining media trust, their propaganda efforts are weakened, potentially leading to more desperate measures from the deep state.

An article from Zero Hedge unveils a network of seven NGOs, allegedly funded by American taxpayers, that have been instrumental in shaping public discourse against Donald Trump, portraying him as a threat to democracy. These organizations, originally designed to support US democratic efforts abroad, have redefined their mission to position themselves as guardians of democracy, with any challenge to their authority perceived as an attack on democracy itself. These NGOs function as a shadow US government, with the National Endowment for Democracy unifying efforts through organizations reflecting the American two-party system. While not all funding flows through them, they control much of America's global financial influence. With Trump challenging this system and trust in mainstream media declining, these groups are growing desperate. Now is the time to protect yourself and your family by ordering prescription kits at twc.health/blackout and use code blackout for 10% off.

A Substack article claims USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the article, the House of Representatives impeached President Trump in December 2019 based on a memo written by a CIA analyst held over from the Obama White House. The memo relied on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization initially funded by USAID as an extension of the State Department. The article asserts that USAID is about regime change abroad, a public-facing version of covert CIA operations. The speaker suggests that just as censorship tools used abroad were brought back home, these organizations created a predicate for Trump's impeachment.