TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asserts that the regime is “pummeled right now … every single day” and is trying to destabilize the country. He references the Cloward-Piven political strategy, first introduced by political theorists in the 1960s–1970s, which he says outlines a path to left-wing domination through three mechanisms: building a permanent deep state bureaucracy in Washington DC, borrowing so much money that the debt can never be paid back, and mass migration from around the world to flood the immigration system. He invites listeners to look up the Cloward-Piven strategy and argues that what they are experiencing is not a mistake or due to the current White House’s incompetence, but a deliberate plan. The goal, he claims, is to overload the system so it can be broken, enabling whatever comes next to be built. He adds that if they have any say in the matter, they will oppose it and continue building something bold and beautiful, rooted in traditional, conservative American values and principles. The overarching message is that the current administration is executing a strategy to destabilize and eventually remake the system, and the speaker positions himself and his supporters as defenders of a conservative vision against that plan.

In Washington DC, there is a perception of corruption and control by the deep state and intelligence agencies. The process starts with freshman orientation, where lobbyists for special interest groups wine and dine new politicians, influencing their decisions. By aligning with the leadership and lobbyists, politicians are protected and nurtured, but at the cost of compromising their own beliefs. Those who resist this system may face extortion and attempts to compromise or cancel them. If these tactics fail, there are significant financial resources dedicated to destroying those who challenge the narrative.

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.

If you don't conform to the prevailing national security state or neoconservative worldview, there's a whole infrastructure that supports those who do. They have endowed professorships, think tanks offering high-paying jobs, and a clear career path in government. However, if you think differently, you're targeted and canceled. They go to great lengths to undermine you, and if that fails, they attempt to ruin you.

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.

When people talk about the deep state, in a sense, this is the commanding control of a major part of the deep state. No. It is the commanding control of the deep state. Congress said, we want comprehensive oversight on both operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and we want a plan for oversight and we're going to delegate this directly to the chair of the SIGI. I see. So you really worked for the chair of the SIGI. Well, this is the interesting piece. He in turn delegates it down to the IG at the DOD. Yeah. And I'm working for him. Yeah. So, you're working directly for the inspector general at DOD. But for the SIGI actually. But in effect You really were working for the SIGI. You bet. And who at the SIGI? Michael E Horowitz. Wow. Horowitz? Yes. One of the worst. Yes. One of the absolute worst. Horowitz of Russia collusion fame. Yes. Who now is at is not out of the government, who now is at the Federal Reserve. Right. Maybe. Ready to come back. Right. Still probably providing emeritus status on the SIGI. What was his position officially at the He was the DOJ IG. He was the inspector general at DOJ. And he replaced Glenn Fine who went to DOD. Wow. It's a really nice tightrope. And his deputy then went on to become the DODIG. And his deputy was spent thirty years over in The US Attorney's Office District Of Columbia. They really have it all sewn up, don't they? The assistant FBI director for integrity and ethics were for Glenn Fine and runs the DO runs the FBI. Yes. Think of the Siggy as an integrated command and control center. So, the buck stops with them. Yes. Because every complaint that is made. In any agency whatsoever goes to the Inspector General, and from those IGs report to the SIGI and it dies. And are investigated by the SIGI. And are investigated by the SIGI and it all dies. That's whistleblower complaints actually go to die. If it's against the members of the SIGI. Unless it's in their interest to prosecute it. Politically, yes. So, when people talk about the deep state, in a sense, this is the command and control of a major part of the deep state. No. It is the command and control of the deep state. It's in every bureau, every board, every agency, and every commission. One person, 2,300,000 people in the executive branch. I only need about 40 people to run the whole show. As long as you ensure that no one can foil my records, as long as everything I do is law enforcement sensitive, and as long as anybody that is a whistleblower can get collective punishment. Which is what you have seen with over 700 documented cases of people who've been Retaliated against. We see it every day. We see it every day.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

One speaker believes the idea of a "deep state" is paranoid. Another speaker respectfully disagrees, defining "America First" as: 1) elected officials actually running the government, and 2) leaders owing their sole moral duty to American citizens. This speaker claims that unelected bureaucrats, numbering 4 million, set most public policy and cannot be fired by elected officials, which they argue is not a democracy but a technocracy. They believe this is a root cause of foreign and domestic policy failures, including the rise of the welfare and regulatory state. They also claim that the warfare state is upstream of the welfare state, and that invading other countries invites immigration, linking it to the border crisis.

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.

