TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

During the Reagan era, we created NGOs to fight communism by establishing a soft power structure to influence the world. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created and split into the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. Both Democrats and Republicans were under the NED, with the intention of offering balanced perspectives as they influenced the world. But when communism fell, these NGOs didn't disband; they grew in power and money. They now see themselves as protectors of democracy, viewing any challenge to them as a challenge to democracy itself. Both Democrats and Republicans are heavily involved, even to the point where sitting members of Congress vote for money for these NGOs while sitting on them. They believe they're doing good, protecting the Western world, but it's also about the money. They tell themselves a good story.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The transcript presents a provocative exploration of allegations that the Smithsonian Institution is concealing real history. It frames the Smithsonian as a “nation’s attic” that holds vast quantities of artifacts—about 150,000,000 items across 19 museums—that, according to various reports, are removed from public view or hidden from the historical record. A central claim repeats a Phoenix Gazette article from 1909 describing two Smithsonian explorers who allegedly discovered a Grand Canyon cave filled with ancient Egyptian artifacts, Hindu and Buddhist items, and mummies. The article says an archaeologist named Jordan, supervised by another explorer named Kincaid, began excavating, with reports of a front-page scoop and claims that 109 truckloads of artifacts were removed “with very great difficulty” from the cavern system and that the contents were sent to Washington but “mysteriously vanish[ed] from the historical record.” The Smithsonian would later deny knowledge of these discoveries, and the Grand Canyon area in question is described as now off-limits. Support for these claims is tied to the presence of Egyptian-named features in the canyon—Isis Temple, Tower of Set, Tower of Ra—and to anecdotes that mummies and artifacts were stored in a secret vault. The discussion extends to the idea of a hidden warehouse where crucial discoveries—like the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark—are allegedly kept “top men” working on them, unseen by the public. The film analogy is used to illustrate how such a facility might exist and remain undisclosed. Another major thread concerns reports of giant skeletons found across the United States that were allegedly removed by the Smithsonian and never seen again. The dialogue cites discoveries from mound sites in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, New York, and beyond, describing skulls of unusually large size and skeletons up to seven or ten feet tall. The New York Times (in 1912) and various newspapers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries are referenced as having carried stories of “a hitherto unknown race” with exceptionally large skulls. Numerous witnesses recall that once such skeletons were found, Smithsonian investigators would quickly recover the remains and remove them to Washington, after which they disappeared from public view. Personal accounts from researchers, miners, and local observers are cited to support the claim that many giant remains were shipped to the Smithsonian and never returned. The speakers discuss why such artifacts might be hidden, suggesting that revealing them would challenge established histories and current political narratives. They propose that authentic finds could call into question conventional histories of North America and humanity, potentially undermining the status quo. The dialogue also contends that the control of history is tied to power and money, noting the Smithsonian’s funding structure—funded by tax dollars but heavily supported by private donations from charitable organizations such as the Gates Foundation—and suggesting that those in power may prefer to keep unsettling discoveries buried. Throughout, the speakers present a spectrum of testimonials, newspaper excerpts, and anecdotal evidence to argue that the Smithsonian may be withholding pieces of humanity’s past, including artifacts and giant skeletal remains, to preserve a particular historical narrative.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The video discusses the United Nations and its connection to various NGOs, highlighting the financial flow between them and the lack of transparency. It mentions big names like the Gates Foundation, Buffett Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Clinton Foundation, and their involvement in moving large amounts of money. The video also explores the role of Arabella Advisors, a consulting company that manages four nonprofits and is considered a "dark money monster" by some researchers. It raises questions about the use of charity funds for political agendas and the lack of accountability in the nonprofit sector. The transcript ends by mentioning the Gates Foundation and leading into the next part of the series.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The conversation hinges on distrust of powerful benefactors and the way money influences politics, alongside reflections on recent political events. - Speaker 0 asserts that connections to the Rockefellers are “super sus,” arguing they have provided direct funding to an individual named Scott, which raises questions about influence and motives. They contend the Rockefellers are “nefarious” in American history and criticize the notion of “selling out” to such interests, suggesting that backing from these families would align with the interests they claim to oppose. - Speaker 2 summarizes a broader concern: the idea that the path to defeating the system is to imitate or intensify the same tactics used to entrench the system. They quote Charlie Kirk, noting that those in power “have no desire to reform the system,” only to “control the system and control you through it.” This is presented as evidence that the supposed challengers are actually reinforcing the very structure they claim to fight. - The discussion shifts to strategy and perception, with Speaker 1 urging a course of voting effort as a form of action, and Speaker 0 agreeing that the approach being discussed is aligned with the organization’s stance. There is a sense of skepticism about those who advocate for “voting harder” as a solution while appearing to operate within the existing power structures. - There is a separate thread about state politics: Speaker 0 mentions Wisconsin, noting a fascination that Democrats would elect a certain Supreme Court justice while the state would pass voter ID by a wide margin, which Speaker 0 sees as inconsistent with “a Democrat issue.” Speaker 1 acknowledges the point, and Speaker 0 indicates they would review the situation further by watching past coverage. - Another thread involves a personal and investigatory concern: Speaker 3 describes involvement in a case (referenced as “mother out to the case” and speaking with someone who was “clearly killed by somebody”). They recount contacting a California congressman, Ro Con (likely a misspelling of Ro Khanna), to raise the concern, but state that nothing happened. Speaker 2 dismisses the suggestion that political action followed, and there is a back-and-forth about whether the discussion is a debate or a plea for sympathy, with Speaker 2 accusing Speaker 3 of trying to build sympathy. Overall, the dialogue centers on alleged manipulation by powerful funders, the tension between reform and control within the political system, inconsistent political outcomes in Wisconsin, and frustration with inaction on a troubling case that involved a potential kill and calls to congressional attention that did not lead to results.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

