reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

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

The discussion centers on allegations that the United States has used or could use domestic and international mechanisms to effect regime change, including through domestic unrest and foreign influence operations. Speaker 0 describes a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual, framed as a vision for 2021 and beyond, that purportedly contains instructions and examples on how the military could work with the State Department, intelligence services, and USAID to use race riots to destabilize nations. He points to examples labeled as part of this manual’s guidance for destabilization via combined military-government-civilian efforts. Speaker 1 lays out a model of how revolutions are allegedly structured, starting with a government at the top and support funneled through USAID, the State Department, or other administration entities. He then describes a degree of separation through privatized NGOs, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and similar organizations, with money flowing from entities such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations through tides and government-funded NGOs like NED. He suggests money ultimately comes from the people, and that demonstrators, youth movements, a sympathetic media, and labor unions contribute to organizing protests. He outlines conditions for regime change: an unpopular incumbent, a semi-automatic regime (not fully autocratic), a united and organized opposition, the ability to quickly frame the voting results as falsified, media amplification of that falsification, an opposition capable of mobilizing thousands, and divisions among coercive forces like the military or police. He asks whether those conditions are present and implies they are. Speaker 2 cites a declassified CIA guide from 1983 aimed at training operatives to organize riots in foreign countries, including using agitators and hiring professional criminals to manipulate mass meetings, with the goal of turning general anger into violence against the regime. The guide describes creating a climate where a few hundred agitators could mobilize tens of thousands, using 200 back channels and 200 human assets to generate a 10,000–20,000 demonstration. It also notes strategies such as setting up job fairs near riots to enlist disaffected workers. He references USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), implying that “transition” is a code for regime change, and cites a 2009 congressional report warning that OTI was a foreign operation aimed at toppling governments through organized political warfare, including mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation, hospitals, and schools. Fulton Armstrong’s quote is cited regarding government secrecy surrounding such operations. The speakers conclude by condemning actions conducted in the shadows, destabilizing nations using race wars to achieve political aims, and advocating that the military be involved, arguing these efforts occur without oversight.

A member of Congress is allegedly using tactics promoted by a Harvard Ash Center partner and calling on supporters to be "strike ready," promising violent protests. This partner is the nonviolent action lab, and its leader, Erica Chenoweth, uses they/them pronouns and has ties to USAID, the State Department, and the United States Institute of Peace. Chenoweth has lectured at USAID and authored reports on nonviolent resistance, focusing on how to topple dictatorial regimes. Their research analyzes revolutions, concluding that nonviolent resistance is the most effective tactic, not due to moral objections to violence, but because it's empirically superior. Chenoweth has written extensively on topics like how to topple a dictator, the role of violence in nonviolent resistance, and terrorism. The Ash Center, despite deleting its donor list, is reportedly funded by USAID and the State Department. Chenoweth has also lectured at and consulted for the United States Institute of Peace, receiving grants to promote regime change, not just peaceful protest.