The speaker says they are aligned with Elon Musk's actions and that moving fast is necessary to overcome vested interests in Washington D.C., where 25% of the U.S. GDP pulsates. Musk believes he's taking back the American people's cheese, not just moving someone's cheese. Changes cause immediate perception of cuts, while benefits take months to materialize. The speaker clarifies it's the Department of Government Efficiency, not extinction, aiming to improve operations without demonizing federal employees. Major savings will come from reducing reliance on contractors. One firm, Booz Allen, receives 98% of its revenue from the government, indicating poor risk management. Despite rules for six-month contracts, some individuals have been in place for twenty years through continuous renewals. The administration's transparency is crucial for taxpayers to understand the extent of the "grift."

Speaker 0 asks, "Are there organizations like the Heritage Foundation that were very clearly at one time not necessarily cult oriented or cultish that could now be considered cultish based on how they've shifted in their actions?" and answers, "I would say yes." Speaker 1 adds, "Yeah, I mean, certainly they are the linchpin of what's happening. I mean, they are the foundation of what's happening. So yeah, they have crossed that line." He continues, "I don't know how internally the Heritage Foundation operates in terms of it itself being a cult, but it certainly is a key originator and supporter of what's happening with this administration." Speaker 0 closes, "yeah. Thank you. Well, I will"

Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I spoke with Byron, a White House adviser, who acknowledged that the deep state exists. He explained that bureaucracies often create commissions to delay action, which can hinder incoming leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential target for bureaucratic resistance. Byron mentioned that the bureaucracy should implement elected leaders' policies while also advising them. Our conversation revealed insights into how the bureaucracy operates, and I recorded it all. Byron seemed surprised but engaged. This highlights the importance of transparency in government, and we will continue to investigate and report on these matters.

The piece discusses 'burrowing'—the process by which political appointees enter the permanent bureaucracy. It cites cases: individuals connected to Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff, and Eric Holder ending up in Defense, FAA, and DOJ under Trump. Presidents appoint more than 3,000 political appointees, while the federal government employs roughly 2,300,000 in nonpolitical career roles. The series argues these burrowers may form part of a deep state and raises questions about their influence as the Trump administration seeks more accountability by reforming civil service protections. An RMG poll found that 75% of Washington DC based federal employees making $75 or more per year and who voted for Harris in November say they will not follow a lawful Trump order if they consider it bad policy. The project concludes that the series supports a goal to make permanent Washington more accountable to the people.

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.

The speaker says they are aligned with Elon's actions and that moving fast is necessary to overcome vested interests. Within a ten-mile radius, 25% of the US GDP pulsates, and everyone wants to "skim a little." Elon believes he's moving the American people's cheese, not someone else's. Changes cause people to come after Elon and the administration, and the benefits of cuts aren't immediately visible, creating a perception challenge. The speaker clarifies that it's the Department of Government Efficiency, not extinction, aiming to improve government operations without demonizing federal employees. Two significant savings will come from cutting contractors. One organization, Booz Allen, receives 98% of its revenue from the government, indicating a risk management failure and entrenched interests. Despite a six-month contract limit, some individuals have been in place for twenty years through repeated contracts. The administration's transparency in exposing this "grift" is crucial for taxpayers to understand the extent of the issue.

The deep state refers to career employees within the U.S. government and military who influence policy without being directly accountable to elected officials. Agencies like the FCC, CIA, SEC, and IRS have the power to enact regulations that can significantly impact our lives, often more than laws passed by Congress. These regulations, totaling 200,000 since 1975 and spanning 800,000 pages, demonstrate that the deep state is not a secret but a well-established reality. Unfortunately, these career employees cannot be easily fired, ensuring that political interests have limited influence over them. This situation highlights a concerning aspect of our governance that needs to be acknowledged.

There are about 3 million federal government employees, with only 3,000 appointed by the president, making it difficult to manage them. These employees, who nominally report to the executive branch, cannot be fired by the president. This creates a situation where an unelected "fourth branch" of government operates independently, resisting reforms and attempts to hold them accountable. Since Trump's election in 2016, elements of this administrative state have actively worked against him, using tactics like the Russiagate investigation to undermine his presidency. The key issue for Trump's potential second term will be whether he can rein in this bureaucracy and restore democratic control, aligning with the intentions of the Constitution. Trump symbolizes a push for democracy against this entrenched bureaucracy.

This administration's talk about fighting waste, fraud, and abuse is a smokescreen. Their actions reveal a focus on promoting corruption. One of the first things they did was remove 17 inspector generals from federal departments and agencies. These are the people who fight corruption, with staffs dedicated to uncovering waste, self-dealing, bribery, and abuse. Last year alone, they saved us $93 billion. Meanwhile, people are being fired from important civil service positions, and this is not about eliminating waste, fraud, or abuse. It's a continuation of wiping out the anti-corruption infrastructure of the government.

