TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Obama's government agents were involved in aiding foreign operatives during the j six cases. The judge tried to cover up the involvement, but it should be made public. People need to know that foreign assets were operating during the protests. The protesters didn't burn down buildings, but foreign agents infiltrated opposition groups and civil society organizations to instigate violence. Obama's domestic agents monitored the situation and guided the foreign agents subtly.

A speaker discusses a series of actions taken to manipulate the American public. They mention importing a virus, blaming the president, and causing economic damage. They also talk about stoking a race war, manipulating polls, and using software to control the election. The speaker claims that the whole process of stealing power from the most powerful republic in the world was easy.

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 2021, the special operations command, under Mark Milley, released a vision for using race riots to destabilize nations, in conjunction with the State Department, intel services, and USAID. A declassified 1983 CIA guide details how to organize riots, use agitators and professional criminals, and incite violence by turning anger into action. The CIA guide also describes recruiting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen to form cells that influence their spheres and unite to create large demonstrations. USAID's office of transition initiatives, which means government overthrow, secretly created a Cuban Twitter to stir unrest. A 2009 report warned that USAID's division for regime change mobilizes unions, boycotts, and shutdowns. A former senior analyst on Latin America for the US intelligence community stated that he couldn't get access to this secret operation being run out of USAID. According to Speaker 0, destabilizing nations using race wars and advocating for military involvement operates without oversight.

The US has engaged in 70 regime change operations. 64 were covert, primarily led by the CIA, and 6 were overt, involving open war to topple governments. Regime change is presented as the opposite of diplomacy, focused on control or overthrow through tactics like assassination, coups, election manipulation, and creating unrest. Covert operations are defined as those where the US denied involvement, despite it being apparent to the affected population.

- The transcript analyzes a declassified 1983 CIA guide intended to train operatives in organizing riots in foreign countries. It includes a section (Tab f) on using agitators, including hiring professional criminals to manipulate mass meetings and assemblies, which can result in general violence. The guide states that the psychological war team must develop a hostile mental attitude among target groups so that at the given moment they can turn anger into violence against the regime the CIA aims to overthrow. - The document describes recruiting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen into clusters of influence (ten teachers, ten lawyers, ten captains of industry, ten medical professionals) who will, in a gradual process, fuse their spheres of influence to form a united front at the appropriate moment. It asserts that with a force of 200 to 300 agitators, one can create a demonstration in which 10,000 to 20,000 could participate, given 200 back channels and 200 capacity-built assets. - The discussion situates this in the context of Nicaragua in 1983, noting the broader significance of 1983 as the year the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was founded and a reorganization of intelligence work through NGOs and democracy-promotion fronts. - The host emphasizes that the document was declassified only seven years ago and reviews the index of the guide, including tabs on interaction with the populace through group dynamics, armed propaganda, religious framing of guerrilla movements, political awareness of guerrillas, prohibitions on gratuitous violence, and, notably, the use of agitators and back-channel control. - The host quotes and highlights key passages: the CIA’s instruction that case officers’ psychological war teams must pre-create a hostile attitude in target groups so that their anger can be turned into violence against the regime; the instruction to create ethnic minority anger to be triggered at the right moment; and the explicit description of “arhat propaganda” and coercive tactics to build a nationwide front. - The discussion connects these findings to broader patterns of U.S. political warfare: the guide’s emphasis on “development and control of front organizations,” the concept of capacity building (capacity built assets with a back channel for control), and the division of labor among State Department, USAID, NED, and CIA to produce a deniable, layered influence network. - The host argues that development means capacity building of front organizations (universities, hospitals, media outlets, unions, etc.) and control is exerted through back channels to ensure these assets follow a political program, avoiding direct government fingerprints. - The transcript traces the alignment of soft power (USAID, NED, NGOs) with intelligence and military back channels to create and mobilize resistance movements. The host notes that the document’s framework envisions not only external interventions but also domestic applications, referencing the Transition Integrity Project (2020), which modeled a domestic color revolution around racial justice movements (e.g., Black Lives Matter) to influence political outcomes in the United States. - The host cites passages from the document about cultivating “front organizations,” the role of clergy, universities, unions, and media as assets, and the concept of back-channel control to prevent rogue activity while enabling covert support for a resistance movement. - The host draws connections between the 1983 Nicaragua operations and later U.S. domestic applications, highlighting that the same cluster-cell approach (organized by sphere of influence such as labor unions, youth groups, professional associations) is used to manipulate group objectives from within, steering the masses toward a justified violence moment. - The document’s section on “control of meetings and mass assemblies” describes covert commando elements within the resistance, including bodyguards, incident initiators, poster carriers, and slogan shouters, all under external command. It emphasizes turning peaceful protests into violence through inside elements, with the aim of provoking a police crackdown that can be used to legitimize international sanctions and justify diplomatic actions against the target government. - Throughout, the host reiterates that the guide is explicitly about political warfare and “psychological operations” with the target being the minds of the population, the troops, and the civil population, and that it frames the mass movement as something to be guided and provoked from within by a controlled network of trained operatives.

