TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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

In 1989 and 1990, the victory of freedom in Eastern Europe was unbelievable and fantastic. It should always be remembered that ideas, in the long run, can trump interests, including economic interests.

"One of the hopeful things that I have discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past fifty years has been a result of media lives." "The media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough." "If they hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could have stopped it." "Populations don't like wars and populations have to be fooled into wars." "Populations don't willingly and with open eyes go into a war." "But our number one enemy is ignorance and I believe that is the number one enemy that everyone is not understanding what is actually going on in the world." "Now, the question is who is promoting ignorance?" "In this latter category, it is bad media." "The result is we see wars and we see corrupt governance continue."

In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat The United States because The United States controls all the world's media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results.

The discussion centers on allegations that the United States has used or could use domestic and international mechanisms to effect regime change, including through domestic unrest and foreign influence operations. Speaker 0 describes a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual, framed as a vision for 2021 and beyond, that purportedly contains instructions and examples on how the military could work with the State Department, intelligence services, and USAID to use race riots to destabilize nations. He points to examples labeled as part of this manual’s guidance for destabilization via combined military-government-civilian efforts. Speaker 1 lays out a model of how revolutions are allegedly structured, starting with a government at the top and support funneled through USAID, the State Department, or other administration entities. He then describes a degree of separation through privatized NGOs, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and similar organizations, with money flowing from entities such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations through tides and government-funded NGOs like NED. He suggests money ultimately comes from the people, and that demonstrators, youth movements, a sympathetic media, and labor unions contribute to organizing protests. He outlines conditions for regime change: an unpopular incumbent, a semi-automatic regime (not fully autocratic), a united and organized opposition, the ability to quickly frame the voting results as falsified, media amplification of that falsification, an opposition capable of mobilizing thousands, and divisions among coercive forces like the military or police. He asks whether those conditions are present and implies they are. Speaker 2 cites a declassified CIA guide from 1983 aimed at training operatives to organize riots in foreign countries, including using agitators and hiring professional criminals to manipulate mass meetings, with the goal of turning general anger into violence against the regime. The guide describes creating a climate where a few hundred agitators could mobilize tens of thousands, using 200 back channels and 200 human assets to generate a 10,000–20,000 demonstration. It also notes strategies such as setting up job fairs near riots to enlist disaffected workers. He references USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), implying that “transition” is a code for regime change, and cites a 2009 congressional report warning that OTI was a foreign operation aimed at toppling governments through organized political warfare, including mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation, hospitals, and schools. Fulton Armstrong’s quote is cited regarding government secrecy surrounding such operations. The speakers conclude by condemning actions conducted in the shadows, destabilizing nations using race wars to achieve political aims, and advocating that the military be involved, arguing these efforts occur without oversight.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the long-running effort to build civil society in the former Soviet Union, focusing on the Open Society Foundation’s role in Ukraine and the broader European reception of Vladimir Putin. Speaker 1 explains that the Cultural Initiative Foundation began in 1987 within the Soviet Union, and a branch was set up in Ukraine in 1990 two years before Ukraine’s independence. The foundation provided scholarships and supported civil society, and Speaker 1 asserts that the civil society’s maturity twenty-five years later is largely the work of the foundation. He notes that the foundation’s scholarships helped create a generation of leaders: those who were students twenty-five years ago became leaders later. Speaker 0 adds a personal observation that the new Ukrainian government and its leadership have been touched by Open Society and by Georgia, with many individuals personally benefiting from scholarships or having family members who did. The conversation then turns to the appeal of Ukraine as a model of open society, contrasted with broader European admiration for or susceptibility to Vladimir Putin. Speaker 0 points out that not all Europeans share the Ukrainian sympathy; she mentions that Hungary’s leader described Putin as a model, and cites Greece’s trips to Moscow and France’s Marielle Le Pen having close contacts with Putin. She asks how Speaker 1 explains Putin’s influence and appeal in Europe. Speaker 1 responds by situating the discussion in a political and historical context, noting his involvement in the collapse of the Soviet system. He describes himself as a political philanthropist and frames his perspective around the broader historical forces at play, implying that the appeal of Putin in some European circles is tied to these transformative historical currents. Key points: - The Cultural Initiative Foundation (established 1987 in the Soviet Union) and its Ukraine branch (1990) funded scholarships and civil-society work. - The foundation contributed to the maturation of civil society in Ukraine, with beneficiaries who became leaders two decades later. - Personal and institutional ties to Open Society and Georgia have touched Ukraine’s political leadership. - There is a notable divergence in Europe regarding Putin’s influence, with some leaders or groups appearing attracted to or engaging with Putin, while Ukraine’s open-society model is presented as a contrasting example. - Speaker 1 frames his view within a broader historical assessment of the collapse of the Soviet system, identifying as a political philanthropist.

