TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

During the Reagan era, we created NGOs to fight communism by establishing a soft power structure to influence the world. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created and split into the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. Both Democrats and Republicans were under the NED, with the intention of offering balanced perspectives as they influenced the world. But when communism fell, these NGOs didn't disband; they grew in power and money. They now see themselves as protectors of democracy, viewing any challenge to them as a challenge to democracy itself. Both Democrats and Republicans are heavily involved, even to the point where sitting members of Congress vote for money for these NGOs while sitting on them. They believe they're doing good, protecting the Western world, but it's also about the money. They tell themselves a good story.

George Soros had begun to make a name for himself as a conscience-free economic hitman as early as World War II, collaborating with Nazis, which he described as “the best time of my life.” A subsequent exchange recalls that he went out with a protector who swore he was his adopted godson, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews. When asked if it was difficult, the respondent says, “Not at all. No problem,” and adds that even if he weren’t there, somebody else would be taking it away anyway, suggesting a market-driven rationale for the actions. The narrative then traces a mentorship under the Fabian Society’s Karl Popper at the Langdon School of Economics, where Soros acquired his idea of open societies as a cover for world government control. It also notes an Edmund de Rothschild–connected influence: George Karlweiss, chairman of the Rothschild Swiss-based bank Privy, endowed Soros with the financial resources to launch a new type of organization called a hedge fund. From that moment, the young speculator began to amass a fortune as a financial mercenary, released during the new age of deregulation and deployed to destroy the economies of any nation resisting a banker’s dictatorship through currency speculation. Using his ill-begotten resources, Soros was said to set up a network of private organizations to advance democracy-building around the world. In 1979, Soros’s Open Society Foundations came online and began to interface closely with the National Endowment for Democracy, which soon set up two offices in China in the 1980s. David Ignatius, the former head of the NED, admitted in 1991 that the organization was little more than a front for the CIA, noting that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly twenty five years ago by the CIA.” Throughout the 1980s, a new world order was staged, described by some as the end of history. In Hungary, Soros’ Open Society Foundations infused restructuring, privatization, and other market-driven reforms in 1988, leading to the emergence of a new oligarchical class beholden to Wall Street and contributing to election manipulation that ousted Ferdinand Marcos’s national leadership and installed Corazon Aquino in an early color revolution called the People Power Revolution. Russia warmly embraced Soros and the NED under Mikhail Gorbachev, who ensured the stage would be set for Russia’s submission to a new age of destruction called Perestroika. In the 1990s, the program was titled Operation Hammer by the Trilateral Commission’s George Bush Sr., a program of looting of former state enterprises under the watch of the IMF, taking the name “shock therapy.”

Universities are perceived as educational institutions, but the Harvard Endowment made a large portion of its $50 billion through foreign regime change operations with the US State Department. In the 1990s, Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Harvard Endowment for International Development, requested around $500 million from USAID to manage the economic privatization of Russia during shock therapy. The Harvard Endowment and George Soros' Quantum Fund received a closed auction bid on the sale of former Soviet government assets. Harvard receives billions in grants from the US government while doing favors for them. Columbia and Stanford Universities operate similarly. Universities are not solely educational institutions.

