reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I wanted to bring you an update from Washington and introduce Data Republican, a digital detective exposing government corruption. She uses AI to analyze data, revealing connections between agencies, media, and NGOs. Her research uncovered that USAID funneled nearly half a billion dollars into Internews Network, a secretive NGO working with media outlets worldwide. Interestingly, a board member at Internews is also the VP of Communications at Reddit. During the Cold War, entities like Internews aimed to prevent the spread of communism, but now, the funds continue to grow with unclear objectives. USAID also funds domestic programs, including CEPPS, which distributes billions to Republican and Democratic groups, creating a complex web of money controlled by powerful politicians, which looks like the deep state manipulating elections. Eliminating the Department of Education and empowering parents and schools would be more effective, as the current system is overly bureaucratic and fails to meet diverse learning needs.

Michael Shellenberger's CTIL files reveal a trove of documents exposing the involvement of governments in censorship. The documents describe the activities of the Cyber Threat Intelligence League (CTIL), an anti-disinformation group that worked closely with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and military contractors. The whistleblower's documents reveal the genesis of modern digital censorship programs, partnerships with intelligence agencies and civil society organizations, and the use of offensive techniques like sock puppet accounts. The documents also show that CTIL aimed to become part of the federal government and had connections with FBI and CISA employees. The documents provide a comprehensive picture of the birth of the censorship industrial complex.

This video discusses a government scandal involving the censorship of social media posts during the 2020 and 2022 elections. The speaker highlights the deceptive tactics used by the Washington Post to downplay the scandal. The so-called "academics" involved in the censorship were actually government cutouts, funded by and working closely with the government. They actively flagged and pressured tech platforms to remove posts, using the threat of regulatory action and crisis PR. They also pushed for a terms of service policy called "delegitimization" that banned discussions about election integrity. The speaker exposes the collusion between these academics and the tech platforms, as well as the revolving door between government and academia. The censorship efforts targeted millions of posts and narratives, effectively silencing dissenting voices.

Stanford University, University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council were used as a front by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to manipulate social media during the 2020 election. The goal was to censor posts containing misinformation about mail-in ballots and other election-related topics. DHS lacked the legal authority to directly censor, so they set up the Election Infrastructure Partnership (EIP) to fill the gaps. These outside organizations received federal funding and worked closely with DHS to ban or throttle millions of posts and accounts. The entire operation was orchestrated to rig the election. The question now is whether there will be political accountability for these actions.

The Pentagon funded a psychological operations research group that began mapping COVID-19 skepticism and conspiracy theories in April 2020. Their analysis indicated that right-wing accounts were diminishing the mainstream conversation about the virus. This effort aimed to counter misinformation regarding COVID origins and involved targeting individuals questioning vaccine efficacy and lockdown policies. The project, known as the Virality Project, received funding from U.S. government sources, including a $3 million grant to Stanford and the University of Washington. Additionally, the Atlantic Council, which has ties to various U.S. intelligence agencies, received significant funding from the Pentagon and State Department. This initiative effectively aimed to protect the reputations of figures like Bill Gates and George Soros by mapping and censoring online discourse surrounding them.

The speaker discusses the establishment of an election integrity partnership (EIP) at the request of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). They mention an email from Graham Brookie of the Atlantic Council, confirming the setup of the partnership. The speaker also highlights the connection between the Atlantic Council and the National Endowment for Democracy, which is linked to the CIA. They point out the involvement of various organizations with ties to intelligence agencies, such as Stanford, UW, and Graphika. The speaker asserts that EIP was not a secret operation and was formed due to funding and legal limitations of CISA. They express personal satisfaction in discovering and sharing this information.

Eric data involvement amounts to five or six times. The organizations involved include the Research Triangle Institute out of North Carolina, a couple of professors at a couple different universities on the East and West Coast, and in 2020 the Centre for Election Innovation and Reform (CEIR) partnered with some ERIC states to evaluate the effectiveness of their eligible but unregistered mailing. There is no affiliation with ERIC or any of your partners with those organizations; no foreign affiliation. For the record, the executive director of CEIR, Center for Election Innovation Research, was a non-voting board member on ERIC until 2023. The board eliminated those positions in 2023, and he was not reappointed.

