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.

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

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

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.

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

Data Republican has exposed seven non-governmental organizations (NGOs) allegedly involved in corruption within DC. These NGOs, termed the "uni-party unmasked," are claimed to receive substantial financial support from USAID and the Department of State. According to Mike Benz, these NGOs are part of a mass money laundering operation involving tens of billions of tax dollars. Data Republican highlights these organizations in a thread on X. The speaker claims Trump is shutting USAID down to rectify this. Elon Musk calls this discovery the "bull's eye."

The speaker argues that there are fake NGOs functioning as fake charities and that arrests should be made in relation to them. The claim is that these organizations are predominantly operated by Democrats, with occasional involvement by Republicans who are supposedly kept quiet by those false charitable activities. The speaker describes this pattern as evidence of a broader “uniparty” dynamic, suggesting that both major parties are involved in a system designed to influence politics. According to the speaker, the majority of the money flows to Democrats through these NGOs. They assert that billions of dollars are given to NGOs run by Democrats, and these organizations then channel funds through a large network of additional non-governmental organizations. This network allegedly creates a “giant money laundering scheme,” to the point where the speaker states that the words NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Key claims highlighted include: - Existence of fake NGOs that operate as fake charities. - A call for arrests related to these fake NGOs. - Predominant involvement of Democrats in running these NGOs, with occasional Republican involvement used to quiet concerns. - A description of a uniparty dynamic, implying bipartisan collusion or alignment in this activity. - Large-scale funding (billions of dollars) flowing to NGOs run by Democrats. - A subsequent cascade through a network of additional NGOs, forming a vast money laundering scheme. - The assertion that NGO activity and money laundering are nearly interchangeable in this context. The speaker emphasizes that the overall operation constitutes a substantial financial mechanism linked to political influence, portraying the NGO network as a conduit for laundering money rather than purely charitable activity. The overall framing is that the integrity of NGOs involved in political funding is compromised by this alleged system, tying NGO activity directly to money laundering in a way that equates the two terms in the speaker’s characterization.

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.

George Soros's Open Society Foundations have been revealed to be actively trying to influence political processes in Europe and Russia through funding local advocacy groups, social media projects, and journalists. For example, they provided over $130,000 to EU Observer, which used professional news reporting to promote open society values during the European elections. Additionally, leaked documents show the organization's half a million dollar effort to find evidence of Russia's alleged influence in European politics, although they acknowledge the challenges of accusing Russia. Some critics argue that Soros aims to disrupt Europe and promote open borders, referring to his version of democracy as "Sorosocracy."

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.

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.

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.

The whole NGO thing is a nightmare because government funded non-governmental organizations are essentially just government organizations, it's an oxymoron. Government funded NGOs are a loophole that allows the government to do things that would otherwise be illegal, by sending funds to a nonprofit. These nonprofits are then used for people to cash out and become very wealthy, it's a gigantic scam. There are probably millions of NGOs, and tens of thousands of large ones. It's a hack to the system where someone can get an NGO for a small amount of money. Soros was really good at this, he figured out how to leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that nonprofit.

Speaker 1 describes the scope of funding tracked by their organization. They state they have tracked over $60,000,000 according to the latest 990 disclosures, directed to approximately 14 groups—some national, others on the ground. Examples of groups involved include the ACLU (providing legal defense and facilitating trainings for some tactics described by Senator Corin) and Democracy Forward, Take Minnesota. Take Minnesota has reportedly received over $10,000,000 from these large NGO networks, including the Neville Roysingham network, Indivisible, National Lawyers Guild, CTUL, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Minnesota Care, Minnesota 3-5-0, Voices for Racial Justice, and others. The speaker emphasizes that the total spans at least 14 groups and more than $60,000,000 in disclosed funding. Speaker 0 asks where the money is coming from and how it flows to these groups. Speaker 1 explains that they have built a database with hundreds of thousands of rows of grants from networks such as the Soros network, Arabella Funding Network, the Neville Royce Singham Funding Network, and many others, including Tides, the Ford Foundation Network, and the Rockefeller Funding Network. These are described as massive NGOs with billions of dollars to spend on all kinds of coordinated protest or, in this case, riot activity.

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

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.

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).

Fake NGOs are often fake charities, mostly run by Democrats, though Republicans may be involved to maintain silence. Billions of dollars are given to these Democrat-run NGOs, which then go through a network of additional NGOs. This is described as a giant money laundering scheme, where the terms NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Arrests are needed in this regard.

Data Republican released a tool indexing the National Endowment for Democracy Journal, aggregating authors, articles, and NGOs. The speaker claims this journal proves George Soros and the government work together. The National Endowment for Democracy is described as a government-financed NGO involved in intelligence operations, with congressional representatives. The tool identifies authors in the journal affiliated with the Open Society Foundation, which is George Soros. The speaker highlights the number of articles in the journal mentioning Open Society Foundations. The speaker concludes that this demonstrates the government's deep involvement with George Soros, portraying him as a deep insider within the intelligence community.

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.

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

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.

This discussion centers around the influence of various funding sources on prosecutors in the U.S., particularly focusing on the group FJP. It reveals that FJP is funded not just by George Soros, but also by USAID and several other foundations, with USAID contributing significantly more. The narrative challenges the notion that Soros is the sole controller of these prosecutors, highlighting that USAID, often linked to CIA activities, plays a major role. The conversation emphasizes the need to reassess the narrative surrounding Soros and recognize the broader coalition of oligarchs and government agencies influencing prosecutorial decisions. Ultimately, it concludes that the term "Soros prosecutors" should be replaced with "USAID prosecutors," given the latter's greater financial influence.