Chapter 1, the MI6 plot: In the early 1990s, MI6 consultants and academics debated lines to split China into three pieces. Gerald Siegel of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the UK was commissioned to map where the country should be chopped. Western journalists and researchers at the time acknowledged Western manipulation of a small portion of Xinjiang’s Uighur population, with the majority of Uighurs living peaceful agricultural lives. The plan targeted a small radicalized minority, a tactic attributed to the CIA and NED. A 1990s Western academic publication, Strategic Studies, stated that Xinjiang had long been a target of British intelligence and that London hoped to manipulate Uighur refugees into cannon fodder for plans to break up China. The document cited is academic rather than propaganda, noting London’s aim to destabilize China through Uighur separatists. Chapter 2, a secret agent: The MI6 effort included a secret agent, not a conventional Bond figure, who arrived in Xinjiang under multiple identities as Michael Nicholson, though his real name was Abdullah Chatlie (Chattley), a Turkish operative with Central Asian language skills. According to CIA histories on Gladio, Chatlie helped Uighurs mount attacks that killed 162 people. Chinese sources corroborate violent unrest in Xinjiang in the early 1990s, including confirmed incidents such as 22 deaths in 1992 in Buran, though precise totals vary. Chapter 3, recognizing the problem: Xinjiang leadership recognized the overseas meddling. In March 1992, Tomo Mat (Weia name) chaired the Xinjiang Autonomous Region People’s Government and warned that hostile forces had stepped up infiltration, subversion, and sabotage. Chapter 4, the US propaganda push: The United States supported British efforts while also planning its own destabilization, backing Uighur nationalist Isa Youssef Alpdukin, who spoke in 1992 in Turkey about the collapse of the Chinese empire. Alpdukin, aligned with KMT nationalist aims, worked for Radio Liberty (Radio Free Asia) and advanced anti-China propaganda. Western intelligence and Uighur separatists formed a growing collaboration, with BBC involvement later. Chapter 5, the US trains fighters: The CIA and US military intelligence ran a Central Asia program, training Mujahideen and transferring hundreds of Xinjiang separatists to Central Asia for training. This alliance extended to Turkish agent Chatlie’s operations, including organizing protests and a coup in Azerbaijan. Chatlie died in a suspicious car crash in Turkey in 1996. From 1996 to 2002, Western agents continued to train Uighur separatists who conducted terrorist attacks, with Chinese authorities noting Western involvement. Chapter 6, a new country: The US initially portrayed Tibetans as victims of genocide, but UN data showed Tibetan population growth, shifting focus to Xinjiang. In February 2004, the US formally founded East Turkestan as a country, appointing Anwar Yusuf Tarani as prime minister in Washington, DC. Tarani’s government issued calls for economic aid and recognition but received none; Tarani resided in Fairfax, Virginia. Chapter 7, terrorism escalates: From 2007 to 2014, Xinjiang witnessed numerous terrorist attacks attributed to East Turkestan operatives, including a 2009 machete attack at a train station killing 197, a major car bomb in Urumqi, and the Kunming railway station attack. Western reporting rarely connected these events to MI6 or CIA collaboration, instead often blaming China’s policies or crackdowns. Chapter 8, a new narrative: The US and UK sought to suppress acknowledgment of intelligence involvement, aiming to recast terrorists as victims, and to depict Chinese authorities’ countermeasures as the cause of violence, aided by BBC and other outlets. The narrative aimed to deny Western complicity and demonize Xinjiang authorities. Chapter 9, blaming the victims: Western media, including NPR and BBC, reported on attacks by framing Chinese blame on Uighurs, often omitting Western involvement. Quotations from James Millward and others suggested crackdowns exacerbated violence, while sources like Radio Free Asia were presented without noting their propaganda relationships. Exiled Uighur groups cited Uighur oppression as a driver, while mainstream outlets echoed anti-Chinese framing. Chapter 10, the Uighur genocide hoax: By 2014, references stopped mentioning MI6 or CIA roots, with victims blamed as the cause of violence. The creator of this narrative shift prepared to discuss a broader “Uighur genocide hoax” in a future piece. The closing note cites sources and further reading, including Strategic Studies (1996), CIA operation Gladio literature, Sybil Edmunds, and Tony Cartolucci, dedicating the report to Xinjiang’s people.

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.

The Obama administration, and even the early Trump administration, used taxpayer money to support the socialist government in Albania. This involved partnering with George Soros on projects aimed at weakening the independence of the Albanian judiciary. This wasn't isolated to Albania; similar activities occurred in Romania, Hungary, Guatemala, and Colombia. Soros, a billionaire, doesn't need this funding, yet the State Department and USAID enabled his influence, allowing him to shape foreign policy and even review funding applications. This taxpayer funding, the speaker argues, indirectly subsidizes Soros’s activities, both domestically and internationally, and is a way for the State Department to oppose conservative agendas. The speaker highlights this as an example of the government funding groups that oppose American interests, while right-leaning organizations are largely ignored. Legal action was necessary to obtain the documents revealing these activities.

- 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.

The speaker discusses George Soros' involvement in the Reagan administration's efforts to combat communism in Central and Eastern Europe. Soros, through the Open Society Foundation, collaborated with the State Department to facilitate regime changes in these regions. He profited from insider trading by speculating on currencies of countries targeted for overthrow. Additionally, Soros and other stakeholders benefited from acquiring publicly held assets in these countries post-regime change. Translation: The speaker talks about George Soros' role in aiding the Reagan administration's anti-communist initiatives in Central and Eastern Europe. Soros collaborated with the State Department to facilitate regime changes in these regions through the Open Society Foundation. He profited from insider trading by speculating on currencies of targeted countries and acquiring publicly held assets post-regime change.