The conversation centers on a set of claims and observations about January 6 that orbit around Sedition Hunters, Ray Epps, and the so-called “Northwest Scaffold Commander.” The speakers discuss and link multiple pieces of information to argue that the FBI and other agencies were paying close attention to, or coordinating with, covert actor networks on that day. - The discussion opens with a reference to a John Solomon article about Sedition Hunters and claims that the FBI and Justice Department paid Sedition Hunters about $150,000 to gather evidence on January 6 protesters to help the FBI make arrests. They note the figure was reported as over $100,000 in some places and $150,000 in a House hearing, and they say the FBI/DOJ paid Sedition Hunters, the SPLC, the ADL, the Atlantic Council, DFR Lab, and Bellingcat for intelligence. - The main focus shifts to a piece titled Meet Ray Epps (December 2021) by the speakers’ interlocutor, where they argue that the “main star of the show” was not Ray Epps, but a different figure labeled Northwest Scaffold Commander (referred to as Scaffold Commander). They emphasize that Sedition Hunters’ archives identified Scaffold Commander as their number-one suspect, although he was not placed on the FBI’s most-wanted list. - They recount how, on January 8, 2021, the FBI’s most-wanted list listed Ray Epps as a top suspect in the case, with public calls for information and a cash reward. By late June 2021, a Phoenix newspaper identified him as “Reyes,” and on July 1, 2021, the FBI removed Epps from the wanted list with no explanation and no arrest. They contrast this with Scaffold Commander, who was never added to the FBI’s public wanted list for identification by the public, despite being the focal point of Sedition Hunters’ investigations. - The speakers describe Scaffold Commander as an older man with glasses, a nerdy mask, and a blue cap, who allegedly directed the breach from the Northwest scaffold overlooking the Capitol. They claim he used a bullhorn to issue commands for approximately 18 minutes to an hour and a half, from 1:00 PM to about 2:30 PM, urging the crowd with phrases like “Move forward,” “Don’t just stand there,” “Help somebody over the wall,” and “We gotta fill up the capital.” - They juxtapose these observations with the chronology of the breach: the first breach around 12:53 PM, the crowd’s advance toward the Capitol, and the moment rioters entered the building. They argue Scaffold Commander acted as a ringleader and that Ray Epps was directly beneath him in the crowd, effectively functioning as an internal participant who helped draw people toward the front. - A key point they stress is that Scaffold Commander’s high perch and commanding role align with a long-cited CIA manual from 1983, Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, which describes a small cadre of crowd agitators operating from elevated positions to direct slogans and crowd movement. They quote and reference passages describing an “outside commando element” that stays above the crowd to observe and direct a demonstration, using high observation points to shout instructions and guide the crowd’s actions. - The speakers argue that the FBI has not acknowledged Scaffold Commander, has not included him on any public list, and has not publicly solicited identification for him, despite Sedition Hunters’ focus on him as the pivotal organizer. They suggest that internal FBI records, memos, or emails about Scaffold Commander could be highly revealing, potentially showing whether higher-ups instructed not to pursue him. - They conclude by urging the FBI and related investigators to search their internal records for “Northwest Scaffold Commander” and make any relevant documents public, implying that such records could undermine the official narrative of the event. They also frame the existence of an internal, externally guided command structure as a critical piece of the January 6 story that remains underexplored by authorities.

Government agencies like the CIA use Hollywood entertainment to manipulate and control people. The speaker claims to have trained with the NSA and been involved in covert operations around the world. They discuss how agencies manipulate elections and overthrow governments using psychological operations. They also mention the influence of the Creative Artists Agency (CAA) in Hollywood and its connections to the CIA. The speaker suggests that the CIA and other intelligence agencies deceive and manipulate the public through propaganda and misinformation. They question the legitimacy of the US government and call for people to take back their power.

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.

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.

The video discusses a plan for global censorship, revealing how the US government recruited NGOs and individuals to censor and subvert the American people. The goal was to replace terms like propaganda and censorship with "cognitive security" to control people's beliefs. The speakers emphasized the need to change people's narratives and beliefs subtly. They also mentioned the use of different methods and messages for different audiences based on their existing biases. The speakers admitted to being part of a private NGO working under the supervision of the US military to censor American citizens. They discussed tactics such as disarming protests, influencing public opinion through fake accounts and infiltrating private groups, and pressuring banks to close accounts. The full details can be found on Substack.

We have manuals and SOPs on how to use individuals to stir up rivalries between tribes in places like Afghanistan. Special operations can manipulate someone with radical ideologies to incite violence between villages. This tactic is not uncommon and has been successful worldwide. Utilizing individuals as "village idiots" to create chaos is a known strategy in our government. Former members agree with this approach.

