reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We gathered in Washington, D.C., with millions of patriots to protest against what we believe is an overthrow of our government. While some claim there was violence, it was largely a peaceful demonstration. The real agitators were likely deep state assets manipulating the situation. The events were misrepresented, and many senators backed down from their objections due to the chaos. This is part of a larger global takeover, and we must recognize the reality of our situation. Freedom requires vigilance, and we did our duty to stand against the Senate's actions. We must continue to seek the truth and protect our freedoms, as history shows that sometimes drastic measures are necessary. The blockchain community represents this truth, and we must remain united in our pursuit of freedom, even as we strive for peaceful solutions.

The State Democracy Defenders Fund was created after the failed coup attempt of January 6th, 2021, combining experts who fought the coup with those who studied successful and unsuccessful ousters of autocratic regimes internationally, such as in Hungary, Turkey, Poland, Brazil, and the Czech Republic. Their plan to defeat autocracy involves litigation as the first guardrail, followed by political leadership and the awakening of the American people. Litigation has been successful, waking up the other two barriers. There are twice as many protests in 2025 as in 2021. The organization incubated an independent publication called The Contrarian, which covers the democracy movement and has gained 600,000 subscribers in two months. Protests range from town halls to spontaneous demonstrations, like one supporting a case against Elon Musk, which led to congressional involvement. The combination of litigation, political opposition, and grassroots movements is believed to be key to defeating authoritarianism, predicting a wipeout for the House of Representatives in 2026 due to the unpopularity of Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

Right now, Americans are stressed. It feels like policy isn't the main conversation, but rather an autocratic power grab that's making Congress and the rule of law irrelevant. We understand the scale of the threat. The CBC understands, definitively, the scale of the threat. Our communities have been under siege since before the Civil War. We launched a rapid response task force and litigation working group, led by Joe Nagous and Jamie Raskin, to respond, and work with our allies. Elon Musk and Donald Trump are flooding the zone, creating distress, and a sense of inevitability. However, there have been 75+ lawsuits filed by democracy reform groups, civil rights groups, and attorney generals, and we're winning in court. There has been a forceful pushback, and the congressional battles and community mobilization will continue.

Nicole Shanahan and Harmeet Dhillon discuss a broad critique of how culture, law, and politics are shaping America today, focusing on cancel culture, political power, and the fight over election integrity, free speech, and American ideals. - On cancel culture and authenticity: The conversation opens with a claim that pursuing political or cultural conformity reduces genuine individuality, with examples of how people are judged or pressured to parroting “woke” messaging. They argue that this dynamic reduces people to boxes—race, gender, or immigrant status—rather than evaluating merit or character, and they describe a climate in which disagreement is met with denunciation rather than dialogue. They stress the importance of being able to be oneself and to engage across differences without being canceled. - Personal backgrounds and the RNC moment: Nicole Shanahan describes an impression of Harmeet Dhillon speaking at the RNC, highlighting the sense of inclusion across faiths, races, and women in the party. Dhillon emphasizes that this is not about a monolith “white Christian nationalist” stereotype, recounting her own experiences from Dartmouth, where she encountered hostility to stereotypes and where merit-based evaluation (writing, argumentation) defined advancement rather than identity. - Experiences with California and liberal intolerance: Dhillon notes a pervasive intolerance in California toward dissent on topics like religious liberty and climate justice, describing a glass ceiling in big law for pro-liberty work and a culture of signaling rather than substantive engagement. Shanahan adds that moving away from the Democratic Party to independence has induced personal and professional consequences, such as colleagues asking to be removed from her website due to investor concerns, reflecting broader fears about association in liberal enclaves. - Diversity, identity, and national identity: They contrast the freedom to define oneself with the coercive “bucket” approach to identity. They argue that outside liberal coastal enclaves, people feel freer to articulate individual identities and values, while California’s increasingly prescriptive DEI training is criticized as artificial and limiting. - The state of discourse and the danger of intellectual conformity: The speakers warn of a culture where questioning past work or adopting new ideas triggers denouncement and self-censorship. They cite anecdotal experiences—loss of board members, fundraising constraints, and professional risk for those who diverge from prevailing views—claiming this suppresses valuable work in fields such as climate science, criminal justice reform, and energy policy. - Reform efforts and the political landscape: They discuss the clash between incremental, evidence-based policy and a disruptive, progressivist impulse. Shanahan describes attempts to fix infrastructure of the criminal justice system through technology and data (e.g., Recidiviz) that were undermined by political dynamics. They emphasize the importance of practical, measured reform and cross-partisan cooperation, the need to focus on American integrity and governance, and the risks of pursuing “disruption” as an end in itself. - Election integrity and lawfare: A central theme is concern about how elections are conducted and contested. Dhillon outlines a view of targeted irregularities in swing counties and cites concerns about ballot counting, observation, and legal rulings. She argues that left-wing funders have built a sophisticated, twenty-year, lawfare apparatus, using nonprofits and strategic lawsuits to influence outcomes, notably pointing to the Georgia ballot-transfer activities funded by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. She asserts that there is a broader pattern of using C3s and C4s to push political objectives while leveraging the law to contest elections. - The role of money and influence: They discuss the influence of wealthy donors, political consultants, and media in shaping party dynamics, suggesting Republicans should invest more in district attorney races, state-level prosecutions, and Supreme Court races to counterbalance the left’s long-running investment in the electoral apparatus and litigation strategy. They acknowledge that big donors and activist networks can coordinate to advance policy goals, sometimes at the expense of on-the-ground, local accountability. - Tech, media, and corporate power: The dialogue covers the Silicon Valley environment, James Damore’s case at Google, and the broader issue of woke corporate culture. Dhillon highlights the disproportionate power of HR in big tech and how employee activism around identity politics can influence careers and policy. Shanahan notes that Google’s founders are no longer central decision-makers, and argues for antitrust and shareholder-rights actions to challenge what they see as woke monopolies that do not serve shareholders or society. - The path forward: Both speakers advocate for courage to cross party lines, work for principled governance, and engage in issue-focused collaboration. They emphasize the need to reform infrastructure—electoral, health, educational, and economic—through competency, transparency, and bipartisan cooperation, rather than through dogmatic, identity-driven politics. They close with a mutual commitment to continuing the conversation, finding common ground where possible, and preserving the core American ideal that individuals should be free to define themselves and contribute to the country’s future.