This video discusses a government scandal involving the censorship of social media posts during the 2020 and 2022 elections. The speaker highlights the deceptive tactics used by the Washington Post to downplay the scandal. The so-called "academics" involved in the censorship were actually government cutouts, working closely with tech platforms to flag and remove posts. They were funded by the government and had revolving door relationships with government agencies. The speaker exposes how these academics actively pressured the tech platforms to adopt censorship policies and targeted millions of posts for removal. The video also reveals the manipulation of terms like "studied" and "misinformation narratives" to justify the censorship. This is just a summary of the extensive information covered in the video.

I spent years researching and watching lengthy videos to understand the influence of organizations like the Atlantic Council, which is heavily funded by U.S. government agencies, including the CIA and the Pentagon. This group trains journalists to identify and censor disinformation, particularly targeting populist narratives like those of Donald Trump and Brexit. They promote a framework called the "four D's" of disinformation: dismiss, distort, distract, and dismay. This framework allows them to label factually true information as disinformation if it undermines government narratives. The Atlantic Council's connections to high-ranking CIA officials and its role in shaping media narratives illustrate a troubling intersection of government and media, aiming to control public discourse and influence political outcomes.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving never-Trump Republicans, DHS, NATO, and DNC planned a mass censorship campaign using Stanford University, University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council. These institutions, linked to the Pentagon, aimed to control social media to prevent questioning of mail-in ballots' legitimacy. The campaign involved threats to tech companies, resulting in a new censorship policy called delegitimization. This pre-censorship effort targeted 22 million pro-Trump posts on 15 platforms to ensure public acceptance of a potential Biden victory. The goal was to avoid election crisis due to mail-in ballot discrepancies.

I discovered a clip from a nine-hour conference I watched in 2019, which reveals how the Atlantic Council, funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars, trains journalists from major media outlets to censor information that undermines government narratives. This organization, known as NATO's think tank, has seven former CIA directors on its board and receives annual funding from various military and intelligence agencies. They promote a framework called the "four D's" of disinformation: dismiss, distort, distract, and dismay. This training aims to suppress populist sentiments, particularly during the 2020 election cycle, by labeling factually true information as disinformation if it contradicts preferred narratives. The Atlantic Council's collaboration with Burisma, signed just before Trump's inauguration, highlights the intertwining of corporate interests and government actions in shaping public discourse.

The speaker discusses how the US Department of Defense censored Americans during the 2020 election cycle. They explain that a group within the Atlantic Council and the foreign policy establishment pushed for a permanent domestic censorship government office to counter misinformation and disinformation. This office was eventually established within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through an obscure cybersecurity agency called CISA. The speaker details how this agency, with the combined powers of the CIA and FBI, classified online misinformation as a cybersecurity attack on democracy. They further explain how Stanford University, the University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council, all Pentagon-associated institutions, were involved in a coordinated mass censorship campaign to pre-censor any disputes about the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. This campaign involved pressuring tech companies to adopt new terms of service speech violation bans. The speaker suggests that this censorship operation was orchestrated to ensure the perceived legitimacy of a Biden victory in the case of a red mirage blue shift event. They also mention the connection between this operation and the impeachment of Trump in late 2019.

The government created nongovernmental entities like the Election Integrity Project to address constitutional concerns and perform tasks that the government couldn't do alone. The head of the project explains that the government lacked funding and legal authorizations to tackle election disinformation. However, with input from this group, a project was quickly formed involving four institutions to bridge this gap. In essence, the government supported and funded NGOs to fulfill tasks beyond their own capabilities.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving DHS, NATO, and the DNC planned a mass censorship campaign on social media to prevent disputing mail-in ballot legitimacy. They partnered with Stanford, University of Washington, Graphika, and the Atlantic Council, all linked to the Pentagon. Using threats and pressure, they forced tech companies to ban content questioning mail-in ballots. This was done to ensure public acceptance of a potential Biden victory due to mail-in ballots. The group aimed to control the narrative and prevent election crisis.