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.

Speaker 0 describes the situation as not a lone incident but an intentional design to start an internal component of what he calls a color revolution, one among many to expect. Speaker 1 asks for clarification on what is meant by a color revolution, who is driving it against the United States, and who is in charge. Speaker 0 replies that a hard look back to 2016 under Obama is necessary and believes Obama is still in the mix, with John Brennan as the operational commander on the battlefield in the United States. He says there are indicators from Brennan’s statements and actions, and that Obama is part of the command structure. He mentions an international component he calls the axis of resistance, consisting of communists emanating from the CCP’s control and communists inside the United States, arguing that there are communists in Congress who voted in 1992 not to vote against socialism. He adds Islamists, narco cartels, and terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, and the Cartel del Sol as part of this axis, with people at the “pincer” of it organizing and controlling the activities. He asserts the color revolutions in Ukraine as an example and claims the war there is a “total loser war” that must end. He says Trump must tell his team to ensure executive orders are implemented at all levels and emphasizes the phrase, “lawyers advise, leaders decide,” urging President Trump to gather all relevant agencies (CIA, DNI, Sec War, Sec State, Sec Commerce, and especially the Secretary of Homeland Security) and make a decision. He states that the color revolution is a long-term effort that accelerated after Trump’s 2016 victory, with ongoing actions described as economic warfare, cyber warfare, and political interference. He cites the New Virginia Majority, a communist movement inside the United States aiming to place communists in local government and school boards, and mentions contrived cultural shifts including Islamification in various parts of the country, including Florida, Dearborn, and Houston. He asserts Islam is not compatible with Christianity and Sharia law is not compatible with constitutional law. Speaker 1 agrees there were people who served their country; she supports removing those who served but opposes letting any of them into the United States, emphasizing a different culture. Speaker 2 agrees. Speaker 1 notes the large Muslim population spread across many regions, suggesting others could have taken Afghan refugees, but questions the appropriateness of bringing them in. Speaker 2 states it is not surprising that a CIA-trained individual who previously appeared untroubled could appear in Washington, D.C. to shoot at troops, and explains a broader pattern: old-school descendants became part of a strike force, loyal at one time but funded and equipped by the U.S., who were later abandoned during the Obama–Biden period. He describes withdrawal from bases and overnight equipment removal, followed by a lack of transition to self-sufficiency, leading to brought-in desperate fighters who may be paid to kill National Guard members. He asserts these events demonstrate a deep state pattern involving Biden, Obama, and Brennan.

Speaker 0 describes a scandal during the Obama-era USAID operations in Cuba, stating that rogue activities were run and that the aim is to reveal to the American people where tax dollars are going and how programs are structured to fool Congress and the White House. Key points: - Zunzanillo was an online social networking microblogging service created by USAID and marketed to Cuban users. It was a Twitter-like platform with the same user interface and like/retweet features, referred to in Cuban slang as the “bird.” The operation spanned roughly 2009–2014. - USAID invested about $1,200,000,000 in promoting Arab Spring–style social media revolutions, funding activist groups and civil society organizations to learn to use Facebook, Twitter, hashtags, and to coordinate street protests to topple governments. - Because Cuba did not allow US social media, the operation recreated a Cuban-looking Twitter-like service. The project began in 2010, using funds concealed as humanitarian aid for Pakistan, even though Cuba is not near Pakistan. The main contractor was Creative Associates International (CAI), with CAI designing the network. - The funds were concealed in the budget as humanitarian aid for Pakistan, routed through front companies using Cayman Islands bank accounts, and recruiting business executives who were not told of ties to the US government, according to the AP. - The network reached about 60,000 Cuban subscribers. The initiative reportedly included a surveillance dimension, building a vast database of Cuban subscribers (gender, age, political tendencies) that could be used for political purposes. The data were to be used for micro-targeting anti- and pro-government users. - Initial content would be noncontroversial, focusing on sports, music, and hurricane updates. The internal plan was to lure users in with these topics, then, once a critical mass was reached, gradually introduce political messages via social bots to encourage dissent and organize “smart mobs” or rental riots. - The strategy mirrored tactics used in Egypt and Tunisia, aiming to trigger a Cuban spring and “renegotiate the balance of power between state and society.” The Guardian has a detailed piece on this, describing the internal files that outlined luring Cubans with music, sports, and hurricane updates before pushing political content. - To conceal involvement, the operation reportedly used Cayman Islands front companies and designated funds as humanitarian aid, raising questions about US fingerprints. The discussion suggests this approach raises diplomatic blowback concerns and implies a preference for formal intelligence agencies in such operations. The speaker emphasizes that the material shows how the programs were structured to influence Cuba, how funds were misrepresented, and how data collection and targeted messaging were planned for political outcomes, reminding listeners of the broader implications for US statecraft.