I'm a platform services manager for the Department of Homeland Security. I'm not thrilled about Kristi Noem's appointment. The truth is, we don't let political appointees get in our way. It's my job to filter things. By the time marching orders get to me and below, we can steady the ship. I feel bad for the GS fifteens because they have to deal with the crazy stuff. They have to kiss ass and re-word ideas. DHS could fall on Noem's head, and she wouldn't even know it. The secretaries can set priorities, but they can't tell us what to do. If we don't agree with the priorities, there's a lot of room for interpretation. We can filter the marching orders, like a septic tank. Also, my trans colleagues are freaking out because this administration is super anti-trans.

The speaker discusses being targeted for their knowledge and potential role in a second Trump administration. They suggest shutting down the Department of Education and reforming intelligence agencies like the FBI and CIA. They highlight the need to address deep state elements within the government. The speaker emphasizes the need for significant government reform to combat embedded bureaucratic influences.

People saw Trump as a threat to democracy, but he was really a threat to the bureaucracy. Elected officials have little power compared to the bureaucracy, and Doge is the first real threat to it. Usually, the bureaucracy absorbs revolutions, but this time, power might actually return to the people. The small decisions within the bureaucracy lead to massive financial outcomes. We saw cases where billions were sent to newly formed NGOs with no prior activity. Government-funded NGOs are a nightmare, a way to bypass laws. These nonprofits are used for people to cash out, becoming wealthy and paying themselves huge sums. It's one of the biggest scams ever.

Byron Cohen, a White House adviser, discusses the challenges RFK Jr. would face as HHS secretary, suggesting the bureaucracy could undermine him. He explains that the administrative state can create deceptive commissions to delay decisions, such as studying vaccine safety, which can lead to years of inaction. Byron acknowledges the existence of a "deep state," asserting that it acts in its own interests and can obstruct initiatives from political appointees. He believes that blocking RFK's policies, particularly on vaccines, aligns with public sentiment, even if it means subverting the political process. Byron emphasizes that the bureaucracy can resist directives, making it difficult for leaders like RFK to implement their agendas effectively.

I'm James O'Keefe, and I caught a White House advisor, Byron, on hidden camera discussing the "deep state." People joke about it, but it’s real to some degree. One way the bureaucracy slows things down is by creating commissions to study issues, which can delay progress for years. I also recorded him saying the bureaucracy could crush incoming leadership, like RFK Jr. Byron admitted the bureaucracy exists and should implement the policies of elected leaders while also advising them. He said he advises on research and development policy. To all the bureaucrats in Washington, you're on notice. Speak openly, or we'll record you. We're going to be recording you en masse.

It seems odd that many people in the bureaucracy with salaries of a few hundred thousand dollars somehow accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while in their positions. We're curious where this wealth comes from. Maybe they're good at investing, and we should seek their advice. But mysteriously, they get wealthy, and we don't know why. The reality is that they're likely getting wealthy at the taxpayer's expense, and that's the honest truth.

The speaker discusses internal resistance to RFK Jr.’s policies and the idea that “deep staters” have been entrenched in government. They mention being forwarded an anecdote from a “good career employee.” They point to the FDA, noting that when Marty Makary came in, he had only about 10 political appointees he could choose. Jay Bhattacharya at the NIH allegedly had one political appointee. The speaker claims that every government employee is a “deep stater” who has been there a long time and that an email from a good employee circulates a CIA manual called How to Be a Bad Bureaucrat and Subvert an Institution from Within. The email supposedly asserts that 90% of employees at HHS, which has 70,000 employees, are talking in lunchrooms about the manual and telling each other that their job is to save America and save science from the agenda of President Trump and RFK Jr. The speaker asserts this reflects how people think across major departments and asks how to get rid of them, suggesting firing them as a solution, and mentions SIOP in this context. The CDC is presented as a case study of failure, described as a public health disaster in its COVID-19 response. The speaker alleges that the CDC’s guidance on school lockdowns copied directly from a teacher union document with which they were aligned, reproducing paragraphs from the teacher’s union advocating for two years of school shutdowns. It is claimed that the CDC also said that cloth masks were fine. The speaker says the CDC led the response and that the NIH funded the entire pandemic, including gain-of-function research, asserting that this constitutes “the creation of the pandemic.” In contrast, RFK Jr. is said to have fired three employees, and this action is described as national news. The overall narrative emphasizes a view of pervasive internal opposition within federal agencies, a controversial and sweeping critique of the CDC, NIH, and HHS responses to the pandemic, and a framing of RFK Jr.’s personnel decisions as transformative and newsworthy.