The global awakening is underway, but many countries still face the BlackRock/UN/WEF alliance and ESG initiatives. Their DEI efforts are failing due to widespread public rejection, leading to election cancellations and theft. The opposition is becoming increasingly radical, employing intensified tactics. This is fueled by millions of people employed by leftist NGOs, many of whom are paid handsomely for minimal work and are readily prepared for violence. Prominent figures openly call for violence, as evidenced by numerous recent clips. Despite challenges like staff loss due to lawsuits, our reach is massive, exceeding 200-300 million daily viewers on X alone. I'm fully committed to fighting this, and I feel a powerful sense of purpose in this struggle. We are coming for the globalists' assets.

Resistance strategies are evolving, focusing on three main areas: judicial influence, NGO activism, and state-level actions by Democratic governors. Key players like the Democracy Alliance, backed by prominent left-wing billionaires, are strategizing on issues like abortion rights and immigration. They are also planning new dark money organizations to combat disinformation, targeting figures like Elon Musk. The legal side is represented by Democracy Forward, which has a significant war chest and is prepared to file lawsuits against the Trump administration. Additionally, groups like Indivisible are mobilizing grassroots efforts to challenge Republican policies. The Democratic National Committee is also gearing up to counter Trump nominees with opposition research. Overall, the resistance is well-organized and poised to be more powerful than in previous years.

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.”

The administrative state is rapidly being dismantled, particularly in relation to President Trump. Before his inauguration, Norm Eisen's Democracy Playbook outlined strategies to counter Trump, labeling him an autocrat. This playbook emphasizes the role of USAID in funding independent media and civil society to resist Trump’s administration. The focus is on building international alliances and networks to oppose him, as they lack influence domestically. Recent actions have limited their ability to leak information and organize resistance, leading to a decline in their power. Marjorie Taylor Greene is proposing legislation to further dismantle these efforts, indicating a strong push from the White House to eliminate these resistance structures permanently.

The courts are the first line of defense against illegal activity. I'm working with lawyers bringing these cases forward, and we're seeing many temporary restraining orders issued recently. This reflects the Trump administration's illegal use of executive orders to bypass Congress and make sweeping changes. I'd like to see Doge and Project 2025 put up for a vote in Congress; I believe they would fail. Trump avoided these issues on the campaign trail because they're unpopular. Now, he's using executive orders to push them through and has Elon Musk doing his "dirty work".