We have various big donors, including the Open Society Institute, the Wallace Global Fund, the Arca Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation. George Soros funds the Open Society Institute. However, these donors do not ask for anything in return. We maintain a positive relationship with them, and they appreciate our transparency.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The left uses NGOs to influence elections and reshape American culture, often funded by taxpayers. Each dot represents an NGO linked to the Chinese Progressive Association, which has funded various organizations like the Black Voters Matter Fund and the National Domestic Workers Alliance. These groups, in turn, support others such as the Fair Work Center and LGBTQ Alleyship. This network reveals how taxpayer money is funneled into leftist activities. The Chinese Progressive Association receives funding from major institutions like the San Francisco Foundation and Vanguard Charitable Endowment. Recent advancements in technology now allow for detailed tracking of financial flows between these NGOs, revealing connections and directors across multiple organizations. This information will be made available on the website.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

I see NGOs as a hack, and George Soros was a master at it. He understood how to use a relatively small amount of money to establish a nonprofit, and then lobby politicians to funnel large sums of money into it. For example, a $10 million donation could be leveraged into a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs, or nongovernmental organizations, often have appealing names, but they can essentially be graft machines. They receive grants with minimal requirements, and the government often assumes they're doing good work, even when they might not be. Many within the government are aware of this dynamic, but the funding continues.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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"

