reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speakers discuss a line of questioning about Peter Thiel and its potential influence on others. Speaker 0 recalls asking about Peter Thiel, after which the other person responded by turning the focus back on the questioner and claimed that the questioner was funded by Peter Thiel. According to Speaker 0, this response caused the other person to “crash out,” implying a sudden interruption or withdrawal from the discussion. Speaker 1 reiterates that the person “crashed out” as a result of the inquiry into Thiel. The conversation then broadens to consider whether the broader group being discussed is funded by Peter Thiel. Speaker 1 asserts that “they a 100% are funded by Peter Thiel,” referring to a collection of individuals including Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate. The phrasing suggests a belief that these figures are financially supported by Thiel, and Speaker 0 confirms acknowledging this trend by asking for a clarification of the funding. The two speakers describe the group as being in a “little” or tightly connected circle, implying a coordinated or aligned faction. Speaker 1 strengthens the claim by labeling the group as “the Avengers, the Peter Thiel Avengers,” portraying them as a premeditated or organized cohort with a shared agenda. The use of the term “Avengers” conveys the sense of a unified front or mission among the members, and Speaker 0 repeats the idea of a shared agenda, reinforcing the perception of a concerted effort. The discussion culminates in Speaker 1’s assertion about the motivation behind their alleged funding: the claim is that the objective is to exert “mind control of young men.” This line frames Thiel’s alleged influence as intentional and targeted, casting the funding as a strategy to shape the beliefs or behavior of a specific demographic group. Overall, the exchange centers on the hypothesis that Peter Thiel funds certain controversial public figures, leading to a perception of coordination and a deliberate influence campaign aimed at young men. The dialogue emphasizes the immediacy of televised or public confrontations when questions about funding arise and portrays the involved individuals as part of a tightly connected, ideologically aligned group.

Speaker 0: This is not just a story about violence and chaos; this is a money story. At the Government Accountability Institute, Peter Schweitzer and I followed the money to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc. We found a network of NGOs—not just 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 big left-wing funders, including Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. They’re pouring money into this ecosystem. Here are three money facts about Riot Inc. Number one: Riot Inc. has many divisions like any corporation. It doesn’t just have the Antifa boots on the ground division; it has PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a well-funded legal division to get these boots back on the ground as quickly as possible. It has investors I mentioned. Number two: We have identified dozens of radical organizations—not just decentralized Antifa groups, but dozens of radical organizations—that have received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors. These include lawyer groups and groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists, etc. Number three: More than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves. There was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City; over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money for that from both the billionaire class and taxpayer money. Additionally, this money helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms that support Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork (which had links to the ICE facility attack), the Socialist Rifle Association, and others. Even though some groups don’t have LLCs or EIN numbers, they can still get paid. Some funding platforms are funded by this network that we call Riot Inc. Speaker 1: Do you know the name of any of the funders? Do you know the names? Because if you do, I’d like you to give them to Cash or Pam—or Christie? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Or Christie? Speaker 0: Yes, we’ll do that. Speaker 1: As soon as you can. That’s all of you. Because you probably know the names after a certain period of time, you tend to find out. But these are people that do not have good intention for the country and that’s treasonous probably. So if you could, it would be very important if you could do that, it would be great. Speaker 0: it

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.

The speaker claims that the Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots, the antisemitic riots after October 7, and current pro-illegal immigration protests are not organic, but funded by radicals, Marxists, and jihadists. These groups are allegedly funding violence and extremism. The speaker has introduced the Stop Funders Act, which adds rioting to the list of predicate crimes under RICO. This would allow federal prosecutors to target those who are financially supporting these activities. The speaker suggests that the Department of Justice should follow the money and prosecute those funding violence, harassment, and actions aimed at tearing down the country. The speaker believes that those funding these attacks on America are more dangerous than the mafia.

"The PYM has cosponsored 450 anti West rallies in The United States." "Al Quds, one of PYM's partners, hosted the largest anti West rally in Toronto showcasing a swastika interlaced with the Star of David." "Nadia Tanus have called for the destruction of the West. To strike at the heart of empire." "Lina Assi has a history of hatred toward Western values." "Laila is a Palestinian terrorist and activist associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine." "Palestine Legal is a legal aid organization supporting the movement for Palestinian freedom in The US, and they've received over 2,000 requests for legal support just last year." "And guess who funds Palestine legal? None other than George Soros through the Tide Center." "The Tide Center administered 24,500,000 in USAID grants." "They landed on an NGO called Honor the Earth who specializes in dismantling settler colonialism and racial capitalism."

