TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Ideological subversion, or active measures, aims to change Americans' perception of reality, hindering their ability to defend themselves and their country. This brainwashing process has four stages, starting with demoralization, which takes 15-20 years, the time to educate a generation with the enemy's ideology, like Marxism-Leninism. The speaker claims demoralization in the U.S. is complete, exceeding expectations due to a lack of moral standards. The next stage, destabilization, focuses on essentials like the economy and defense, taking 2-5 years. The influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in these areas is supposedly significant. Crisis follows, potentially taking only six weeks, leading to a violent power shift and normalization, a term the speaker says is borrowed from Soviet propaganda. Leftists are used to destabilize the nation, but once their job is done, they are eliminated. The speaker warns of a ticking time bomb, emphasizing that unlike him, Americans have nowhere to defect.

There are too many connections between Trump and Russia to be coincidences, including financial entanglements and attempts to hide meetings. Regardless of the Trump investigation, Russia interfered in the election to help Trump, hurt the speaker, and destabilize democracy, and they haven't stopped. The Russians stole campaign manager John Podesta's emails, conveyed them to WikiLeaks, and released them the same day as the "Hollywood Access" tape. The emails were weaponized and targeted at specific voters. Investigators are looking into where the Russians got the targeting information. The Russian government, directed by Putin, engaged in espionage against Americans to influence the election, as confirmed by 17 intelligence agencies. The most important question is whether Trump will admit and condemn Russian interference and reject their espionage, which he has encouraged in the past. Trump's admiration for Putin, a "wannabe dictator," is exemplified by his suggestion to leave NATO, giving a green light to a "murderous, brutal dictator."

Last year, the speaker mentioned a cryptic post they made, predicting certain events that have since occurred. They explained that through years of touring and connections in the intelligence community, they had dinner with concerned active and former CIA agents. These agents believed that a Fusion GPS Report suggested that Trump was being controlled by Russia, comparing him to the Manchurian candidate. They shared this information with the speaker, who was asked to post it on social media to raise awareness. The speaker was chosen due to their large following.

There are Americans influenced by propaganda, similar to the support for Trump in 2016. It’s important to consider whether these individuals should face civil or criminal charges as a potential deterrent.

The Russia hoax was a significant deception, impacting public perception. Despite claims of collusion, it was never proven and took over two years to investigate. This narrative influenced many viewers, particularly those less informed. Additionally, 51 former intelligence agents pressured Twitter to suppress a story, labeling it as Russian disinformation despite knowing it was not. These actions contributed to a false narrative that painted a misleading picture of the political landscape. For a fair political process, honesty is essential, yet the opposition continuously portrayed the individual as a threat to democracy, ignoring the reality of their presidency.

Speakers discuss the severity and novelty of threats to the United States’ political system, focusing on Russian interference and the digital domain. - All acknowledge that the country faced a cataclysmic disruption to its political system that is unlike prior experiences. Speaker 2 notes, as a Vietnam veteran, that fundamental institutions were jeopardized then but proved resilient, and expresses hope for a similar outcome now. - Speaker 1 emphasizes two points: (1) Vladimir Putin’s determination to shape political landscapes inside Russia and abroad, and (2) the consequential role of the digital domain, which allowed Russian intelligence to exploit and manipulate more effectively, culminating in the twenty sixteen election. - They note that Russian interference historically involved exploiting elections, but never with such aggression, directness, or multidimensional methods. The Internet and modern technology serve as a huge enabler for influencing opinion and undermining fundamental systems. - There is a discussion of whether this manipulation was unforeseen. Speaker 2 indicates it goes back to the Soviet era with attempts to influence elections, but the magnitude in twenty sixteen was unprecedented. The digital environment provides malefactors with more opportunities to attack and influence. - The panel explains active measures as fabricating or propagating stories (even patently false ones) to advance a narrative, color perceptions, and lend legitimacy to political actors. They note that the Russians focused on specific voter blocks in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, with estimates that 70,000–80,000 votes could have swung the election. - They discuss methods beyond information operations, including collecting information (e.g., DNC and DCCC email breaches) and money-related tactics: money laundering, disguising funding sources for political actions, and potential extortion or blackmail. They stress that collusion is a tool in the Russians’ kit and that they recruit or exploit individuals where openings exist. - Following the money is highlighted as essential across national security domains; FBI financial investigators and intelligence analysts play key roles, and there is confidence that Mueller and others will trace financial pathways to uncover motivations. - The distinction between cyber warfare and conventional warfare is acknowledged: there are no tanks or planes, but the cyber realm constitutes a war for democracy. A robust response is needed to strengthen the cyber environment, including proposals for a congressional independent commission to assess and strategize future protections, involving engineers, technologists, scientists, and private sector input. - They reflect on why the nation did not respond with the immediacy seen after physical attacks (e.g., 9/11). The lack of a physical rubble-like trigger makes cyber threats harder to mobilize a national response. Leadership issues are cited: when the White House diminishes the CIA, FBI, NSA, or intelligence and law enforcement, it undermines efforts to address the threat. - They recount briefings to the president-elect in January, noting high confidence levels in assessments that did not rely on the dossier; the bigger concern is a perceived indifference to the Russian threat and the denigration of security institutions. - They stress the importance of institutional integrity: the press, law enforcement, and intelligence are pillars of democracy, and denigration of these institutions undermines U.S. credibility abroad. They advocate for stronger checks and balances and reiterate their commitment to truthful reporting and protecting the country. - The speakers, experienced and apolitical, emphasize loyalty to the Constitution and the need for decisive leadership and sustained commitment to democratic institutions, despite political challenges. They conclude with a solemn commitment to safeguard the country and its democratic framework.

