reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Government workers discuss the actions and decisions within their control. They emphasize the power of noncooperation and leaking information to journalists and activists. They also mention the importance of creating parallel structures and being in touch with civic and grassroots groups. Slowing down bureaucratic processes through cost-benefit analysis and leaking documents is highlighted as an effective tactic. The conversation touches on the risks and consequences of these actions, including the potential loss of jobs or legal implications.

Everyone, stop complying with government laws and regulations. Mass noncompliance is the key to winning against power-hungry elites. Be fearless like Bosnia during 2020, where defiance led to government powerlessness. Assert your sovereignty as a human being and refuse to follow unjust mandates. Remember, your compliance gives them power. Take a stand and resist.

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.

Gene Sharp, a pioneer in nonviolent action, highlights the power individuals and federal workers possess. Rulers rely on people to collect taxes, enforce laws, manage transportation, allocate funds, and perform various tasks. If people refuse to provide these services, rulers would lose their ability to govern. President Harry S. Truman acknowledged the influence of bureaucrats, stating that he couldn't accomplish anything without them. This emphasizes that both ordinary people and federal workers hold significant power.

Speaker 0 outlines a four-stage model of subversion arranged along a timeline: demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization. - Demoralization: This stage takes roughly fifteen to twenty years, enough to educate one generation. It features tendencies in society moving away from core moral values. The aim is to exploit these movements by the originator of subversion. Areas targeted include religion, education, social life, power structure, labor relations, and law and order. - Religion: destroy or ridicule established faiths, replace with fake organizations, erode the basic religious dogma that connects people with the supreme being. - Education: divert learning away from constructive subjects (mathematics, physics, languages, chemistry) toward topics like history of urban warfare, natural foods, home economics, sexuality, or other diversions. - Social life: replace traditional institutions with fake organizations; remove initiative and responsibility from natural social links, substituting bureaucratically controlled bodies; social workers are described as primarily motivated by paychecks rather than genuine social concern. - Power structure: replace legitimate, elected or appointed bodies with artificial, unelected groups; the media is highlighted as a key example. - Law and order: erosion of the enforcement of law, with media described as undermining trust in those who protect society. - Bureaucracy and media: a trend toward mediocrity and dependence on established establishments; the media is portrayed as having monopolistic power to shape public opinion. - The media and the state of power: The media are described as having enormous influence and being elected by no one, with a claim that they can “rape your mind.” A speaker’s aside notes a historical critique of media elites as mediocrity. - Sleeperness: The concept of sleepers is introduced: students sent abroad who sleep for fifteen to twenty years and then re-enter as leaders of groups, precipitating clashes between their groups and ordinary people, thereby destabilizing society. - Destabilization: The next stage narrows to economy, labor relations, law and order, and the military, with the media still playing a role. Key processes include radicalization and militarization of social relations, with public clashes (e.g., between passengers and strikers) becoming normalized. Compromise becomes nearly impossible, and traditional relations between teachers and students, workers and employers, deteriorate. The media positions itself in opposition to society, creating alienation. - Crisis: Destabilization leads to crisis when society can no longer function productively. The population seeks a savior, who presents a strong, centralized government, potentially socialist. - Normalization: The final stage stabilizes the country by force. Eliminations follow, removing those deemed disruptive (sleepers, activists, liberals, academics, etc.). The rulers aim for stability to exploit the country. It’s described as a reversal of destabilization. - Aftermath question/answer: Speaker 1 asks if those eliminated serve any purpose; Speaker 2 responds that leftists, professors, civil rights defenders are instrumental during destabilization, but once their job is done, they are no longer needed and may be eliminated. The closing line from Speaker 0 summarizes: “The first one demoralized country, the second destabilized, the third one brought it to crisis. Goodbye, comrade.”

Speaker 0 explains that Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia in the late 90s served as an authoritarian ruler, and presents Milosevic as a model for Americans to study. He notes that an unlikely alliance of students, unions, coal miners, police, public housing residents, businesspeople, and others used all the mechanisms of power to undermine Milosevic, achieving this with almost no violence. He mentions the documentary Bringing Down a Dictator as a resource that illustrates this process; he hasn’t watched it but plans to. The film is on YouTube, about 55 minutes long, and focuses on a group called ATPORE, a student-run organization that galvanized the country and pressured various unlikely partners to act. The documentary is narrated by Martin Sheen and includes a march on the Capitol Building to keep an election going, which creates some confusion but is described as inspiring. Speaker 1 adds that the revolution consultants follow a specific strategy developed by the Serbian organization Otpor. Otpor mobilized millions of people to bring about Milosevic’s downfall, and their strategy became a blueprint for others.