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The discussion opens with a provocative line about not needing a CIA director this year because the National Endowment for Democracy is in place, followed by introductions of Carl Gershwin as founding co-president of the National Dialogue for Democracy and the plan to cover the topic at length. The speakers claim that democratic groups worldwide could be seen as subsidized by the CIA, noting that such subsidies were curtailed in the 1960s and that the Endowment was created to fund groups the CIA subsidized back then. They assert that, before grants are made, all grants are sent through the State Department to the CIA, and promise deeper exploration of “Ned CIA” material. They list prominent entities alongside the National Endowment for Democracy, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Atlanta Council, Ellen White as an operative who prepared the way for political changes in the past two years, and efforts to take down the Soviet Union through internal coups in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, as well as the Atlantic Council, are also named as funders or players in this network. The conversation identifies the Rockefeller Foundation as a major funder, calling it the “hellspawn of John D. Rockefeller and the octopus of Standard Oil,” and notes its funding of the Atlantic Council alongside the Pentagon and the State Department, claiming over $1,000,000 a year. A claim is made about the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement beyond NATO’s civil society arm, including a reference to Google as the source for who runs the Rockefeller Foundation, and a mention that the foundation had an endowment around $6,000,000,000, making it the thirtieth largest foundation globally by endowment. The discussion briefly covers Raj Shah, described as having been appointed head of USAID by Barack Obama, previously at the Gates Foundation, and later running the Rockefeller Foundation, identifying him as the number one head of USAID. Speaker 2 shifts to criticizing Raj Shah and USAID, then highlights a partnership announcement between USAID and Mr. Beast’s philanthropic endeavors, noting Mr. Beast’s substantial net worth (estimates cited around $2.6 billion, with a referenced $5 billion company valuation). The speakers then pivot to analyzing Mr. Beast’s online influence, citing his enormous view counts across multiple channels and arguing that his content represents the most popular material on the Internet, capable of shaping hearts and minds and, therefore, serving as a finely tuned instrument of statecraft. The dialogue returns to ongoing coverage of Mr. Beast videos, including a live example of a Minecraft-based Hunger Games-style video with multi-minute view counts, and ends with a broad assertion that the Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the CIA in a civil-society capacity and that Mr. Beast’s platform, with hundreds of millions of views, could function as a tool of statecraft, given its reach and influence.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker alleges that the Pritzker family is a very prominent political family with 64 NGOs. They claim that for this single NGO, many people work for no compensation as trustees, while others are paid substantial salaries—upwards of a quarter of a million dollars. Specific figures cited include a Senior VP for Policy Research earning $400,000 a year, Strategy Affairs at $330,000 a year, and a VP at $300,000 a year. The speaker asserts there are 64 NGOs funded by taxpayers, stating, “that’s all your money.” The analogy used is that influential families in government are like a thief who found the bank vault door left open, with each NGO acting as “another bag for cash” that is filled and handed off to friends, with new LLCs created as needed. The speaker claims the NGOs “achieve anything? No. Not really.” and “Do they build anything? Certainly not. No.” The overall portrayal is that the NGOs are about distributing cash among associated individuals rather than delivering tangible results.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker questions whether it is strange that leading environmental organizations have met for fifty years with CEOs of heavily polluting corporations while the natural world keeps getting worse. They say that critics of the WAF are right when considering who the most important partners are that account for almost 71% of the WES budget. The partners include BlackRock, the Open Society Foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and many other large corporations, of whom Vanguard and BlackRock own the shares directly or indirectly.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The MAGA movement is ascendant. Mark Zuckerberg, a major offender, is trying to infiltrate our movement. Last week, I showed how Zuckerberg funneled money to groups tied to lawsuits via a Twitter thread. The Chan Zuckerberg initiative has since altered its website, removing grants prior to 2024, conveniently erasing their actions to influence the 2020 election. Zuckerberg's Forward US, founded in 2013, along with the Chan Zuckerberg initiative, funds over a dozen organizations actively resisting President Trump through lawsuits, lobbying, protests, and more. Examples include Casa, suing over birthright citizenship; Make the Road New York, aiding illegal aliens in avoiding deportation; Vote Vets Action, opposing HECSAF confirmation; and the Center for American Progress, initiating numerous lawsuits. Even radical groups like the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, which smeared the Lake and Riley act, receive funding.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 welcomes George Soros, emphasizing the need for active participation in America's future. Speaker 1 acknowledges that both Republicans and Democrats have manipulated elections in the past, highlighting the tendency of those in power to tilt things in their favor. Speaker 0 adds that voter fraud organizations have been extensive and inclusive in American politics.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

I see NGOs as a hack to the system. People can establish one fairly inexpensively. George Soros was excellent at this, leveraging a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobbying politicians to direct substantial funds to it. A $10 million donation could become a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs often have appealing names, like the Institute for Peace, but they can be graft machines. The government provides grants, assuming they're doing good work, but there are really no requirements attached to the money, and the government continues to fund them annually. While many in the government are aware they might not be effective, the system persists.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The Arabella network influences elections in many ways. Demand Justice, a C4 organization, helped pick Biden's judges, including Katanji Brown Jackson, and former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki came from there. Its sister organization, Fix the Court, attacks the Supreme Court. Arabella is also a major abortion funder, largely through Warren Buffett's money. In 2020, one of Arabella's biggest charities gave $25 million to the main charity that received $350 million of "Zuck bucks." That charity continues to infiltrate local election offices. Arabella operates through groups like the Institute for Responsive Public Government and the Center for Secure and Modern Elections—classic DC groups with names that are hard to argue against.

Tucker Carlson

Mike Benz: How NGOs Have Dominated the World, Who’s Behind Them, & How They’re Now Undermining Trump