In the conversation, Syed Mohammed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, addresses multiple interwoven geopolitical issues, centering on Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the broader strategic rivalry with the United States and its allies. Syria and ISIS release - Marandi asserts that the Damascus regime, described as al-Qaeda/ISIS-aligned factions, would not tolerate Kurdish forces backed by the United States. He notes prior violence against Alawites, Christians, and Druze as context for the current disturbing images from Syria. - He argues the United States is not a reliable partner for its allies, pointing to past episodes such as Obama’s refusal to support Arbil when ISIS threatened the Kurdish government, and Soleimani’s rapid military response to save the city. - He states that ISIS prisoners have been released in Syria, implying that thousands of ISIS members are now free and could destabilize Syria and possibly Iraq. He emphasizes that both Jolani (an ISIS-linked figure) and the Kurdish groups in northeast Syria are allied to the United States, making it unclear who released the prisoners but suggesting that those actors are aligned with the U.S. - The broader implication is that the release increases instability in Syria and potentially across the region. Border security and spillover fears - The discussion turns to Iraq’s border with Syria, with Marandi weighing whether U.S.-backed jihadist forces might spill into Iraq or Lebanon. He suggests a likelihood that ISIS/Al-Qaeda remnants could be used to pressure Lebanon and Iraq to prevent closer Iranian influence. - He notes that Iran’s potential responses could include its missile and drone capabilities, should security worsen on a front involving its allies in Lebanon and Iraq; however, Iran currently refrains from large-scale involvement in Syria but would consider action if threats to Iran or its allies escalate. Regime change, fragmentation, and U.S.-Israel aims - The conversation shifts to Iran post-riots, with questions about U.S./Israel strategies for regime change. Marandi contends the plan is to destabilize and fragment Iran, not to establish a unified post-regime scenario. - He cites alleged Israeli and Western involvement in organizing riots as evidence of a broader conspiracy to create chaos and justify military action. He claims Mossad and other intelligence agencies were on the ground, and public statements from former CIA officials acknowledged Israeli involvement. - He describes the riot phase as highly organized, with foreign funding (including Bitcoin), online recruitment, and careful targeting of police and infrastructure. He portrays the protests as initially legitimate grievances that devolved into violent chaos fueled by external coordination, with widespread destruction and deaths, including the killing of police officers. - In contrast, he highlights large pro-government demonstrations, especially a national day of demonstrations that he says showed widespread popular support for the Islamic Republic and condemnation of rioters. He points to extensive media coverage highlighting peaceful protests, while arguing that the riot narrative dominated Western coverage. Internal Iranian dynamics and public opinion - Marandi emphasizes the fragmentation among Iranian opposition groups: MEK, monarchists, Takfiri remnants near the Pakistan border, and Kurdish separatists, all of whom he asserts lack credible popular support. - He argues that even if the regime were at risk, fragmentation would prevent any single faction from stabilizing the country post-regime change. He suggests this aligns with his view of broader Israeli aims to weaken and fragment Iran and neighboring states, as seen in Syria and Iraq. Military capability and deterrence - He asserts Iran’s substantial missile and drone capabilities and asserts that Iran could defend allies in Lebanon and Iraq if needed. He notes Iran’s long-term preparedness against U.S. threats, including underground bases and extensive drone/missile stocks. - He contends that if war occurred, it would have wide regional and global economic consequences, potentially destabilizing oil markets and prompting broader geopolitical upheaval. He argues that U.S. restraint may be influenced by the risk of a global economic meltdown. Russia, China, and Starlink - Regarding technological assistance for countering communications, he mentions rumors of Russian or Chinese involvement in aiding Iran's internet disruption and Starlink-related issues, acknowledging uncertainty but highlighting a growing trilateral closeness among Iran, Russia, and China in the face of U.S. pressure. media narratives and leadership - He criticizes Western media for portraying protests as peaceful, while Israeli claims and cyber/disinformation around the events are presented as demonstrations of foreign involvement. He maintains that internal Iranian unity—visible in large-scale demonstrations—contrasts with the portrayal of a fractured nation. - He closes by suggesting that while some European leaders may align with U.S. policies, the overall strategic outlook remains uncertain, with a warning that Trump’s approach could escalate tensions rather than yield stability.

"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.