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.

They found tent cities on college campuses are well-organized by groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, Within Our Lifetime, and Jewish Voices for Peace, funded by wealthy investors like George Soros and the Rockefeller family. The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights pays organizers well, with ties to the 2020 riots. The question remains: why now, before a presidential election? Translation: The tent cities on college campuses are organized by groups funded by wealthy investors like George Soros and the Rockefeller family. These groups have ties to the 2020 riots. The question is: why now, before a presidential election?

The speaker describes how on-the-spot protests unfold, arguing that protests that appear to erupt immediately after events, and often seem spontaneous, are in fact not organic or unplanned. According to the speaker, such demonstrations can be initiated without the traditional apparatus of organizers, music, bullhorns, or large gatherings that are typically associated with coordinated protests. Instead, the speaker notes that trucks are being loaded to depart after the protest, suggesting a premeditated or at least organized behind-the-scenes workflow that enables these protests to occur with apparent immediacy. The speaker then identifies the groups involved in the protest activity behind them. The groups named are the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Democratic Socialists of America, and a few looser organizations described as Revolutionary Communists for America. The speaker asserts that these groups, together, are responsible for the protests and the organizing of the demonstrations. A central claim of the speaker is that none of the protests seen are organic contributions arising spontaneously from local populations. Instead, the protests are characterized as well organized, implying a level of planning and coordination beyond what the public perceives. The assertion extends to the source of this organization, suggesting that the readiness and capability to mobilize protests come from structured planning and networks rather than spontaneous public sentiment alone. Building on the claim of organization, the speaker posits that the effective mobilization of these protests is supported by funding. The funding is described as coming through various campaigns, with two described pathways: foreign influence campaigns and domestic political campaigns, specifically mentioning Democrat campaigns as potential sources of financial support. The speaker implies that such funding enables the rapid deployment and execution of protest activities. In summary, the speaker contends that the protests observed after events are not spontaneously generated but are the result of deliberate organization by specific political groups, with notable involvement from the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Democratic Socialists of America, and Revolutionary Communists for America. The speaker emphasizes that these protests are well funded through campaigns, including foreign influence efforts or Democratic campaigns, which facilitates their ability to mobilize quickly and appear as if they are happening organically.

The speaker says they “followed the money” to what they call the “protest industrial complex,” “Riot Inc.,” and identified a network of NGOs funding the ecosystem. They state the funding extends beyond the Soros/Open Society network to other funding networks, including the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, and “Foreign Cash,” along with “big, left wing” funders, including non-citizens. The speaker names Mr. Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland as an example of such funders. The speaker presents three “money facts” about Riot Inc. First, they describe Riot Inc. as having divisions similar to a corporation: not only an “Antifa boots on the ground” division, but also PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a “very well funded legal division” to “get these boots on the ground back on the streets as quickly as possible,” alongside the investors previously mentioned. Second, they claim they identified “dozens of radical organizations” that received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors, including “lawyer groups” that advocate for calling “good honest Americans fascists.” Third, they claim that more than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to “these very groups themselves.” They cite an Atlanta event called “Stop Cop City,” saying more than 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism and that these groups received money from both “the billionaire class” and “taxpayer money” for that. The speaker also claims that this money helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms used by groups such as “Antifa,” the “John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork” (linked by the speaker to an attack on an ice facility), and the “Socialist Rifle Association.” They add that groups without LLCs or EIN numbers can still be paid through these crowdfunding platforms. The speaker closes by saying they will keep “following the money” and thanks the audience for leadership.