I funded dissident activities and civil society groups in Eastern Europe and Poland during the revolutions of 1989. Similarly, I established a foundation in Ukraine before its independence from Russia, and it has been active ever since, playing a significant role in current events. We've also engaged in discussions with Ukrainian leadership on revitalizing agriculture and enhancing energy efficiency through new company partnerships. George Soros was present, and we collaborated on these initiatives.

George Soros has funded revolutions in various countries and is now targeting America. He has created a shadow party within the Democratic party, similar to his tactics in other countries. There is a lack of scrutiny on Soros, with Glenn Beck facing consequences for exposing his covert operations. Despite the backlash, Beck believes it was worth it. The book "Shadow Party" provides shocking insights into Soros' activities.

My initial efforts began in South Africa, followed by Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed. I focused on Hungary in 1984, Poland in 1987, and China in the same year, effectively building what I call the Soros Empire to replace the Soviet Empire. Currently, I'm most involved in Russia, which mirrors the situation during the Soviet Union's collapse. However, the context has changed; back then, the Soviet Union was declining while the European Union was thriving. Now, we see a resurgent Russia and a disintegrating European Union, which is a concerning development.

This video discusses the relationship between Ronald Reagan, the CIA, and George Soros. It explains how Reagan created the National Endowment for Democracy to carry out covert operations and overthrow communist governments in Europe. Soros, a hedge fund manager, partnered with the State Department to speculate on the currencies of these countries and profit from their political changes. The video suggests that this alliance between Reagan, the Chamber of Commerce, and financial firms allowed them to gain economic benefits and control over formerly publicly held assets. It concludes by stating that Soros built his empire by taking advantage of the fall of the Soviet Union.

An internal memo stated the government of China considers someone being tracked a prime target for influence operations. This person is working with an organization in Raleigh funded by Christy Walton and tied to the Chinese Progressive Association, which is allegedly pro-Maoist, and the National Endowment for Democracy. The speaker questions why billionaires interfering in politics are criticized only when it's not George Soros, who allegedly funneled over $260 million from USAID into nonprofits. The speaker claims these rights are not about immigrants, otherwise protests would have occurred under Barack Obama. The speaker suggests open border policies hurt both Americans and "illegals." Using "brown people" with Mexican flags to advocate for illegal immigrants funnels money back to the communist party, using elected office to usher in communism. The speaker informs Governor Walls that if he upholds American ideologies, he should not speak at the rally. The speaker authorized a letter to the President to rescind millions in funding going to the "no kings protest."

The speaker outlines a project to map US State Department involvement with George Soros, The Open Society Foundations, and related entities across many countries, noting that the WikiLeaks cables (Kissinger, Carter, and Cablegate) cover 1973–2010 but omit the 1980s and 1990s. The goal is to create a comprehensive picture of how US policy has aligned with “George Soros, The Open Society Foundation, The Open Society Institute, every open society spandrel in every country.” The speaker highlights that Strobe Talbott in 1995 said US foreign policy had to be synchronized with allied governments and with Soros, describing it as “like working with a friendly, allied, independent entity, if not a government,” and stating that Soros then became “the number one political downer.” The narrative begins with precedents before the Open Society Foundation’s creation in 1979. In 1973–1975, Soros references appear in cables before the Open Society Foundation started. The speaker then focuses on a troubling example from 1976 in Gabon, via a Kissinger cable titled Visit by Brown and Root Executives to Gabon. Brown and Root, later Halliburton, is connected to George Soros through Brown and Root’s executives and projects. The CIA’s reaction to a Ramparts article about Brown and Root is discussed, showing Herman Brown (founder of Brown and Root) and his son George Rufus Brown as covert associates with the CIA under project LP coin, with Herman Brown serving as president and director of Brown and Root and trustee of the Brown Foundation. The claim is that both Herman Brown and his son had covert security clearances and were involved with CIA projects from 1965–1967, including potential service on the board of a CIA creation in Thailand/Laos. Brown and Root is described as one of Soros’s top five holdings in the mid-2000s, implying a CIA-connected origin for the company. A note is given that in Gabon, Soros Associates (founded by Paul Soros, George Soros’s older brother) is involved in port projects. Paul Soros’s shipping and engineering influence is illustrated by a Washington Post obituary, and the speaker mentions a related anecdote from Bill Burns’s autobiography The Back Channel about embassy construction projects in Russia being prebugged, and the implication that Western engineering firms with ties to intelligence could have facilitated spying. Before Open Society Foundations existed, in June 1975 Bandar Abbas Port Project in Iran involved three senior Dravo Corporation executives, plus International Systems, Van Houten Associates, and Soros Associates. The embassy was instructed to assist American bidders to ensure Soros Associates’ bid, noting Soros Associates’ engineering focus and the aim to eliminate competing bids. The government of Iran’s consideration of the American group and the influence of Soros’s bid on Iran’s judgment are documented. In Gabon, 1975–1976, financing arrangements are described: a financing package for Soros’s contract including a down payment by the Gabonese governor, an Export-Import Bank direct loan, and a First National City Bank loan, with the U.S. embassy consulting to emphasize more favorable terms and to potentially extend financing into a larger package. The accounts emphasize multiple U.S. government roles: Commerce Department, State Department, Export-Import Bank, and embassies, colluding to support Soros financing and projects, with the claim that this occurred years before the Open Society Foundations were created and began collaborating with U.S. agencies. The speaker suggests a long-standing family involvement, with older brother Paul Soros already coordinating with the State Department to secure deals for Soros Associates before 1979. The Mongolia story is promised as a later highlight. The compilation is framed as a five-decade pattern of government support for Soros-related deals, starting in 1973 and continuing through the Cablegate era.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, George Soros stepped in to fill the power vacuum in Hungary, Poland, and China in the late 1980s. This marked the rise of what some call the Soros Empire, taking over where the Soviet Empire left off. How successful do you think Soros has been in his imperial ambitions?