Let's discuss the recent propaganda tactics associated with Trump. This approach isn't new; it mirrors strategies used by autocrats like Hitler. Trump has effectively convinced a significant portion of the population that the system is rigged, fostering distrust in public institutions and the media. This tactic, which involves repeating a big lie, has historically led to disastrous societal outcomes. Despite legal consequences for figures like Rudy Giuliani, many still believe the false narratives. The overarching goal has been to undermine trust in our institutions, and Trump has succeeded in this regard, particularly through his promotion of "fake news."

To destabilize a country, one must inundate its public square with misinformation and doubt, eroding trust in leaders, media, institutions, and even fellow citizens. When people no longer believe in the concept of truth, the game is won.

Despite numerous indictments, civil fraud cases, and sexual transgressions, the person who defeated me in 2016 continues to thrive. This is because he appeals to the emotional and psychological needs of a portion of the population, particularly the Republican Party's base. They see him as their spokesperson and remain loyal, attending his rallies and wearing his merchandise. His negative and divisive politics resonate with them, possibly due to their dislike of migrants, gay people, black people, or those who have achieved success they desire. "Make America great again" symbolized a desire for a return to a time when people felt empowered and could freely express their opinions, even if it meant insulting others. Breaking this cult-like following is crucial.

There are Americans influenced by propaganda, similar to the support for Trump in 2016. It’s worth considering whether these individuals should face civil or criminal charges as a potential deterrent.

The speaker discusses ideological subversion, which refers to the slow process of changing Americans' perception of reality so that they cannot make sensible conclusions to defend themselves or their country. This brainwashing process has four stages: demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization. The demoralization stage has already been completed in the United States over the past 25 years, thanks to the lack of moral standards. Exposure to true information no longer matters as demoralized individuals are unable to assess it. The destabilization stage focuses on essentials like the economy and defense systems, while the crisis stage brings a country to the verge of collapse. The period of normalization can last indefinitely and involves the establishment of a big brother government.

We have over 70 million voters supporting a man who has made extreme statements, including threats of violence against political opponents and intentions to undermine constitutional democracy. Despite clear quotes, many Trump supporters deny or downplay his words. This reflects a broader issue of disinformation and a troubling disregard for truth that has developed over the past decade. There is a significant lack of understanding of fundamental democratic principles, such as checks and balances and the rule of law. The challenge now is how to engage with those who seem disconnected from these civic basics and have been influenced by misinformation during this time.

Donald Trump's campaign chairman was secretly meeting with Russian intelligence, and Russia interfered with the election to attack democracy. One speaker believes Trump is guilty because he knows something about Russia and questions why Trump believed Putin more than U.S. intelligence. Another speaker suggests Trump views the government's role as advancing his political fortunes and destroying enemies, envisioning a second term resembling Vladimir Putin's Russia or Viktor Orban's Hungary. Russia intervened heavily in the 2016 election to elect Trump through a social media campaign and hacking. This is compared to Watergate, with a virtual break-in and a presidential cover-up. There are concerns that Putin and the Kremlin could attempt to intervene in the 2024 election, especially with the war in Ukraine and NATO enlargement. Russia has more at stake and less reason to avoid risk, viewing Trump as a lifeline due to U.S. support for Ukraine. It is expected that Russia will engage, and the question is how much.