We have manuals and SOPs on how to use individuals to stir up rivalries between tribes in places like Afghanistan. Special operations can manipulate someone with radical ideologies to incite violence between villages. This tactic is not uncommon and has been successful worldwide. Utilizing individuals as "village idiots" to create chaos is a known strategy in our government. Former members agree with this approach.

In the conversation, Syed Mohammed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, addresses multiple interwoven geopolitical issues, centering on Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the broader strategic rivalry with the United States and its allies. Syria and ISIS release - Marandi asserts that the Damascus regime, described as al-Qaeda/ISIS-aligned factions, would not tolerate Kurdish forces backed by the United States. He notes prior violence against Alawites, Christians, and Druze as context for the current disturbing images from Syria. - He argues the United States is not a reliable partner for its allies, pointing to past episodes such as Obama’s refusal to support Arbil when ISIS threatened the Kurdish government, and Soleimani’s rapid military response to save the city. - He states that ISIS prisoners have been released in Syria, implying that thousands of ISIS members are now free and could destabilize Syria and possibly Iraq. He emphasizes that both Jolani (an ISIS-linked figure) and the Kurdish groups in northeast Syria are allied to the United States, making it unclear who released the prisoners but suggesting that those actors are aligned with the U.S. - The broader implication is that the release increases instability in Syria and potentially across the region. Border security and spillover fears - The discussion turns to Iraq’s border with Syria, with Marandi weighing whether U.S.-backed jihadist forces might spill into Iraq or Lebanon. He suggests a likelihood that ISIS/Al-Qaeda remnants could be used to pressure Lebanon and Iraq to prevent closer Iranian influence. - He notes that Iran’s potential responses could include its missile and drone capabilities, should security worsen on a front involving its allies in Lebanon and Iraq; however, Iran currently refrains from large-scale involvement in Syria but would consider action if threats to Iran or its allies escalate. Regime change, fragmentation, and U.S.-Israel aims - The conversation shifts to Iran post-riots, with questions about U.S./Israel strategies for regime change. Marandi contends the plan is to destabilize and fragment Iran, not to establish a unified post-regime scenario. - He cites alleged Israeli and Western involvement in organizing riots as evidence of a broader conspiracy to create chaos and justify military action. He claims Mossad and other intelligence agencies were on the ground, and public statements from former CIA officials acknowledged Israeli involvement. - He describes the riot phase as highly organized, with foreign funding (including Bitcoin), online recruitment, and careful targeting of police and infrastructure. He portrays the protests as initially legitimate grievances that devolved into violent chaos fueled by external coordination, with widespread destruction and deaths, including the killing of police officers. - In contrast, he highlights large pro-government demonstrations, especially a national day of demonstrations that he says showed widespread popular support for the Islamic Republic and condemnation of rioters. He points to extensive media coverage highlighting peaceful protests, while arguing that the riot narrative dominated Western coverage. Internal Iranian dynamics and public opinion - Marandi emphasizes the fragmentation among Iranian opposition groups: MEK, monarchists, Takfiri remnants near the Pakistan border, and Kurdish separatists, all of whom he asserts lack credible popular support. - He argues that even if the regime were at risk, fragmentation would prevent any single faction from stabilizing the country post-regime change. He suggests this aligns with his view of broader Israeli aims to weaken and fragment Iran and neighboring states, as seen in Syria and Iraq. Military capability and deterrence - He asserts Iran’s substantial missile and drone capabilities and asserts that Iran could defend allies in Lebanon and Iraq if needed. He notes Iran’s long-term preparedness against U.S. threats, including underground bases and extensive drone/missile stocks. - He contends that if war occurred, it would have wide regional and global economic consequences, potentially destabilizing oil markets and prompting broader geopolitical upheaval. He argues that U.S. restraint may be influenced by the risk of a global economic meltdown. Russia, China, and Starlink - Regarding technological assistance for countering communications, he mentions rumors of Russian or Chinese involvement in aiding Iran's internet disruption and Starlink-related issues, acknowledging uncertainty but highlighting a growing trilateral closeness among Iran, Russia, and China in the face of U.S. pressure. media narratives and leadership - He criticizes Western media for portraying protests as peaceful, while Israeli claims and cyber/disinformation around the events are presented as demonstrations of foreign involvement. He maintains that internal Iranian unity—visible in large-scale demonstrations—contrasts with the portrayal of a fractured nation. - He closes by suggesting that while some European leaders may align with U.S. policies, the overall strategic outlook remains uncertain, with a warning that Trump’s approach could escalate tensions rather than yield stability.