In 2021, US Special Forces outlined a manual for orchestrating a rental riot to destabilize a country for negotiation. An example in West Africa involved a social media campaign to incite labor strikes against Chinese investments. This tactic aimed to pressure the government to reject Chinese development projects. The goal was to force concessions through destabilization rather than military conflict. This strategy is part of current US diplomatic efforts.

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."

The US Institute of Peace is compared to the National Endowment for Democracy, with both accused of being "aggressively anti-peace." NGOs are described as the "stem cell of the government's central nervous system," originating with the US income tax in 1913 and becoming fronts for the CIA. These organizations allegedly serve as deniable channels for money, contacts, and guidance, influencing groups without direct US government involvement. A "donor drafter class," including figures like George Soros and Bill Gates, influences policy by drafting off the US government. George Kennan's 1948 memo, "Inauguration of Organized Political Warfare," is cited as a blueprint for American power, using NGOs to rig elections, such as in Italy. The CIA, State Department, and corporations form a "blob" to advance US interests, with NGOs acting as back channels for diplomacy and financial assistance. The Open Society Foundation is accused of synchronizing US foreign policy with its own, influencing governments and speculating on currencies. El Salvador's 30% tax on foreign funding of domestic NGOs is noted as a significant move. The US Institute of Peace is criticized for its stance on opium production in Afghanistan and alleged payments to the Taliban. The discussion touches on the historical context of NGOs, their role in regime change, and their connections to corporate interests.

The CIA recruits established citizens—doctors, attorneys, businessmen, teachers—as "social crusaders" for a political group to topple governments via paramilitary action. These individuals maintain their influence, recruiting others within their respective fields into an alliance supporting the CIA-backed group. Teachers' unions are controlled to influence education, curriculum, and propaganda, enabling government disruption through walkouts and strikes. Cluster cells of influential individuals in each sector work within their spheres, uniting at the appropriate time. This structure ensures that even seemingly insignificant recruits contribute to a larger effort. The Transition Integrity Project's guide highlights using BLM street muscle to stop Trump, even after an election win. The plan involved supporting new racial justice leaders, not movements, to control them through back channels. This strategy mirrors Operation Gladio and the Integrity Initiative, using cluster cells across industries and countries for censorship and narrative control. The CIA's psychological operations guide details controlling mass assemblies by using covert commandos, bodyguards, and "incident initiators" to escalate peaceful protests into violence. The goal is to manipulate groups into a "fury of justified violence" against their own government, using a small group of agitators to incite large-scale riots and provoke government crackdowns, justifying international sanctions and diplomatic action.

The speaker discusses the similarities between the US government's approach to counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. Counterterrorism focuses on violent acts, while counterinsurgency aims to prevent the rise of political movements that threaten US interests. The US often installs leaders overseas who favor Western stakeholder interests, which can lead to discontent among the local population. When a political group challenges the installed leader, the US employs various tactics, including media censorship and demonization, to suppress the threat. The speaker expresses concern about the censorship industry, as it mirrors the tactics used in foreign counterinsurgency efforts. They argue that while such tactics may be justified abroad, they become problematic when applied domestically.

The CIA is not just an intelligence agency, but also a covert action agency involved in overthrowing or supporting foreign governments and spreading disinformation, primarily targeting the American people. This disinformation is disseminated through the press to create an international anti-communist ideology. The goal is to justify actions like overthrowing the government of Nicaragua by linking it to a larger threat in order to gain public support.