The Third Precinct has been compromised. USAID used taxpayer money for BLM ($27 million), Soros (at least $260 million), and the WEF ($68 million). Taxpayers allegedly paid for these entities to burn down cities, destroy America, launder money to Democrats, and subsidize the WEF. USAID also funded Middle East Sesame Street ($20 million) and Ukraine ($1 billion). It is claimed that the prosecutor got fired because the money was not received. These actions are described as despicable, appalling, dangerous, and Democrat propaganda via fake news. It is considered an extremely dangerous use of taxpayer funds and a threat to democracy. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The speaker explains that spontaneous protests—those that appear immediately after an event—are not organic or spontaneous in the sense of arising without planning. Instead, they are described as being planned and coordinated in advance. As the speaker notes, what is happening behind them involves people loading their trucks to depart after the protest, indicating that the action is organized and time-bound rather than a casual, impromptu gathering. The speaker identifies the organizations involved in these protests, listing a coalition that includes the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Democrat Socialists of America, and a few smaller, loosely connected groups such as Revolutionary Communists for America. The implication is that a network of leftist and socialist organizations collaborates to stage protests, suggesting a broader structure behind what might appear as spontaneous demonstrations. A central claim presented is that these protests, which are often visible right after a triggering event, owe their existence to organization and coordination rather than being independent, grassroots activities. The speaker emphasizes that because they are well organized, these protests are also well funded. The funding, according to the speaker, comes from various campaigns, including possible foreign influence campaigns and Democratic campaigns. This point is presented as a causal factor in how quickly and effectively protests can be mounted in response to events. In summary, the speaker portrays a view of contemporary protests as the product of deliberate organization and financial support from multiple sources, rather than isolated, spontaneous expressions. The behind-the-scenes activity—such as loading trucks to leave after the protest—serves to illustrate the planned nature of these demonstrations. The presence of the named organizations (Party for Socialism and Liberation, Democrat Socialists of America, and Revolutionary Communists for America) is highlighted as indicative of a coordinated network contributing to the protests. The speaker’s overarching assertion is that the rapid mobilization of protests following events is enabled by these organized networks and funding streams, which shape the way demonstrations unfold and are sustained in the immediate aftermath.

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 transcript describes a network of “brightest minds” across media, tech, and politics who, it says, “play dumb” about racing and engage in “covering up each other's dirty tricks.” It suggests that influential figures are linked through relationships and coordinated conduct, framing the scene as interconnected rather than separate. It names “Elon” and then references “Sam and Mac and Chew,” implying that these individuals are part of the same ecosystem. The transcript also explicitly points to “Rotary Gates and Brad Smith too,” connecting those names to a broader theme of manipulation. It states that “rigging elections is nothing new,” and characterizes election outcomes as determined by “key swing states,” described as only “a few,” while claiming that “the future of civilization” is at stake. It then lists a series of mechanisms and alleged participants, including “illegal lottery, bribes and mistakes.” The transcript includes the phrase “Super Brad Schemmel was a super bad joke,” then continues with additional names and organizations: “Antonio Gracias and Aspen Institute.” It also references “Pritzker and Epstein,” followed by “Kimball Square Roots,” “Gable Man,” “Freemason and Rotary too,” and then “Flynn and Rakeland and the MyPillow crew controlling all sides.” Further, the transcript asserts that these groups and figures work together: “That's what they do.” It mentions “Titletown Tech and Microsoft build,” “Foxconn in China buy,” and “Kirk is shot, Orest's throat explodes,” presenting these as part of the same overarching pattern described earlier. The transcript continues with a broad set of names and media figures: “Alex Jones, Rogan and Elon enjoy your smoke.” It also includes “George Webb, Ian Carroll and the Cleanup Bros.” It claims that “no one asks about the super secret CNP no more,” framing this as a change in public attention or inquiry. Finally, the transcript concludes with: “Every branch,” reinforcing the idea that multiple sectors or divisions are involved within the same system.

Remember during COVID and the George Floyd protests? It seemed like money was being poured in to create outrage and destabilize the country in 2020, even though it felt artificial. It started after President Trump's inauguration with the pink hats, then transitioned into BLM and Antifa. The funding behind all of this seemed suspicious. Recently, we discovered USAID is one source. And just wait until we get to the Department of Defense and other departments! We've only scratched the surface of where this money is coming from.

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.

Speaker 0 frames this as “a money story” and says, at the Government Accountability Institute, they followed the money to the top of what they call the protest industrial complex, “Riot Inc.” They identified a network of NGOs beyond the Soros/Open Society network—“the Arabella funding network, the Tides funding network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash”—and other “big left wing funders” like Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. He shares three money facts: 1) Riot Inc. “has many divisions... not just the Antifa boots on the ground division. It has PR divisions, it has marketing divisions, it has a very well funded legal division to get these boots on the ground back on the streets as quickly as possible.” 2) Dozens of radical organizations have received more than $100,000,000 from the Riot Inc. Investors, including groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists. 3) More than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves; Stop Cop City in Atlanta; over 60 rioters charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money from both billionaire class and taxpayer money; money funds decentralized crowdfunding platforms; Antifa, John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork, Socialist Rifle Association; lack of LLCs or EINs doesn't mean they can't get paid. “Absolutely”—we’ll share the names of funders; “As soon as you can.” That’s all of you... “treasonous probably.”