Data Republican released a tool indexing the National Endowment for Democracy Journal, aggregating authors, articles, and NGOs. The speaker claims this tool proves George Soros and the government collaborate. The National Endowment for Democracy is described as a government-financed NGO involved in intelligence operations, with congressional representatives. The speaker highlights authors in the journal affiliated with the Open Society Foundation, asserting that many Open Society Foundation people write for the journal. The speaker points to numerous mentions of Open Society Foundations in the journal's articles. The speaker concludes that this demonstrates the government's deep involvement with George Soros, portraying him as a deep insider within the intelligence community.

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

Data Republican released a tool indexing the National Endowment for Democracy Journal, aggregating authors, articles, and NGOs. The speaker claims this journal proves George Soros and the government work together. The National Endowment for Democracy is described as a government-financed NGO involved in intelligence operations, with congressional representatives. The tool identifies authors in the journal affiliated with the Open Society Foundation, which is George Soros. The speaker highlights the number of articles in the journal mentioning Open Society Foundations. The speaker concludes that this demonstrates the government's deep involvement with George Soros, portraying him as a deep insider within the intelligence community.

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.

A recent report unmasks seven NGOs, partially funded by U.S. taxpayers, as key players in the "deep state" uniparty. These organizations, originally meant to support U.S. democratic efforts abroad, have redefined their mission to be the guardians of democracy itself. They receive substantial funding from USAID and the State Department. This shift explains why Trump's reelection was framed as a threat, as these NGOs equate democracy with their own survival and authority. They control the purse strings for much of America's global financial influence. These groups function as an off the books shadow U.S. government. Now, with increased scrutiny and declining media trust, their propaganda efforts are weakened, potentially leading to more desperate measures from the deep state.

The speaker outlines a framework for understanding current information control by the US and its allies, arguing that the State Department, the Pentagon, and the Central Intelligence Agency operate together to shape information in society. They describe three roles: the State Department conducts overt information control through funding media institutions (which are presented as “free and independent” but labeled government-backed); the Pentagon engages in information control through psychological operations; and the CIA operates covert information control, influence campaigns, propaganda, and censorship work. Between the State Department and the CIA sits a vast network of soft power institutions that implement this influence. Soft power is defined as the alternative to hard power, enabling a country to win “hearts and minds” and influence other countries’ governments by manipulating populations. The speaker connects this framework to the Brazil situation, stating at the top level the involvement of three or more organizations: the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). USAID and the NED are described as intermediaries between the State Department and the CIA, with the NED characterized as a CIA cutout established after the Church Committee era to fund dissident groups in a publicly firewalled way, though the speaker asserts there is no real divide between the NED and the CIA. The NED’s founders explicitly noted it would do what the CIA used to do, but via a private, publicly named entity. The speaker cites Christopher Walker (NED) as a participant in this ecosystem. The narrative then moves to a 2017 GlobSec video, described as the origin of today’s censorship industry’s consensus. The video’s description is read, highlighting concerns about traditional media being challenged by internet news and social networks, the spread of “unfiltered” alternative media, and the problem of algorithms that personalize content and reinforce confirmation bias. It identifies populist and extremist right-wing groups as exploiting these algorithms, and asks how to protect users from fake news and propaganda without censorship. It questions the role of information technology companies and the responsibility of social platforms for content, while debating how to fight extremism without undermining free speech. The panel includes figures tied to the CIA, DHS, and private security and consulting groups. Key participants highlighted include Michael Chertoff (Executive Chairman of the Chertoff Group, former DHS Secretary, linked to censorship governance), and Christopher Walker (Vice President of NED), among others. The speaker emphasizes Chertoff’s connections to BAE Systems and to the broader military–intelligence–policy network, noting Chertoff’s role in shaping how platforms were to police “unfiltered” content in 2017. The speaker also references Nina Janković, who was connected to the disinformation governance board and the Integrity Initiative, asserting a lineage from Chertoff to the broader censorship apparatus. The speaker then broadens the geopolitical frame to Russia’s resource wealth (citing a claim of $75 trillion in resources vs. the US’s $45 trillion), noting that the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) theater is the battleground for Eurasian influence. The montage in the video is described as starting with 1917 and Woodrow Wilson, portraying the blob’s view of democracy as a vector for hegemonic influence, and linking it to propaganda, censorship, and the need to control online discourse. The montage proceeds through references to 1936, Goebbels and the 1936 Olympics, Hitler, 1943, Elvis, 1960s–70s conspiracy theories about the CIA and JFK, and 1990s declassification of Northwoods-era plans, culminating in the framing of Internet propaganda as a modern battlefield. The session transitions to a live moderator, with a check on audio levels and an introduction to the next segment, announced as taking place in Bratislava for a global audience.