I outline the speaker’s central claims about George Soros, the CIA, and global political influence. The speaker contends that George Soros has been one of the CIA’s most valuable private assets for over forty years, acting as the civilian, deniable funding arm of American regime-change operations worldwide. Because of this, Soros is not only allowed in the United States but protected there, enabling him to operate with impunity, which the speaker says explains his arrogance and continued influence. The speaker traces a pattern of Soros-backed “color revolutions” starting with Serbia in 2000, refined in Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and the Arab Spring in 2011. They assert that logos for USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the Open Society Foundations appear in all these cases, framing Soros as central to these movements. According to the speaker, the Arab Spring served as a trial run for Europe’s migrant crisis. They claim that in 2011 the CIA and Soros turned that playbook on Libya and Syria. Gaddafi allegedly warned in March 2011 that removing him would unleash millions to flood Europe from Africa; eight months later, Gaddafi was dead, Libya descended into chaos, and migrant waves began as predicted. By 2015–2016, the speaker asserts, battle-hardened jihadists and economic migrants were crossing the Mediterranean with iPhones, prepaid cards, and Twitter guides written in Arabic, described as the same social media mobilization tactics used in Kyiv and Tahrir Square. Wayne Madsen is cited as having called this pattern out in 2015, described by the speaker as a deliberate CIA social-engineering operation to fracture Europe from within, applying the same playbook to new targets. The speaker then asserts that the United States has been subject to this strategy from 2020 to the present, pointing to the summer riots of 2020 as an example. The claim continues that Soros’s Open Society Foundations donated at least $33,000,000 to groups that organized and sustained the 2020 riots, and that Soros-backed NGOs provided lawyers, maps, and logistics for the southern border caravans, as well as funding to influence police departments and district attorneys in major cities, effectively helping to elect them. The speaker argues that Soros is implementing the color-revolution playbook “on us now,” with the target being ordinary Americans rather than foreign nations. A historical reference is made to JFK, who allegedly spoke of splintering the CIA after the Bay of Pigs betrayal, a chance JFK did not realize, leaving the world the speaker claims the CIA built. The speaker notes that Hungary, a country of 9 million, has passed Stop Soros laws and expelled his operations, asking why the United States cannot do the same, and suggests finishing what JFK started.

Speaker 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.

A member of Congress is allegedly using tactics promoted by a partner of Harvard's Ash Center's nonviolent action lab. This partner is led by Erica Chenoweth, who uses they/them pronouns and has ties to USAID, the State Department, and the United States Institute of Peace. Chenoweth has lectured at USAID and authored reports for them on topics like LGBTQ participation in nonviolent action. Their work focuses on analyzing effective tools for toppling dictatorial regimes, concluding that nonviolent resistance is the most effective tactic. Chenoweth has written extensively on topics such as how to topple a dictator, the role of violence in nonviolent resistance, and terrorism. The speaker claims Chenoweth's work suggests a strategic, rather than moral, reason for disavowing terrorism. The Ash Center, despite deleting information about its funding, is allegedly primarily funded by USAID and the State Department. Chenoweth has also lectured at and consulted for the United States Institute of Peace, receiving grants to promote regime change.

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.

In 2021, US Special Forces outlined a manual on organizing rental riots to destabilize a country for negotiation. An example in West Africa involved a social media campaign to incite labor strikes against Chinese investments. The goal was to pressure the government to reject Chinese development projects. This strategy involved coordination with the State Department, intelligence services, and USAID to offer alternative jobs to striking workers. The end goal was to force the country to the negotiating table. This approach is seen as a form of diplomacy in 2021.

Speaker 0: We've set out to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies in over 20 countries. We manipulated elections in dozens of countries. We created standing armies and directed them to fight. We went after to organize ethnic minorities to encourage them to revolt. The first thing we did in Nicaragua was to go to the Mosquito Indians who had never gotten along with the other people in Nicaragua very well and give them more money than they had seen in the entirety of history and arms and training and rationales and sanctuaries in Honduras and sent them into Nicaragua to attack, kill, fight, rape, burn, pillage. And this has been a technique the CI has used in Nicaragua, in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Laos, in The Congo, in in Iran Iraq with the Kurds in different parts of the world. We created, trained, and funded death squads like the treasury police in El Salvador, and we've assassinated world leaders, including The United States president in 1963, and I'll get to that in more detail in just a moment. You can never be sure how many people are killed in the jungles of of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua, but adding them up as best we can, we come up with a figure of 6,000,000 people killed, minimum figure. It has to be more than that. These things are all done in countries of the third world where the governments don't have the power to force The United States to stop destabilizing the country and brutalizing their people.