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 addressed the Security Council on the issue of whether any member state may determine Venezuela’s political future by force, coercion, or economic strangulation, stressing that the question concerns the prohibition on the threat or use of force against a state's territorial integrity or political independence under the UN Charter. The council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned. Background is offered on U.S. foreign policy, described as repeatedly using force, covert action, and political manipulation to achieve regime change since 1947. The speaker cites Lindsay O’Rourke’s documentation of 70 attempted U.S. regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, noting that such practices continued after the Cold War. Regime-change actions attributed to the United States since 1989 include Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria beginning in 2011, Honduras 2009, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela from 2002 onward, employing methods such as open warfare, covert operations, instigation of unrest, support for armed groups, manipulation of media, bribery, targeted assassinations, false flag operations, and economic warfare. These measures are described as illegal under the UN Charter and typically yielding ongoing violence and civilian suffering. Specific Venezuelan-related actions cited include: the April 2002 coup attempt known to the U.S.; funding of civil-society groups engaged in anti-government protests in the 2010s; sanctions following crackdowns; in 2015, President Obama labeling Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat”; in 2017, President Trump discussing invasion options at a UN General Assembly margin dinner. Between 2017 and 2020, sweeping sanctions on PDVSA reduced oil production by 75% from 2016 to 2020 and dropped real GDP per capita by 62%. The UN General Assembly is said to have repeatedly voted against unilateral coercive measures, and the speaker asserts that under international law only the Security Council may impose such measures. On January 23, 2019, the U.S. unilaterally recognized Juan Guaidó as interim president and soon after froze about $7 billion of Venezuelan sovereign assets abroad. The actions are framed as part of a two-decade-long regime-change effort. The speaker notes U.S. bombing operations in seven countries in the past year without UN Security Council authorization or lawful self-defense, listing Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela, and cites threats by President Trump against six UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela. The speaker invokes realist theory and the League of Nations’ failure, arguing the UN was created to place international law above anarchy and urging that failure to uphold the Charter would threaten humanity. The proposed resolutions call for: the United States to cease all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela, terminate the naval quarantine and related coercive measures without UN authorization, withdraw all military forces and forward-deployed assets from Venezuela’s vicinity, and require Venezuela to adhere to the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The secretary-general should appoint a special envoy to engage Venezuelan and international stakeholders and report back within fourteen days with Charter-consistent recommendations; the Security Council should remain urgently seized of the matter. All states should refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions outside the Security Council’s authority. The speaker closes by emphasizing that the UN Charter must remain a living instrument of international law.

Initially, USAID was created with good intentions. However, the agency has broken the trust with the American people and hasn't been transparent about where our taxpayer dollars are going. In 2021, the special operations command put out an instruction manual with instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots in order to destabilize nations. They also advocated for setting up job fairs near some of these riots so that disaffected workers could gain employment. These operations are taking place without government oversight, without the authority of the president, without the authority of congress. USAID needs to condemn this and provide oversight to congress on exactly where our tax dollars are going. Do you agree that this is wrong?