This video discusses a government scandal involving the censorship of social media posts during the 2020 elections and the COVID-19 pandemic. The speaker highlights deceptive framing devices used by the Washington Post to downplay the scandal. The so-called "academics" involved in the censorship were actually government cutouts, working closely with the Department of Homeland Security. They colluded with tech platforms to flag and remove posts, using tactics like delegitimization and pressuring companies through regulatory threats. The speaker exposes the close relationship between these academics and the government, as well as their revolving door positions. The censorship efforts targeted millions of posts and narratives, effectively silencing discussions on election integrity and COVID-19.

Media outlets receiving significant funding from the government raises concerns about their objectivity. Millions of dollars flowed to organizations like Politico and the BBC, echoing past scandals like payola in the music industry. The USAID's spending on journals and publications, while sometimes justifiable, saw a dramatic increase under the Biden administration, reaching $8 million annually for Politico, compared to $1.3 million under Trump. This represents a significant portion of Politico's revenue. Similar concerning funding patterns emerged with the BBC and Thomson Reuters. While the New York Times received comparatively less, the increase in funding warrants scrutiny. This situation requires investigation to ensure transparency and maintain public trust in the media's independence. The information is still developing, but citizen journalists are already using publicly available data to shed light on the issue.

Before the 2020 election, a coordinated censorship campaign was launched. This involved the Department of Homeland Security, NATO, and the DNC, leveraging institutions like Stanford University, the University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council—many with ties to the Pentagon. These groups, many staffed by former intelligence officials, worked together to suppress discussion questioning the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. They used a multi-step plan to pressure social media companies into adopting a new policy banning content undermining public confidence in the election process. This involved threats of government action and leveraging media allies. Millions of posts across multiple platforms were censored or suppressed. The goal was to prevent questions about the election outcome, anticipating a potential crisis if initial results appeared to favor Trump before shifting to Biden.

In 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created with bipartisan support. Organizations like the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and National Republican Institute (IRI) were formed to spread democratic ideals, but their actions are now questionable. A significant amount of USAID money flows into the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS), amounting to billions of dollars. CEPPS then distributes funds to the IRI, NDI, and the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES). These groups also receive separate funding directly from USAID, essentially getting double the money. The NED, funded by the State Department, also funnels money to the NDI, Republicans, and Internews Network. Powerful politicians sit on the boards of these organizations, raising concerns that the money isn't being used as intended, which would likely spark public outrage if exposed.

The Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), funded by the US government, has been using taxpayer dollars to secretly censor conservative and heterodox opinions online. They conducted a social science censorship experiment using 23 million tweets labeled as misinformation from the 2020 election. EIP developed four censorship techniques, resulting in a 63% censorship rate without users knowing they were being censored. These techniques included covert follower loss for medium to large-sized influencers. The study, published in Nature Magazine, aimed to find ways to censor people without causing outrage or blowback for tech platforms. EIP received $1 million in taxpayer funding from the Biden administration.