Many Western corporations are unaware of the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its leader, Xi Jinping. Throughout history, no organization has survived when dealing with the CCP. Xi Jinping has transformed the party into his own, and it is no longer representative of communism. It is crucial for corporations to realize this for their long-term benefit. The New Federal State of China is a group that possesses internal intelligence about the CCP. They can provide valuable information and protection, not just for profit.

I see NGOs as a hack, and George Soros was a master at it. He understood how to use a relatively small amount of money to establish a nonprofit, and then lobby politicians to funnel large sums of money into it. For example, a $10 million donation could be leveraged into a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs, or nongovernmental organizations, often have appealing names, but they can essentially be graft machines. They receive grants with minimal requirements, and the government often assumes they're doing good work, even when they might not be. Many within the government are aware of this dynamic, but the funding continues.

Chinese billionaire and political activist, Miles Guo, is a major threat to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Guo's mission is to expose the CCP's secrets and turn people against them. He claims that the CCP has infiltrated the US Department of Justice and plans to weaken the US military. Guo has been targeted by the CCP, with his friends and family members being arrested and tortured. Despite being arrested in New York for alleged fraud, Guo's investors do not consider themselves victims. The SEC and FBI seized over $630 million of Guo's assets, but have not returned the money to investors. Guo's penthouse mysteriously caught fire while FBI agents were searching it. Guo's claims about the CCP's plans have been proven true, including the dispatching of Chinese police officers to the US and the strategic vaccination of US military personnel. The CCP is desperate to silence Guo and bring him back to China.

The discussion opens with a provocative line about not needing a CIA director this year because the National Endowment for Democracy is in place, followed by introductions of Carl Gershwin as founding co-president of the National Dialogue for Democracy and the plan to cover the topic at length. The speakers claim that democratic groups worldwide could be seen as subsidized by the CIA, noting that such subsidies were curtailed in the 1960s and that the Endowment was created to fund groups the CIA subsidized back then. They assert that, before grants are made, all grants are sent through the State Department to the CIA, and promise deeper exploration of “Ned CIA” material. They list prominent entities alongside the National Endowment for Democracy, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Atlanta Council, Ellen White as an operative who prepared the way for political changes in the past two years, and efforts to take down the Soviet Union through internal coups in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, as well as the Atlantic Council, are also named as funders or players in this network. The conversation identifies the Rockefeller Foundation as a major funder, calling it the “hellspawn of John D. Rockefeller and the octopus of Standard Oil,” and notes its funding of the Atlantic Council alongside the Pentagon and the State Department, claiming over $1,000,000 a year. A claim is made about the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement beyond NATO’s civil society arm, including a reference to Google as the source for who runs the Rockefeller Foundation, and a mention that the foundation had an endowment around $6,000,000,000, making it the thirtieth largest foundation globally by endowment. The discussion briefly covers Raj Shah, described as having been appointed head of USAID by Barack Obama, previously at the Gates Foundation, and later running the Rockefeller Foundation, identifying him as the number one head of USAID. Speaker 2 shifts to criticizing Raj Shah and USAID, then highlights a partnership announcement between USAID and Mr. Beast’s philanthropic endeavors, noting Mr. Beast’s substantial net worth (estimates cited around $2.6 billion, with a referenced $5 billion company valuation). The speakers then pivot to analyzing Mr. Beast’s online influence, citing his enormous view counts across multiple channels and arguing that his content represents the most popular material on the Internet, capable of shaping hearts and minds and, therefore, serving as a finely tuned instrument of statecraft. The dialogue returns to ongoing coverage of Mr. Beast videos, including a live example of a Minecraft-based Hunger Games-style video with multi-minute view counts, and ends with a broad assertion that the Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the CIA in a civil-society capacity and that Mr. Beast’s platform, with hundreds of millions of views, could function as a tool of statecraft, given its reach and influence.