A group of public interest organizations and lawmakers are quietly planning to prevent former President Trump from pressuring the US military to carry out his political agenda. The concern is that this could undermine civilian control of the government. The article specifically mentions Trump potentially using the military to suppress domestic protests, similar to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The groups involved in this plan were also involved in previous protests against Trump. The fear is that if Trump were to win the election, these tactics would be used to destabilize his entire term and prevent him from stopping protests, even if they turned violent or occupied federal buildings. The speaker warns people to watch a movie about the Serbian revolution to understand how these tactics work.

The CIA recruits established citizens—doctors, attorneys, businessmen, teachers—as "social crusaders" for a political group to topple governments via paramilitary action. These individuals maintain their influence, recruiting others within their respective fields into an alliance supporting the CIA-backed group. Teachers' unions are controlled to influence education, curriculum, and propaganda, enabling government disruption through walkouts and strikes. Cluster cells of influential individuals in each sector work within their spheres, uniting at the appropriate time. This structure ensures that even seemingly insignificant recruits contribute to a larger effort. The Transition Integrity Project's guide highlights using BLM street muscle to stop Trump, even after an election win. The plan involved supporting new racial justice leaders, not movements, to control them through back channels. This strategy mirrors Operation Gladio and the Integrity Initiative, using cluster cells across industries and countries for censorship and narrative control. The CIA's psychological operations guide details controlling mass assemblies by using covert commandos, bodyguards, and "incident initiators" to escalate peaceful protests into violence. The goal is to manipulate groups into a "fury of justified violence" against their own government, using a small group of agitators to incite large-scale riots and provoke government crackdowns, justifying international sanctions and diplomatic action.

I outline the speaker’s central claims about George Soros, the CIA, and global political influence. The speaker contends that George Soros has been one of the CIA’s most valuable private assets for over forty years, acting as the civilian, deniable funding arm of American regime-change operations worldwide. Because of this, Soros is not only allowed in the United States but protected there, enabling him to operate with impunity, which the speaker says explains his arrogance and continued influence. The speaker traces a pattern of Soros-backed “color revolutions” starting with Serbia in 2000, refined in Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and the Arab Spring in 2011. They assert that logos for USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the Open Society Foundations appear in all these cases, framing Soros as central to these movements. According to the speaker, the Arab Spring served as a trial run for Europe’s migrant crisis. They claim that in 2011 the CIA and Soros turned that playbook on Libya and Syria. Gaddafi allegedly warned in March 2011 that removing him would unleash millions to flood Europe from Africa; eight months later, Gaddafi was dead, Libya descended into chaos, and migrant waves began as predicted. By 2015–2016, the speaker asserts, battle-hardened jihadists and economic migrants were crossing the Mediterranean with iPhones, prepaid cards, and Twitter guides written in Arabic, described as the same social media mobilization tactics used in Kyiv and Tahrir Square. Wayne Madsen is cited as having called this pattern out in 2015, described by the speaker as a deliberate CIA social-engineering operation to fracture Europe from within, applying the same playbook to new targets. The speaker then asserts that the United States has been subject to this strategy from 2020 to the present, pointing to the summer riots of 2020 as an example. The claim continues that Soros’s Open Society Foundations donated at least $33,000,000 to groups that organized and sustained the 2020 riots, and that Soros-backed NGOs provided lawyers, maps, and logistics for the southern border caravans, as well as funding to influence police departments and district attorneys in major cities, effectively helping to elect them. The speaker argues that Soros is implementing the color-revolution playbook “on us now,” with the target being ordinary Americans rather than foreign nations. A historical reference is made to JFK, who allegedly spoke of splintering the CIA after the Bay of Pigs betrayal, a chance JFK did not realize, leaving the world the speaker claims the CIA built. The speaker notes that Hungary, a country of 9 million, has passed Stop Soros laws and expelled his operations, asking why the United States cannot do the same, and suggests finishing what JFK started.

The speaker believes a key, undiscussed issue that could destabilize the U.S. is the potential for rent-a-riots and pop-up protests leading to authoritarian crackdowns or events like the Minneapolis police precinct burning. These events are often influenced by unions like AFL-CIO and SEIU. The speaker suggests a need to reevaluate U.S. financial assistance to international unions and worker groups, claiming this money may boomerang back to fund paid protests domestically. They urge the Justice Department, Department of Labor, and the State Department to seriously consider this issue.