Alex Kraner and Glenn discuss the idea that democracy in the West is largely a façade with real power exercised by an unaccountable oligarchy, a phenomenon they compare to historical patterns from Rome and other periods. - Kraner argues that while democracies are presented as rule-by-the-people, in reality Western nations exhibit a shallow democracy on the surface, with an oligarchy actually governing the system. This, he says, leads to crises, repression, censorship, declining living standards, deteriorating infrastructure, and endless wars, despite repeated mandates for prosperity and security from voters. - He cites empirical evidence and references a video analysis to support the claim that democracies deliver outcomes unlike their professed ideals. The same syndrome, he notes, has repeated itself across different eras, from ancient Rome to Lombard banking in Italy, suggesting a persistent pattern of oligarchic control under democratic veneers. - A key contrast is drawn with Russia under Vladimir Putin. Kraner asserts Putin did not exterminate oligarchs but “rounded them up and laid down the rules”: pay taxes, treat employees fairly, stay out of politics. Oligarchs were allowed to keep wealth but were constrained to a sandbox where the state runs the country and politics remain within established channels. According to him, this check on oligarchy contributed to Russia’s economic revival and resilience even amid severe sanctions. - He contends that in the West, oligarchs and elected leaders are effectively intertwined, with leaders subordinate to oligarchic interests. He points to policy directions—such as rapid social changes (LGBT agendas), perpetual warfare, financial crises, and energy policies— as examples of decisions that appear not to reflect the democratic will of the people. - The “expert class” is described as a mechanism through which elites impose policies (e.g., net zero, carbon capture) by claiming scientific consensus and complexity that ordinary citizens cannot grasp, thereby narrowing democratic control. - Tocqueville’s concept of democratic despotism is revisited: democracies can be vulnerable to oligarchies because of trust in representatives, expansion of the administrative state, and manufactured consensus. The danger is a paternalistic state that treats citizens as infants, while wealthier interests consolidate influence over institutions. - They discuss the perception problem: many people feel they cannot critique the system without seeming fringe or conspiracy-minded, though awareness is growing—polls, journalism, and academic work increasingly recognize that voting has limited impact on policy, illustrating the oligarchic influence. - The conversation covers the political consequences: populist and anti-establishment candidates gain traction (e.g., Trump in the U.S., nationalist movements in Europe) as mainstream options become less credible. Courts are used as tools to disqualify or sideline challengers, a phenomenon described as lawfare. - On the trajectory ahead, they contemplate whether Western society is heading toward pre-revolutionary conditions. Guardian signals include declining trust in politicians and media, the failure of the old narrative to enforce obedience, and growing calls to reform rather than escalate with new wars. - Strategically, they propose broadening anti-oligarchic reform by engaging soldiers, police, and other institutions to prevent a collapse into civil conflict, stressing that reform is essential to avert violence and preserve stability. - In closing, they acknowledge the paradox of liberal democracy: it holds strong ideals, yet its vulnerability to oligarchic capture necessitates clear understanding and reform to prevent cycles of debt, imperialism, and conflict. They express cautious optimism that, despite resistance, a shift toward reform is possible if more people recognize the systemic dynamics at play. Throughout, the speakers emphasize the need to reexamine Tocqueville’s warnings, understand the role of the expert class, and confront the entrenched power of oligarchies to preserve democratic legitimacy and avert future upheavals.