Guests: Mike Benz

reSee.it Podcast Summary

Mike Benz discusses the role of NGOs in U.S. foreign policy, likening them to a parallel government that operates alongside traditional state structures. He traces the origins of NGOs back to the establishment of the U.S. income tax in 1913 and the subsequent tax-deductible status of charitable donations, which led to a significant influx of funding into private foundations and nonprofits. Benz argues that these organizations have been used as fronts for U.S. intelligence operations, particularly during the Cold War, to influence foreign governments and control narratives. He highlights the influence of figures like George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, which he claims have become so powerful that U.S. foreign policy has had to align with their objectives. Benz describes NGOs as flexible tools that can operate in conflict zones where the government cannot, providing backchannel diplomacy and financial assistance while maintaining plausible deniability for the U.S. government. Benz introduces the concept of the "blob," a term used to describe the entrenched foreign policy establishment in Washington, which includes the State Department, Defense Department, and various NGOs. He asserts that this blob prioritizes the interests of multinational corporations over the American public, often leading to policies that do not benefit ordinary citizens. He recounts historical examples, such as the CIA's involvement in the 1948 Italian election, where NGOs were used to influence the outcome, and discusses how this model has been replicated in various countries. Benz emphasizes that the intertwining of government, NGOs, and corporate interests creates a system that is difficult to challenge democratically. Benz also critiques the U.S. Institute of Peace, suggesting it operates contrary to its stated mission and has been involved in controversial activities, including supporting the Taliban's opium trade in Afghanistan. He argues that the U.S. government has become reliant on these NGOs for intelligence and operational support, blurring the lines between state and non-state actors. He concludes by discussing the challenges of reforming this system, noting that while there have been efforts to cut funding to certain NGOs, the entrenched nature of these organizations makes significant change difficult. Benz warns that without a clear understanding of the NGO complex and its influence, efforts to restore democracy and accountability in the U.S. may be undermined.

Unlimited Hangout

The Pre-Planned Chaos of the 2020 Election with Charlie Robinson

Guests: Charlie Robinson

reSee.it Podcast Summary

Whitney Webb and Charlie Robinson discuss predictions of chaos around the 2020 U.S. presidential election and how intelligence-linked simulations anticipated turmoil long before the coronavirus crisis, with outcomes ranging from a constitutional crisis to martial law. They point to simulations produced by networks tied to former Bush or Obama officials, neocon think tanks like PNAC, and allied groups. They argue these drills are not mere “war games” but part of a toolkit that maps possible futures, and note a pattern of simulations preceding major events such as 9/11, the anthrax attacks, London’s bombings, and the coronavirus crisis. Two organizations created around March are highlighted: the Transition Integrity Project and the National Task Force on Election Crises. The Transition Integrity Project’s cofounder Rosa Brooks is described as an Obama-era DOD and Hillary Clinton State Department adviser, previously special counsel to the president of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and affiliated with the New America Think Tank, funded by Eric Schmidt, the Gates Foundation, Pierre Omidyar, Jeff Skoll, Reid Hoffman, and Craig Newmark. The other cofounder, Nils Gilman, is vice president of programs for the Berggruen Institute, which envisions a transnational network addressing AI and gene editing. Membership overlaps exist across both groups, including Michael Chertoff, Max Boot, David Fromm, Bill Crystal, John Podesta, Robert Gates, and Larry Wilkerson, with Wilkerson being a prominent public figure in both efforts. The groups’ membership is not fully public, but various reports note their overlap and the presence of PNAC-linked figures. The groups reportedly gamed four election scenarios: ambiguous results, a Biden victory, a Trump victory, and a narrow Biden win. A particularly striking hypothetical under a clear Trump win describes the Biden campaign encouraging Cascadia—California, Oregon, and Washington—to secede unless Republicans agreed to reforms such as granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico; dividing California into five states; mandating Supreme Court retirements at 70; and eliminating the Electoral College. The scenario then envisions Congress awarding the presidency to Biden, with Pence and Republicans resisting, leading to a constitutional crisis in which the military’s role remains unclear. The discussion emphasizes that the people behind these simulations—like PNAC alumni—“are not Nostradamus” but seek to shape outcomes by prefiguring them. The conversation also covers how some involved openly support Biden, and how the campaigns leverage narratives of democracy threats. Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks about not conceding are juxtaposed with the TIP projections. They discuss campaign energy differentials, the debate dynamics, and the perception that Biden’s team seeks stability and predictability, while Trump’s unpredictability complicates control. They examine cyber and foreign interference narratives. Cybereason, an Israeli-founded cybersecurity firm with Unit 8200 ties, has major investors such as Lockheed Martin and Microsoft-linked entities; its founder served in Israeli intelligence. Cybereason’s work, and broader CTI League efforts, are cited as manifesting the external dimension of election security narratives. The discussion critiques media and political elites who promote foreign-interference threats while overlapping with pro-Israel intelligence circles. They argue these dynamics intersect with broader agendas, including AI governance and the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, suggesting a convergence of technocratic power, media narratives, and political operatives aimed at managing or engineering political outcomes. They close by signaling ongoing reporting on these themes, highlighting the need to recognize the pattern of simulations, prepositioning, and narratives intended to normalize drastic interventions around elections, including potential continuity-of-government scenarios.