News alert discusses Tulsi Gabbard releasing a report alleging a conspiracy by a sitting president, Barack Obama, and U.S. intel agencies to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency and the 2016 election. The report claims there is irrefutable evidence that Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment they knew was false, promoting a narrative that Russia interfered in 2016 to help Trump win. Gabbard says she obtained a House Intelligence Committee report that had been locked away in a CIA vault for nearly a decade, and investigators spent over two thousand hours interviewing 20 CIA and FBI officials. The assertion is that the Obama administration doctored intelligence to imply Putin and Trump colluded to steal the election, with a highly unusual, rush-developed assessment produced a month after Trump’s victory. John Brennan allegedly handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, who were siloed and not aware of each other’s work, with only one analyst in charge of drafting. The process was described as a rush job with no coordination with other intelligence agencies, essentially “home cooking” for Obama. The four key elements repeated in the assessment, forming the basis of the Russia hoax and the Mueller investigation, are: 1) that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win; 2) Putin took actions to help Trump win; 3) the Russians had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier); and 4) that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. The claim is that none of these were true, and there was no reliable intelligence to support them. Senior CIA officials allegedly refused to propagate these allegations, but were overruled by CIA Director Brennan and FBI Director Comey, who pressed for them despite lacking verifiable evidence. The report alleges the Obama administration cherry-picked intelligence, misquoted sources, did not corroborate claims, suppressed counter-evidence, and even used anonymous internet postings. Rank-and-file CIA personnel allegedly admitted that these actions violated tradecraft standards, with a pressure campaign emanating from political appointees, the CIA director, and Obama himself. Speaker 1 asserts that Donald Trump knows Russia helped him win in 2016. Speaker 2 suggests Putin’s preference for Trump came from his dislike of Hillary Clinton, who was running, while Speaker 3 states Russia sought to interfere systematically to advance Trump’s prospects. The conversation notes that at one point, 60% of Democrats believed Russia hacked voting machines to aid Trump, yet the report contends Russians aimed to create chaos and undermine faith in democracy, with solid intelligence indicating Putin had no clear preference between Clinton and Trump but had dirt on Clinton that was not released. The discussion questions why the dirt from the DNC emails and claims about Clinton’s health, including tranquilizers, were not leaked to aid Trump, and whether the information about Clinton’s health is credible. The panel suggests that if Russia sought to influence the election, more damning information would have been released. The speakers claim Obama and top intelligence leaders mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious sources to craft a narrative of Putin’s preference for Trump. They contend Obama continued pushing the hoax after the election, describing it as undermining democracy. Towards the end, there is mention of potential criminal implications, with references to referrals to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation, including possible liability for Obama. A tester voices that Brennan may have committed perjury before Congress. A final note asserts that the CIA did not rely on the Steele dossier for the intelligence community assessment, countering a claim made in the discussion. The segment closes with a call for accountability.

Voters in America should decide the president, not Vladimir Putin. The Russians offered, the campaign accepted, and the president used their help. The allegation is that they colluded. Putin doesn't want me to be president. Russia, China, and Iran have been involved in this election. 17 intelligence agencies confirmed it. Fifty former national security officials said Trump is unfit to be commander in chief. The smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin. Trump is unwilling to confront Putin, who put bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan. The confidence in this judgment is low to moderate due to various factors.

Many people want Trump removed from power and to ensure he can never run again. They are afraid of both Trump and his supporters, who remain loyal. They believe that by tarnishing Trump's image, they can break the bond between him and his followers. However, they fail to realize that the connection between Trump and his supporters goes beyond him as an individual. They cannot separate the supporters from the ideas and values they hold dear, such as Make America Great Again. The supporters existed before Trump and will continue to exist even if he is no longer in the picture.

To weaken democratic institutions, it's not essential for people to believe disinformation. Overwhelming the public sphere with disinformation, raising questions, spreading dirt, and planting conspiracy theories can be enough to erode trust. Once citizens distrust leaders, mainstream media, political institutions, each other, and the possibility of truth, the goal is achieved.

Ideological subversion is a slow process aimed at changing the perception of reality for every American. The goal is to prevent people from making sensible conclusions to defend themselves, their families, and their country. This brainwashing process occurs in four stages, starting with demoralization. It takes about 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation by exposing multiple generations of American students to Marxist-Leninist ideology without counterbalancing American values. The demoralization process in the United States has been completed for the past 25 years, surpassing expectations. Lack of moral standards allows Americans to demoralize each other, rendering true information ineffective. Only a physical shock can make a demoralized person understand the truth.

We look at where we are now over the last several weeks. We've declassified and released documents that exposed how president Obama and leaders in the intelligence community knowingly manufactured a false intelligence document after the twenty sixteen election was done, after the American people said, no, we want Donald Trump to go and be our commander in chief, not Hillary Clinton. And this manufactured document alleged that Russia aspired to help president Trump win the election with the aim of undermining his presidency and usurping the will and the voices of the American people who sent Trump to the White House.

There is ample, clear, significant, abundant, and direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The president seems pathologically incapable of telling the truth and may be compromised by a foreign power. The Russians have been laundering money through the Trump organization, and Trump continues to believe Russian propaganda, making him dangerous. Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians. There is circumstantial evidence of collusion or coordination, and direct evidence of deception. The Trump campaign welcomed Russian help, built it into their campaign plan, never reported it, made full use of it, and then lied about it. There is evidence that is not circumstantial. The case is more than circumstantial.