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 transcript presents a high-stakes, ideologically charged debate about global power dynamics, economic policy, and the fate of Western liberty. The speakers outline a narrative in which global elites orchestrate a coordinated push toward a post-industrial, highly managed world order, framed as a depopulation and control scheme. They emphasize that this agenda is not speculative but embedded in official policy documents and actions. Key points asserted: - The globalist project, labeled as the “Great Reset,” is described as a plan to manage monetary debt worldwide through inflation, with governments, corporations, and individuals affected. The claim is that inflation coupled with expansion will cause short-term pain but long-term changes that favor control and reduced sovereignty. - The plan allegedly includes a transition to a “post industrial carbon tax” regime, with warnings of “stagflation” (high inflation and ongoing recession) and a “worldwide surf system of more manageable slaves” as outlined in policy books, treaties, and World Economic Forum documents. The aim is said to break down borders, lower living standards globally, and create “small compact city states” and rural city states akin to a Hunger Games scenario. - A depopulation objective is asserted: deliberate resource restriction and slow starvation to reduce world population, enabling debt-based control through a new cashless system and social credit mechanisms. - The 15-minute city concept and weaponized environmental policies are described as tools of totalitarian control, with carbon lockdowns envisaged to regulate movement and life choices. The Dutch and Irish farming reductions, and examples from Sri Lanka, are cited as evidence of deliberate sabotage to trigger economic collapse and centralized governance. - The opposition perspective credits Trump with countering these efforts by boosting energy production domestically and engaging with Saudi Arabia to lower global inflation, while creating economic gains for ordinary people. The narrative highlights policies such as “no tax on tips” and “no tax on overtime” and mentions trillions in investment aimed at rebuilding the middle class and national morale. - Legal resistance is presented as a growing reaction against ESG and DEI-driven corporate behavior, with states like Texas pursuing court actions against BlackRock for coercive climate-related investment strategies. The speaker notes that several states have moved to pull pension funds from BlackRock, and that leaders like Larry Fink have publicly shifted tone in response. - A civilizational dichotomy frames the choice as “1984 civilization” versus “1776 civilization.” The latter is portrayed as the enduring legacy of liberty, wealth, and classical liberalism championed by Jefferson and Franklin. Jefferson’s warning that “you have your republic if you can keep it” is invoked to stress the need for informed, capable, and prepared citizens who will defend freedom against encroaching totalitarianism. - The overarching call is for mobilization of supporters, the election of populist leaders, and a renewed commitment to the foundational principles of liberty, family, faith, and national sovereignty as the antidote to perceived globalist aggression.

Speaker 0 says he began in 2020 to combine the most successful coup fighters with experts who helped study or defeat autocracy internationally, visiting Hungary, Poland, Brazil, Czech Republic, and forming a plan over four years. "twice as many protests in 2025 as there were in 2021." Speaker 2 outlines Norm Eisen’s "democracy playbook" with seven pillars: "controlling elections, controlling the courts, fighting corruption, basically, painting Trump as an autocrat, reinforcing civic and media space," and pillar six: "controlling disinformation," noting that "states may find partners in allied regulators over social media such as the EU and Brazil." Eisen recruited people for his new blob shop from folks who overturned basically regimes that he called autocratic. "All these people get paid to fight autocracy abroad through the State Department, USAID, the US Institute of Peace, the Department of Defense, Civil Military." The playbook cites USAID "37 times," funding "media allies for the blob" and projects like "the corruption reporting project in Ukraine" and "a billion dollar USAID loan guarantee" to remove Victor Shokin. It also discusses "designating elections as critical infrastructure" and a "slush fund" to pay state secretaries, plus "strategic non cooperation."

The narrative shifted from viewing Russian disinformation as a threat to recognizing domestic disinformation as a danger to democracy. This led to calls for censoring Americans to protect democratic values. The definition of democracy was reinterpreted to prioritize institutional consensus over individual voices. Following Trump's 2016 election and the rise of right-wing populism, there was a belief that populism posed a similar authoritarian threat as left-wing ideologies. The argument emerged that democracy requires safeguards against demagoguery, suggesting that institutional protections are necessary to prevent voters from choosing undesirable leaders. This discussion took place at U.S. government conferences as early as 2017, advocating for these "guardrails" in democracy.

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.

In the last 24 hours, federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to bring back an illegal alien from El Salvador, restore funds to schools practicing DEI, restore funds to sanctuary cities, and drop the proof of citizenship mandate for voter registration. One speaker suggests Democrats are using the courts because they lost the presidential election, including the popular vote. They claim Democrats' "last attempt before they go to full on violence is let's try and do it in the courts." They also allege that "swampy Republicans" and "rhinos" are complicit because they benefit from the current system. They believe these individuals want to maintain the status quo and control everything, using judges to obstruct changes. They state that the only democracy under attack is their bureaucracy.