It's great to see such a massive turnout here today! Everyone in the labor movement, and those who value public service, recognize that enough is enough. An injury to one is an injury to all. They're counting on us giving up, but we can't. I know many of you have family, friends, and colleagues in the federal system who are scared. If you can, stand up. If you are able, decline to enforce illegal instructions. If the facts support it, use the whistleblower portals that the Senate Democrats have set up. We may be out of power, but we are not powerless. We're going to win.

The speaker presents a narrative framing the modern American experience as the result of a deliberate, decades-long psyop (SIOP) that has engineered economic and social hardship. The core claims include: - The SIOP has taught Americans to accept being broke as normal and to accept that prices rise every year, taxes are normal, and that one should strive to pay bills rather than achieve financial security. - The conventional path of growing up with the belief that earning a certain income (initially $80,000, then $100,000, then $150,000) would secure a family’s livelihood has shifted. Now both spouses are expected to work to achieve financial freedom, leading to hiring nannies and babysitters, leaving the home, and disengaging from community life. - This economic and policy framework is alleged to have eroded time with family, community bonds, self-esteem, and marriage, culminating in widespread changes in how Americans live and relate to one another. The speaker asserts that these conditions were not normal but nefarious and damaging to American life. - The turning point is linked to President Donald Trump, who is portrayed as challenging the status quo by declaring “this is your country and that’s your money,” and refusing to back down as adversaries mobilize against him. - Opponents and those seen as destroying the American way are described as undermining Trump’s agenda. In 2019, as Trump “hit his stride,” the speaker alleges the release of COVID-19—the largest SIOP in global history—referred to as a “biological weapon” and a “scandemic,” used to extort trillions of dollars from the economy and to influence elections. - The narrative claims that there was an overt theft of the election, hijacking of democracy, and the installation of barbed wire around the capital, all framed as normal under what the speaker calls a manipulated system. - In the following years, there is said to have been an invasion of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal immigrants into the United States, with resources being depleted as a result. - Citizens allegedly became domestic terrorists in the eyes of those in power, facing surveillance of phones, computers, and lives. - Despite these pressures, Trump allegedly persisted, and the movement is said to have fought through courts and legal challenges, including “lawfare,” in an ongoing struggle against the establishment. - The speaker claims that the arrival of Elon Musk as a powerful ally helped uncover and publicize fraud, waste, and abuse of American taxpayer funds. This alliance is described as part of a broader effort to confront entrenched power. - The closing assertion is that subversion and infiltration remain the only tools of those in power as their funding dries up, and that “this is your liberation day.”

First speaker: Has America ever engaged in a general strike? Like, that’s enough. We’re not showing up to work tomorrow? Second speaker: We’ve never had a general strike. But this Friday on January twenty-third, there is an ice out of Minnesota, day of action. It’s a shutdown day where people will be staying home from work, refusing to participate in economic activities. So a power and they’re calling on Americans across the country to show solidarity. First speaker: One of the problems with Minnesota right now is you have people like Kristi Noem or the people who are heading up ICE saying that it’s not nonviolent resistance. They’re saying someone like Renee Good was actually a threat to those people or that filming an ICE agent—or documenting, which is perfectly legal—is a form of threat, and therefore they justify using violence in return to the threat of violence from these people. What do you do when what your nonviolent action is perceived as violence by the people who can use violence against you? Second speaker: Declaring peaceful protesters violent or domestic terrorists or outside agitators is what autocrats all around the world do. That is their playbook, is to make people fearful and to try to undermine the legitimacy of protesters. So what are we seeing in Minneapolis right now? What have we seen in our history in this country? Think about the civil rights movement, profound state violence used against protesters. They prepared, they trained, they role played, they organized all to make that political violence backfire. Think of Selma, the peaceful march. So when peaceful disciplined protesters confronted the dogs, the hoses, the response—It revealed the cruelty when the disciplined protesters were faced with this form of violence. And so that’s how disciplined nonviolent resistance can make state violence repression backfire.

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 argues that security forces are responsible for executing policies and getting things done, wielding coercive power. These pillars, together with their social, political, and economic power, ultimately prop up regimes. When they crack and power within them shifts, the entire edifice can crumble. The speaker then notes, “And so the next slide, please.”