Speaker 0 presents the argument that what is unfolding in the United States is a color revolution, described as a communist globalist playbook to take over a country without tanks, previously used in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and others. The speaker outlines the four-step manual: 1) demonize the leader of the people who were voted for; 2) flood the country with chaos such as riots, open borders, and economic pain; 3) weaponize the courts, the media, and big tech to finish him off; 4) install a puppet who sells the country out to China and the UN. Applying this to the United States, the speaker cites events from 2016 to 2020: the Russia collusion hoax, FBI spying, two fake impeachments, Antifa rioting with coverage described as “fiery but mostly peaceful” by CNN, and the aim of making people hate the voted-for leader. In 2020, the speaker alleges two ballot dumps, boarded-up windows, 51 intel agents lying about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and Zuckerberg spending $400,000,000 to help count votes in Democrat cities, with the goal of stealing the election while labeling dissent as conspiracy theory. From 2021 to 2024, the speaker asserts Biden opened the border on day one, bringing over 12,000,000 illegals, including military-age men from China and Venezuela, with free flights, hotels, and EBT cards, all at American expense. The resulting consequences are claimed as city collapse, rising crime, and strained schools and hospitals, with the goal of making Americans feel like strangers in their own country. From 2021 to 2025, the speaker lists 91 felony charges, the Mar-a-Lago raid, gag orders, and mugshots, arguing the intent was not merely to defeat Trump but to break him and other patriots who challenge the system. The treatment of Charlie Kirk is cited as a textbook color revolution. On 11/05/2024, the speaker proclaims the American people delivered a counterrevolution: 312 electoral votes, a popular vote landslide, and unprecedented turnout among Hispanic and Black Republicans, described as the greatest peaceful counterrevolution in world history. The speaker notes that the same “snakes” who funded BLM riots, the Ukraine coup, and the Arab Spring still sit in the FBI, CIA, big tech, and universities, and warns they will try again in 2026 or 2028, asserting that every time there is another mostly peaceful riot, a new crisis before an election, and a wave of experts using scripted language, you are witnessing the Color Revolution Playbook live on American soil. The message concludes with reminders of past attempts such as back mass deportations and border failures, urging continued defense of the border, teaching children the truth, and supporting the president to take all necessary measures to restore the republic. The speaker ends with blessings for the United States of America.

In 2014, riots known as the rebellion occurred in Ukraine, which were secretly financed by USAID, a CIA front, with $5 billion. These riots led to a coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government. A month before the coup, Victoria Noland, a high-level official in the State Department, had a secret call with the US Ambassador, where they discussed selecting a new US-backed cabinet for Ukraine. This raises questions about democracy and whether Victoria Nuland influenced the government. The CIA has a history of overthrowing governments, including democracies, with 83 cases between 1947 and 1997.

Speaker 0 discusses a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual under Mark Milley, described as a vision for 2021 and beyond that contained instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots to destabilize nations, citing “examples of some of the instruction manuals here” as one and two to destabilize nations. Speaker 1 references a declassified CIA guide written in 1983 that trains operatives in how to organize riots in foreign countries. It is described as advocating for using agitators, including hiring professional criminals, to manipulate mass meetings and assemblies of people in person, which can result in general violence. The guide allegedly instructs the case officers that “our psychological war team must develop in advance a hostile mental attitude among the target groups so that at the given moment, they can turn their anger into violence demanding the rights taken away by the regime,” with a goal to make ethnic minority groups mad at their government in a general sense so that, when triggered, they will turn that general anger into physical violence against the state they aim to overthrow. The CIA guide allegedly details getting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen recruited as social crusaders for the CIA-backed cause, with a plan for gradually building clusters of influence: “these cells,” including “10 super teachers… 10 lawyers… 10 captains of industry… 10 medical professionals,” who will each operate within their spheres of influence and, at an appropriate time, fuse the groups into a united front. It is claimed that with “a force of 200 to 300 agitators,” one can create a demonstration in which “10,000 to 20,000” participate, given access to “200 back channels, 200 human assets” built up to mobilize a large riot. Speaker 0 adds that the guide also recommended setting up job fairs near protests so that disaffected workers could gain employment. The speaker then questions as a member of Congress whether anyone in USAID gets elected to Congress or to a presidency. Speaker 1 asserts that the US secretly created Cuban Twitter to stir unrest in organized smart mobs, likening them to BLM-style mobs. He notes McSpeden, who “worked for USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives,” and explains that the term “transition” means regime change. He cites a 2009 congressional report stating that the Office of Transition Initiatives runs a program to topple governments through organized political warfare, mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation systems, hospitals, and schools, and that a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Fulton Armstrong warned that even he could not obtain broad access to what USAID was doing, describing it as a secret operation. Speaker 0 closes by saying that acting in the shadows to destabilize nations using race wars and advocating that the military do it jeopardizes future generations who would have to fight such wars and operates without oversight.