The discussion centers on a sequence of events and documents that connect pipe-bomb material purchases in 2020 to a high-level, bipartisan war game and contingency planning around the 2020 election, with implications for how the transition away from Trump was imagined by prominent officials. Key facts cited: - Cole purchased pipe-bomb parts in June 2020 in two phases: June 1 and June 8, with additional purchases around June 20 and timers bought on June 3. - The timing aligns with the Transition Integrity Project, a war game exercise organized in June 2020 by Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration senior official who led the project, and involved figures from both parties including Michael Steele (former head of the Republican National Committee), Donna Brazile (former head of the DNC), and John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager). The participants allegedly included other high-ranking political, military, and intelligence figures from both sides. - The project is described as a bipartisan “war game” that examined how to handle a contested election and to plan for preventing Trump’s inauguration if he won, or managing Trumpism after a loss. The document referenced is a 22-page memo with an annex (appendix C) focusing on “clear Trump win” scenarios and alternatives to ensure a Biden victory or to defeat Trumpism permanently. - The narrative asserts that the Transition Integrity Project produced recommendations for handling a contested election through street protests, electoral strategies, and political pressure, with emphasis on mass mobilization, particularly with Black Lives Matter, to influence outcomes or to force changes in leadership if necessary. - The participants allegedly discussed provocative strategies to destabilize outcomes through street actions, including plans to mobilize protests and to leverage or fund Black Lives Matter and other networks to pressure the political process. They also allegedly discussed concepts such as alternate slates of electors, secession discussions in Western states, and the possibility of arresting Trump and his associates under various circumstances. - The discussion references a sequence of events and media coverage surrounding the 2020 election, including the “Red Mirage Blue Shift” concept (the idea that results might shift after Election Night) and the goal of mitigating perceptions of illegitimacy through censorship measures and strategic messaging. - The speakers connect the June 2020 war game to events around January 6, including the notion that the plan contemplated provoking a breakdown in the joint session of Congress and coordinating demonstrations that could impact the certification process. - The dialogue also ties the Transition Integrity Project to broader discussions about preventing Trumpism from enduring post-election and to “robust, intentional, and specific strategies” to dismantle networks associated with Trump’s rise to power. They discuss the role of mass protests, the potential use of the National Guard, and concerns about preventing or countering demonstrations in the lead-up to and during the certification of the election results. - The conversations reference mainstream outlets (e.g., The New York Times, Molly Ball’s Time Magazine piece) and insist that the Transition Integrity Project’s work was widely discussed and reported, with emphasis on its admission of planning to test receptivity of protests and to coordinate with foundations, corporations, and donor networks to fund and sustain street action if needed. - Throughout, there is an emphasis on not allowing Trump or Trumpism to demobilize automatically after the election and on preparing a comprehensive, multi-front strategy to address a perceived threat to democratic order. Notable participants named or implied include Rosa Brooks; Michael Steele; Donna Brazile; John Podesta; Bill Crystal; David Fromm; and Hillary Clinton’s campaign apparatus. The discussion ties these figures to both the June 2020 pipe-bomb purchases and the broader Transition Integrity Project, framing the war game as a blueprint for how to stop Trump, manage protests, and dismantle the networks that supported Trump’s rise.

In 2020, battleground states faced a nationally coordinated effort to undermine the will of the people before, during, and after election day. Secretaries of State began to coordinate with each other. In 2022, a team was built in six states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia. These states are now working together, and are clear about what they're up against. The battle over the future of democracy isn't going to be in the post-election process only, it starts now with court battles. These states anticipate getting hit with the same types of sham lawsuits. By working together, they can develop common strategies and be more powerful as a united team across party lines.

An ex-Data Republican has identified seven NGOs, partially funded by American taxpayers, as key players in the "deep state Uniparty." These organizations have allegedly shaped public discourse, portraying Trump as a threat to democracy, when actually, he challenged their political regime. These NGOs receive substantial funding from USAID/State Department and frame their mission as protecting democracy. They were originally created to support US Democratic efforts abroad but redefined their mission after the Soviet Union's fall. These NGOs function as a shadow US government, with the National Endowment for Democracy unifying efforts against perceived enemies. Recent actions by Trump, like sending Elon Musk into federal agencies, have disrupted the Uniparty's alleged grift and misuse of taxpayer funds. As the Uniparty panics, the deep state will become more desperate. For personal health preparedness, The Wellness Company offers prescription medical kits (twc.health/blackout, promo code blackout for 10% off).