Speaker 0 describes a long, forty-year conflict described as a Third World War waged by the CIA and the U.S. National Security Complex against people of the Third World, not the Soviets. He states that at least six million people have been killed in this war. He emphasizes that these are not Soviets and notes no parachuting into the Soviet Union to kill since 1954, when the Soviets developed the capability of dropping atomic weapons on the United States. He references CIA, Marine Corps, and three CIA Secret Wars. He recalls his 1975 position as chief of the Angola task force within the National Security Council, describing it as the third CIA secret war he was part of. He mentions the National Security Act of 1947 creating the National Security Council, and the CIA being given a charter to perform duties and functions necessary to national security interests, with vague authority to protect sources and methods. He says, in the mid-80s, he coined the term the Third World War after realizing the U.S. was not attacking the Soviet Union but people in the Third World. He characterizes the Third World War as the third bloodiest war in history, with operations conducted globally and a license to kill, smuggle drugs, and violate international law and principles of nations working together for a healthier and more peaceful world. He alleges the U.S. legal system was being converted to give the CIA control of society. He notes there is massive documentation of CIA secret wars, citing the Church Committee investigation of 1975, which found 900 major operations and 3,000 minor operations in the fourteen years prior. Extrapolating over the forty-plus years of CIA activity, he claims 3,000 major operations and over 10,000 minor operations, all allegedly illegal and disruptive to other societies, with many bloody and gory. He asserts the CIA organized the overthrow of functioning constitutional democracies, created secret armies, and directed them to fight on multiple continents. He claims the agency encouraged ethnic minorities to rise up: the Mosquito Indians in Nicaragua, the Kurds in the Middle East, the Hmongs in Southeast Asia. He alleges death squads funded by the CIA, such as the Treasury Police in El Salvador, responsible for most of the 50,000 killed in the 1980s, and 70,000 before that. He describes orchestration by the CIA through secret teams and propaganda, leading to involvement in the Korean War and attacks on China from Quemoy and Matsu, Thailand, and Tibet. He notes drug trafficking, the Korean War resulting in about a million deaths, and the Vietnam War, with CIA involvement at every level, contributing to the creation of the Golden Triangle and the Golden Crescent, where heroin became a major outcome, with Air America aircraft shipping arms for allies and returning with heroin, and claims President Carter and Admiral Turner brag about the Afghanistan operation as the largest CIA secret war operation in history. He concludes that the Golden Crescent remains the largest source of heroin today. He summarizes that the Third World War, waged by the CIA, the U.S. National Security Complex, and the military, has resulted in widespread devastation, especially in the Third World, as opposed to Europe where there is no equivalent destructive capability. He notes that those regions rarely have the means to hurt the U.S., questioning the motive of targeting those who cannot defend themselves.

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.

Universities are not just places where professors teach students. The Harvard Endowment, for example, has made a large amount of its $50 billion by working with the US State Department in foreign regime change operations. In the 1990s, Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Harvard Endowment for International Development, petitioned USAID for around $500 million to administer the economic privatization of Russia during its shock therapy period. The Harvard Endowment and George Soros' Quantum Fund were given a closed auction bid on the sale of formerly Soviet government-held assets. Harvard receives billions in grants from the US government while doing favors for them. The same applies to Columbia and Stanford Universities.

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.

I discovered a way to work the system, like George Soros. He realized you could establish an NGO with relatively little money. You then lobby politicians to allocate significant funds to that organization. For instance, a $10 million donation could be used to establish a nonprofit and turn it into a billion-dollar NGO. These organizations often have appealing names, such as the Institute for Peace, yet they're essentially graft machines. There are hardly any requirements associated with the funds they receive. The government largely assumes they're doing good work, although many officials are aware that this isn't the case; it's simply a massive system of graft.