A protester, speaking during a recording, discusses an organization called Make the Road New York and its perceived financial scope as part of a broader critique of immigrant-rights organizations. The protester asserts that Make the Road New York has a budget of $30,000,000 and notes that the topic of the immigrants’ rights organization is of interest to those observing organizational funding and influence. The speaker identifies themselves as being with a union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They state that they looked at the tax returns of Make the Road New York and found there were registered 501(c)(3) entities that file Form 990, and that Make the Road New York “received $16,000,000 in grants.” This claim ties the organization to a substantial influx of grant funding, suggesting a significant level of financial support from funders or the government. The conversation shifts toward hypothetical implications of such funding, with the speaker asking, “Can you imagine what Nick Shirley could do with $16,000,000? Can you imagine what James O’Keeffe could do with $16,000,000?” This line of inquiry appears to juxtapose the perceived influence of large sums of money with recognizable figures associated with political and investigative activities, raising questions about the power and use of funds. A broader assertion follows: “The United States government is funding this.” This statement connects the funding to government support, implying that public dollars are being directed toward Make the Road New York or similar organizations. The speaker then contrasts national debt with alleged fraud, stating, “We're 36,000,000,000,000 in debt, or are we 36,000,000,000,000 in fraud?” This rhetorical question presents a dichotomy between debt and fraud on a colossal scale, underscoring the protester’s critical stance regarding government spending and accountability. Overall, the excerpt highlights concerns about the financial backing of Make the Road New York, the role of grant funding for immigrant-rights organizations, and the perceived connection to government funding, framed within a broader critique of national debt and potential misallocation of public resources.

The discussion centers on tracing nonprofit funding and organizational networks active in Minnesota. Based on their research, they have tracked over $60,000,000 according to the latest nine ninety disclosures directed to approximately 14 groups. These groups include national and on-the-ground organizations such as the ACLU (which provides legal defense as well as facilitates trainings for some of the tactics described), Democracy Forward, Take Action Minnesota, and others like Minnesota Care, CTUL, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Voices for Racial Justice, and more. They note that over $60,000,000 has flowed to these groups across at least 14 organizations. Regarding the flow of money and its sources, they have built a database containing hundreds of thousands of rows of grants from networks such as the Soros network, the Arabella Funding Network, the Neville Roysingham network, and many others, as well as Tides, the Ford Foundation Network, and the Rockefeller Funding Network. These are described as massive NGOs that have billions of dollars to spend on all kinds of coordinated protest or, in this case, riot activity. The discussion highlights that these networks provide substantial funding influencing the Minnesota-based organizational 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.

A journalist asks if there’s someone who can be spoken to about hearing, and is directed to the other side of the park. The exchange turns into a broader set of allegations about a man named Naftali Aaron Kranz and the organization Get Free. The speaker claims Naftali Kranz is a paid protester through Get Free. They present LinkedIn posts recruiting for paid protesters for the company, described as Get Free’s “part time mobilization support contractor.” The speaker asserts Get Free bills itself as a grassroots organization while Naftali and others are allegedly paid to protest. They claim Get Free aims to “undo white supremacy” and that one of the best ways to do that, in Naftali’s view, is to celebrate vandalism, citing Crown Heights, where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s cyber truck and placed dog feces on it. The speaker contends Naftali attended an abolish the police rally but was not the leader, instead blending in among other recruits, and that he works with the DSA, explaining why the speaker met him at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. On LinkedIn, the speaker says Naftali frequently posts about paid protester roles, urging people to join to “help us expand our effort to win reparations across the country,” with recruitment across Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. They describe a nine-week contract, part-time, paying $3,400 in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation who will recruit people and train them to drive turnout at events. The speaker also says Naftali is part of Jews Against Trump and urges donations to bail funds to “bail immigrants out of concentration camps,” adding a claim that a Jewish person who calls an immigration detention center a concentration camp has a serious mental illness, and criticizing colleges like NYU, the Democrat party, and mainstream media as brainwashing. The speaker asserts Nicole Cardi is at the top of the Get Free Movement and claims she says the George Floyd protests were the reason Biden won the 2020 election. They argue that protest NGO groups are about getting Democrats elected, and that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the speaker says is under investigation by the Department of Justice for foreign contributions. The speaker alleges ActBlue has funneled billions to activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which is said to be orchestrating resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis. Indivisible is claimed to have paid protesters and received over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros.

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.

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.