The speaker argues that whenever a country defends its own people, the United States asks, “Who owns the resources?” and if the answer isn’t The US, a coup follows. The claim is that over 80 foreign governments have been overthrown or destabilized by the United States, and that most of them weren’t dictatorships, but democratically elected governments that threatened US corporate profits. The described playbook involves the CIA funding opposition groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, planting stories in the media, bribing generals, arming rebels, or collapsing a country’s economy, with the coup replacing the leader with a pro-US dictatorship. The overarching assertion is that this is not about democracy but about power and control. Key historical examples cited include: - Iran in 1953: Mosaddegh attempted to nationalize oil; the CIA launched Operation Ajax, orchestrated protests, paid off politicians, and installed the Shah, resulting in twenty-five years of dictatorship and torture under US protection. - Guatemala in 1954: President Arbenz redistributed land from the United Fruit Company, a US corporation; the CIA branded him a communist, conducted a coup, and Guatemala descended into a civil war with over 200,000 deaths. - Chile in 1973: Allende was overthrown in a US-backed military coup, and Pinochet’s regime tortured and killed thousands after Allende’s attempts to nationalize copper. - Congo in 1961: Lumumba sought African control of African resources; the CIA helped orchestrate his assassination and installed a brutal dictator who was supported for decades. The speaker adds that there are “dozens of others” beyond these cases, including Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Bolivia, and beyond, arguing that the motive is not fighting tyranny but profits and control. When a country attempts to exit the system or nationalize resources to reduce inequality, they threaten profits and the idea that another world is possible, so the CIA sabotages such efforts to prevent successful example-making, such as Libya. The conclusion is that many nations don’t trust the United States because “we’ve been the villains throughout most of our history.” The speaker invites readers to comment to receive a “forbidden reading list” of books and documentaries that “they never wanted you to find.”

Here are examples of instruction manuals one and two, used to destabilize nations. In addition, they advocated for setting up job fairs near some of these sites so that disaffected workers could gain employment. As a member of Congress, I have to ask, did anyone in USAID get elected to Congress or to the presidency? When you're acting in the shadows and destabilizing nations using race wars, and then advocating that the military does it, you put future generations that would have to fight in those wars in jeopardy. Ultimately, you're operating without any oversight.

Speaker 0: We've set out to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies in over 20 countries. We manipulated elections in dozens of countries. We created standing armies and directed them to fight. We went after to organize ethnic minorities to encourage them to revolt. The first thing we did in Nicaragua was to go to the Mosquito Indians who had never gotten along with the other people in Nicaragua very well and give them more money than they had seen in the entirety of history and arms and training and rationales and sanctuaries in Honduras and sent them into Nicaragua to attack, kill, fight, rape, burn, pillage. And this has been a technique the CI has used in Nicaragua, in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Laos, in The Congo, in in Iran Iraq with the Kurds in different parts of the world. We created, trained, and funded death squads like the treasury police in El Salvador, and we've assassinated world leaders, including The United States president in 1963, and I'll get to that in more detail in just a moment. You can never be sure how many people are killed in the jungles of of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua, but adding them up as best we can, we come up with a figure of 6,000,000 people killed, minimum figure. It has to be more than that. These things are all done in countries of the third world where the governments don't have the power to force The United States to stop destabilizing the country and brutalizing their people.

In 2014, riots known as the rebellion occurred in Ukraine, but it was not widely known that the US was financing these riots. The riots led to a coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government, which refused to align with the West. A month before the coup, a secret call between Victoria Nuland, a high-level official in the State Department, and the US ambassador was recorded and made public. In the call, they discussed choosing a new cabinet for Ukraine, essentially picking a US-backed government before the old one was overthrown. This raises questions about democracy and the role of organizations like USAID and the CIA, which have a history of overthrowing governments, including democracies.