Putin was unhappy with Speaker 1 for raising concerns about the unfairness of Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections. Putin is paranoid about mass movements near Russia that could lead to democracy, closer ties with the EU, or NATO membership. The speaker believes Russia is still interfering with U.S. democracy by influencing opinions and election systems. She believes she was an obstacle to Russia's plans to undermine U.S. democracy and impose authoritarian control, and that Russia wanted to remove her to achieve other goals. Russia is still stirring up trouble and influencing people on social media, including efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act to cause political disruption. Electing a president was only part of Russia's plan. Putin aims to undermine democracies using money, blackmail, and inducements to bend political and business leaders to his will. The speaker doesn't know if Trump is a witting or unwitting tool of Putin, but believes Putin is playing a long game to undermine democracies.

Fox News alert: Tulsi Gabbard releases a report alleging a conspiracy by a sitting president, Barack Obama, and his intel agencies to sabotage the president-elect Donald Trump, brainwash the electorate, and undermine the legitimacy of an election. There is irrefutable evidence detailing how Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment they knew was false, promoting a narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win, selling it to the American people as true. Gabbard obtained a House Intelligence Committee report locked away in a CIA vault for almost a decade. Investigators spent over two thousand hours interviewing 20 CIA and FBI officials, and it shows the Obama administration doctored intelligence to make it look like Putin and Trump stole the election. A month after Trump beat Hillary, Obama wasn’t satisfied with intelligence reporting and ordered his CIA director to create a new assessment of how Russia interfered with the election. This was a highly unusual move. John Brennan handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, and they were siloed; none knew what the others were doing, and only one analyst was in charge of drafting the report. It was not routine, and it was rushed to publish before Trump’s inauguration. Nothing was coordinated with other intelligence agencies. Basically, this was “home cooking” for Barack Obama. Four key elements were repeated to form the basis of the Russia hoax and the Mueller investigation: 1) that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win; 2) Putin took action to help Trump win; 3) the Russians had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier); and 4) that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. None of this was ever true; there was no reliable intelligence to support these allegations. Senior CIA officials repeatedly refused to traffic in these allegations, but were overruled by CIA director Brennan and FBI director Comey, who insisted they be pushed without verifiable evidence. The Obama administration cherry-picked intelligence, lied about sources, misquoted sources, did not corroborate claims, suppressed intelligence counter to their narratives, and even used anonymous Internet postings. Rank-and-file CIA admitted violations of tradecraft standards; a massive pressure campaign came from the top, with unusual directives from political appointees, the CIA director, and Obama himself. This is how the Russia hoax was born. Donald Trump knows that the Russians helped him win in 2016. Putin hated Hillary Clinton, with a noted preference for the opponent he disliked least. It was Russia in a systematic effort to interfere in the election and advance Trump’s prospects. The report notes that at one point, 60% of Democrats believed the Russians hacked voting machines to help Trump win, but the report shows Russians sought to create chaos and undermine democracy; solid intelligence suggested Putin had no preference, and expected Hillary to win, holding compromising dirt on her that he never released. If Putin wanted Trump to win, why didn’t he drop the dirt? There were high-level DNC emails detailing Hillary’s psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and a daily regimen of tranquilizers; Brennan and the intelligence community mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious sources to create a narrative of Putin’s preference for Trump, though Obama and intelligence leaders knew Putin did not collude with Trump and did not direct his people to help Trump win, yet they published it anyway. Obama and his intel spies purportedly cooked intelligence to look like Putin preferred Trump, undermining faith in elections and causing chaos. Do you believe this implicates Obama in criminal behavior? There is a referral of documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate criminal implications. Evidence points to Obama leading the manufacturing of the intelligence assessment. Even two years after the election, Obama pushed a hoax he knew wasn’t true. Brennan, Comey, and others may have liability. Trey Gowdy claims Brennan committed perjury for lying to Congress. When asked who commissioned the Steele dossier, responses indicate the CIA did not rely on it; it was not part of the intelligence community assessment. The broadcast concludes with the assertion that what happened to these officials is not revenge, but accountability, while noting ongoing questions about potential criminal action.

There has been a global brainwashing operation through mainstream media for decades. The long term effects and consequences of this manipulation are unknown. What happens when people wake up and reject these beliefs? What happens to their sanity? We may soon find out.

They desperately want Trump gone and to ensure he can never run again. They fear both Trump and his 75-80 million supporters. Even if Trump leaves, they can't separate his supporters from him or the ideas they stand for. The bond between supporters and Trump cannot be destroyed by making him look bad or embarrassing his followers, as they were there before Trump. The strength of the Make America Great Again movement will continue to be a significant factor in future campaigns.

There are Americans involved in propaganda efforts, similar to those that supported Trump in 2016. It’s worth considering whether these individuals should face civil or criminal charges as a means of deterrence.