Cole notes that he purchased six galvanized pipes of this size on June 1, June 8, and November 16, and asks for receipts. The discussion shifts to what questions a point person in 2021 would face and to a theory of the case, with speculation about how individuals could be drawn into a plan to influence events, including the possibility of a “pipe bomb” plot and manipulation of associates. Speaker 1 explains that, as a federal investigator, one would use a speculative investigative lens to broaden the search to cover various permutations of the case, including the idea that there was a so-called Red Mirage Blue Shift scenario surrounding the 2020 election. They reference CNN’s 2020 reporting on deciphering red mirage and blue shift uncertainty, including pre censorship by DHS/CISA in June 2020 to suppress any social media criticism of mass mail-in ballots, so as to prevent questions about legitimacy of an upcoming Biden victory. The discussion asserts that the goal was to preempt perceptions of illegitimacy and manage the narrative around the election results. The conversation then turns to Rosa Brooks, a high-ranking Obama administration official who headed the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and wrote about pathways to remove Trump from power. Speaker 1 cites Brooks’ article “Three ways to stop President Trump before the 2020 election” and notes an assertion, reportedly in a Diet of Lisa-like coverage, that she later discussed a fourth, insurrectionary possibility: a military coup. They claim TIP was a war game conducted in June 2020 and then in November 2020, involving senior military, intelligence, diplomatic, and political operatives, with participants from both parties including Michael Steele (former RNC head), Donna Brazile (former DNC head), John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager), Bill Kristol, and others. The summary asserts that TIP’s appendix, “Will Trumpism survive a Trump loss?” warned that Trumpism could persist even after a loss, necessitating a robust strategy to eliminate Trump supporters and networks that enabled Trump’s rise. It is claimed the document discusses how to mobilize mass street protests, especially via Black Lives Matter and allied groups, to pressure a Biden administration to act against Trump, including funding and resource provisioning of protest movements to ensure their alignment with Democratic objectives. The dialogue alleges that, in June 2020, TIP proposed measures to de- legitimize Trump, including not letting Trump use the National Guard or invoke the Insurrection Act to quell protests. It is asserted that the plan contemplated mass demonstrations, the use of “street protests” as decisive leverage, and the establishment of communications infrastructure to support mass mobilization for street action if Trump won, or to counter him if he did not. The participants allegedly favored aligning with groups like Soros-funded Indivisible and Hold the Line, and urged resourcing new racial justice leaders and major philanthropic/foundation channels to fund these movements, including a claimed $50 billion in funding to Black Lives Matter. The transcript claims that TIP’s War Game included explicit scenarios about alternate electors, secession moves, and the potential for mass prosecutions of Trump and his associates, as well as strategic recommendations on how to proceed if Trump refused to concede. It is further asserted that a June 2020 war game considered provoking an “January 6” breakdown in Congress as a central move to prevent a contested inauguration, with participants pondering agent provocateurs and avenues to postpone certification. Throughout, the speakers connect the pipe-bomb purchases in June 2020 to the TIP war games and the broader plan to undermine Trump through street mobilization, legal maneuvers, and potential mass arrests of Trump supporters and networks, while noting the January 6 events as a focal point of these discussions.

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.

They fear Trump's resilience and intelligence, knowing he has reason to be angry. They acknowledge that if the right had done to Obama or Biden what they did to Trump, it would have been a big deal. They worry that if a MAGA candidate wins and the right gains control of the House and Senate, they will face special prosecutors who will go after the Biden family and others. They believe the danger is not over and anticipate even more intense actions in 2024. They argue that all could have been resolved if they had simply stated that Trump should not be president and played by the existing rules, without changing voting laws or packing the court. They reject outside funding and emphasize the importance of showing the American people their perspective.

An article from Zero Hedge unveils a network of seven NGOs, allegedly funded by American taxpayers, that have been instrumental in shaping public discourse against Donald Trump, portraying him as a threat to democracy. These organizations, originally designed to support US democratic efforts abroad, have redefined their mission to position themselves as guardians of democracy, with any challenge to their authority perceived as an attack on democracy itself. These NGOs function as a shadow US government, with the National Endowment for Democracy unifying efforts through organizations reflecting the American two-party system. While not all funding flows through them, they control much of America's global financial influence. With Trump challenging this system and trust in mainstream media declining, these groups are growing desperate. Now is the time to protect yourself and your family by ordering prescription kits at twc.health/blackout and use code blackout for 10% off.

The State Democracy Defenders Fund was created after the failed 2020 coup attempt, combining experts who fought the coup with those who studied successful and unsuccessful ousters of autocratic regimes in places like Hungary, Turkey, Poland, Brazil, and the Czech Republic. Their plan involves litigation as the first guardrail against autocracy, with over 150 wins in court. The "banging" against this guardrail is waking up political leadership and the American people. Elected officials are increasingly vocal, and protests have doubled since 2021. The organization also incubated The Contrarian, a publication covering the democracy movement, with 600,000 subscribers. These protests range from town halls to spontaneous demonstrations, like one supporting a case against Elon Musk. The combination of litigation, political opposition, and grassroots movements is key to defeating authoritarianism. A "wipeout" at the ballot box is predicted in 2026 due to Trump's unpopularity and Musk's low approval ratings.