Color revolutions exhibit subtle patterns that reveal their orchestrated nature. To unify crowds, organizers tap into unconscious connections, utilizing symbolism as a powerful tool. Revolutionary groups often share similar names and logos, signaling impending upheaval. While portrayed as aware and active, these groups are typically trained and radical, initiating the shift from peaceful protests to coups. Their influence is evident in various color revolutions, employing strategies like catchy chants to energize and create a collective identity among participants.

Democracies today often fail not through violence but when elected leaders dismantle institutions by installing loyalists over experts. These leaders politicize institutions like the military and Department of Justice, using them for personal and political gain. This pattern is evident in Hungary, Turkey, and Poland, where the ruling party attempted similar actions. Tactics include changing rules, appointing new personnel, and using the law or agencies like the IRS against unfavorable media or politicians. There are precedents for such actions in American history. People who support these leaders often dismiss or mock such concerns, unwilling to acknowledge the implications of their support.

Revolutions are set up with a semi-autocratic regime, an unpopular leader, organized opposition, media exposing falsified votes, mobilized demonstrators, and divided coercive forces. This pattern aligns with national elections, as seen in recent protest movements every 4 years.

Color revolutions exhibit subtle patterns that reveal their true nature. To unify crowds, organizers use symbolism effectively, employing similar names and logos for revolutionary groups. These groups often appear aware and active but are actually trained radicals who initiate violence, transforming peaceful protests into coups. Their influence is evident across various color revolutions. They utilize simple tools like catchy songs and chants to energize crowds and foster a collective identity.

Speaker 0 argues that there must be a change of direction, which is exactly what the Iranian people are demanding. He suggests that if the Iranian people receive support from the president for that idea, it would encourage them to take to the streets in even greater numbers and apply more pressure on the regime from within. He identifies the decisive factor as the instrument of repression that has been unleashed against the people and states that overcoming this obstacle is what could tilt the odds in favor of a movement that could push toward a complete collapse of the regime. He asserts that a decisive strike could alter the balance, describing it as the mechanism that would enable the people to prevail. Speaker 1 asks whether such decisive actions would involve American strikes, and whether Israeli strikes could play a role, implying that the Iranian people might view external intervention as cavalry coming to aid them. Speaker 0 confirms that it could be an American strike, an Israeli strike, or any force willing to act; he emphasizes that the cavalry is seen as necessary because the regime has to be confronted in ways that the regime cannot be confronted through ordinary means, and that the nation’s defenses can only be sustained up to a point without such intervention. Speaker 0 notes that the regime is so desperate that it has to import elements from Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq to act as instruments of repression, indicating that the regime is running out of its own capable personnel to carry out the dirty work. He asserts that the regime is on its last leg and on the verge of collapse, and that it will try every other means to survive. That is why a definitive strike could completely reverse the odds in favor of the nation and defenseless people, and such support is what is needed. Speaker 1 asks what should be struck: whether to target command and control facilities of the IRGC, or to launch a decapitation strike against the Ayatollah, and what either the United States or Israel, or any willing party, should do. Speaker 0 responds that from the perspective of the people on the streets, the priority is to neutralize every element that has been unleashed against them. He says anything connected to the regime’s mechanism of control or violence should be targeted, and that such action cannot be achieved through diplomacy or negotiation. He notes that the president’s promises have been heartening to the people of Iran, and if those promises are carried out, they would change the entire complexion of the situation. Speaker 1 then asks what would happen if the regime topples.

Power is dispersed in society and concentrated in pillars of support, which are organizations and institutions that provide the necessary resources for those in power to stay in power. These pillars consist of ordinary people who contribute expertise, labor, and buying power. If people in these pillars withhold their cooperation and engage in nonviolent tactics like protests and strikes, rulers cannot maintain power, as seen in cases like the Philippines, Serbia, Ukraine, and Sudan. The loyalty of individuals within these pillars varies, with those closer to the center being more obedient. The goal of effective people power is to shift loyalties and bring people from the center to the outside. Bureaucracy is a powerful pillar, with federal workers having knowledge and influence over policies.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss the current wave of protests in Iran and how it differs from past unrest, with a focus on causes, dynamics, and potential outcomes. - The protests are described as the strongest since 2022, sparked by economic distress and currency collapse. The immediate trigger was the volatility of the rial and the impact on bazaar merchants, who closed shops in Tehran and took to the streets, followed by university campuses and other cities. Youth participation has increased, with some behaving more courageously on the streets. - A key new element is the explicit rejection of the Islamic government. For the first time, crowds are reportedly shouting that they do not want this Islamic government or the regime of the supreme leader, and they are calling for change rather than merely better elections. There is also increasing mention of Reza Pahlavi (the former Shah’s son) as a symbol in chants, though the speakers caution that this does not necessarily reflect broad support for his leadership or a viable path to democracy. - The discussion notes a sustained gap between the regime and the Iranian people that has widened over two decades. The regime has failed to narrow this divide, especially among the younger, educated generation. The political system’s structure—where the supreme leader appoints half the Guardian Council and thus shapes presidential candidates—has contributed to this rift. The trend toward questioning the regime’s legitimacy contrasts with earlier protests, where calls to overthrow the regime were less explicit. - Differences from previous protests (2007, 2009, 2019, 2022) are highlighted: - Past protests rarely called for overthrow; current protests openly reject the Islamic government and the supreme leader. - There is a notable Kurdish involvement this time, though the degree and regional participation vary, and some Kurdish communities may be wary due to positions taken by monarchist factions and the regime’s stance on minority rights. - The protests are spreading from major cities to smaller towns and include diverse regions of the country. - Foreign influence and potential intervention: - Trump’s warnings to the regime are considered to have had some impact on Iranian youth, though the extent is unclear and cannot be measured without data. - There is debate about potential US cyber or military actions; the guest believes it would be difficult and risky, especially if a broader confrontation with the US and Israel occurred. He warns that foreign intervention could feed regime propaganda that protests are foreign-instigated. - Israel’s involvement is likewise seen as dangerous and potentially counterproductive, risking the perception of foreign manipulation and nationalistic backlash. - Internal security dynamics: - The relationship between the IRGC and the regular army is discussed as potentially fragile. A split, internal defections, or civil conflict within security forces could become an “Achilles heel” for the regime, though such scenarios are described as extreme and not imminent. - There is concern about what would happen after a regime change. The speaker argues that there is currently no robust, organized opposition with a clear program for governance post-overthrow, and monarchist groups around Reza Pahlavi may not represent a democratic alternative. The risk of chaos without a viable plan is highlighted. - The host and guest discuss personal risk and motivations: - The professor recounts his history of arrests under both the Shah and the Islamic regime, including a sentence to 18 months for criticizing the nuclear program, followed by a two-month prison term due to health concerns. He describes a cancer diagnosis and his relief at advances in cancer treatment, while noting that his health remains a concern. - He emphasizes that he does not support Trump or Netanyahu's positions and that his willingness to speak publicly stems from concern about Iran’s future, not alignment with foreign powers. - Final themes: - The protests reflect long-standing grievances but reveal a new willingness to reject the regime itself. - Questions remain about leadership, governance after potential regime change, minority rights, and the risk of civil conflict if the regime collapses or is weakened. - The discussion closes with acknowledgments of the personal risk involved in speaking out and a nuanced stance toward foreign involvement.

Speaker 0 emphasizes that a significant boycott begins on November 25, described as a turning point that could change everything. The movement is framed not as left vs right, but as people versus a system that “keeps taking and never giving back.” For the first time in a long time, millions are moving together, with movement growing from four small groups to more than 100 organizations in a short period. Movements do not grow like that unless people are fed up, and right now, people are beyond fed up. Phase one begins on November 25, and the main action is simple: no shopping—no Black Friday shopping or anything leading up to it. This is the pressure point, and companies know exactly how much it hurts when people step back during their biggest profit week of the year. The message stresses that participants do not have to do everything. If someone cannot do it all, they should do something. Suggestions include calling in sick for a day or two, using PTO if possible, and choosing one act of solidarity that fits their life. People should share their actions, talk about the movement, and help raise awareness. The idea is that small actions, when billions of people participate, can turn into a tidal wave. November 25 is when that wave begins.

Protests, even those involving violence, can make an issue more salient and pressure elected officials. Political science research indicates that protests matter, and destruction of buildings or violence by either police or protesters can lead to a greater response from elected officials. Sustained efforts, like a ten-day protest, increase the pressure on officials. Elected officials respond to pressure when they feel their electoral prospects are threatened. Nominating candidates and placing extraordinary pressure on officials can also be highly successful strategies.

Massive uprisings, like those seen in the Arab Spring, have occurred worldwide, including in the U.S. with the Wisconsin wave and Occupy movement, which fought against foreclosures. The speaker questions what ingredients allow these movements to happen and whether they can be implemented now, despite COVID-related challenges to indoor gatherings. The speaker claims that movements for justice have not been super spreaders of COVID. They cite Puerto Rico as an example where a regime change led to exploring alternative governance models, including people's assemblies. The speaker suggests that achieving this level of change would diminish the need to worry about other issues.