Media has played a significant role in starting wars over the past 50 years by not digging deep enough and reprinting government propaganda. Populations are not willingly drawn into wars, so a good media environment promotes peace. Ignorance is our biggest enemy, as people need to understand the truth to make informed decisions. Some organizations promote ignorance by distorting information, particularly in the media. While there are a few excellent journalists, the majority are so distorted that we may be better off without them. This distortion has led to wars.

I funded dissident activities and civil society groups in Eastern Europe and Poland during the revolutions of 1989. Similarly, I established a foundation in Ukraine before its independence from Russia, and it has been active ever since, playing a significant role in current events. We've also engaged in discussions with Ukrainian leadership on revitalizing agriculture and enhancing energy efficiency through new company partnerships. George Soros was present, and we collaborated on these initiatives.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, George Soros stepped in to fill the power vacuum in Hungary, Poland, and China in the late 1980s. This marked the rise of what some call the Soros Empire, taking over where the Soviet Empire left off. How successful do you think Soros has been in his imperial ambitions?

Google started as a DARPA grant funded by a CIA-NSA program to study online behavior. They quickly became a military contractor, acquiring Google Maps from CIA satellite software. The internet's role in promoting free speech was seen as a tool to bypass state-controlled media. The Pentagon, State Department, and CIA-backed NGOs supported dissident groups worldwide to overthrow authoritarian regimes.

They discuss civil society in the former Soviet Union. They note the foundation in Ukraine was set up in 1990, two years before Ukraine's independence, as an offshoot of the foundation in Russia. The Cultural Initiative Foundation in 1987 funded scholarships and supported civil society; the maturity of civil society twenty-five years later is largely the foundation's work. The interviewer observes that Open Society has touched Ukraine's leadership through scholarships, with many leaders' families benefiting. The conversation shifts to Putin's appeal in Europe; not all Europeans share our view, with Hungary's leader describing Putin as a model, Greeks visiting Moscow, and Le Pen's links to Putin; the question is how to explain this influence. The interviewee offers a political-historical perspective, noting involvement in the collapse of the Soviet system and calling himself a political philanthropist.

Open Society's Ukraine foundation was established in 1990 as an offshoot of the foundation in Russia, part of a Soviet-era cultural initiative started in 1987. It provided scholarships and supported civil society, and, twenty-five years later, its work contributed significantly to the maturity of civil society. The speaker notes that many in Ukraine's leadership have been touched by Open Society and Jordan, with people receiving scholarships themselves or through spouses. He reflects that the impact over a 25-year period is evident: those students became leaders. The conversation also notes wide European admiration for Putin in some quarters—Hungary's leader calling Putin a model, Greeks visiting Moscow, Le Pen in France with close contacts to Putin—and asks how to explain Putin's appeal in Europe. The reply emphasizes a historical perspective from someone involved in the collapse of the Soviet system, calling himself a political philanthropist.

I established a foundation in Ukraine before its independence from Russia, and it's been active ever since, playing a significant role in current events. It's similar to my work funding dissident activity and civil society groups in Eastern Europe during the 1989 revolutions. In Ukraine, we've also collaborated with Ukrainian leaders on agricultural revitalization and energy efficiency improvements, partnering with various companies. I even worked alongside George Soros on some of these initiatives.

The Internet promised innovations, knowledge access, and economic opportunities. The Freedom Online Coalition formed to protect this promise, supporting Internet freedom and human rights online. Commerce, learning, and connection have been realized, but troubling developments have also emerged. The Internet remains critical for human rights activists and everyday people globally. Those in Tehran, Shanghai, and Saint Petersburg depend on an unblocked, unfiltered Internet to communicate and access information denied by their governments.

Speaker 0: There were four drugs that were being tested for Ebola. Remdesivir killed more people than placebo, and the data safety monitoring board had actually stopped the study where literally fifty three percent of Speaker 1: the patients died in the failed Ebola trial and was repurposed. It was a failed Ebola drug because it caused more harm than good in Ebola trials. It was still unpatent. It was Tony Fauci's drug of choice. The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci because his NIH put out protocols that if the hospital systems adhered to, they got bonuses, big bonuses, lots of money, $3,000 per for putting an IV in of remdesivir. Boom. $3,000. But guess what? On top of the entire hospital stay, a 20% bonus, that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Speaker 0: The data was so overwhelming that remdesivir killed patients more so than placebo. The drug had to be stopped, and this was published in the New England Journal in the 2019. Speaker 2: What happened during COVID could not have happened without propaganda and censorship. And how do we overcome that propaganda and censorship? It's primarily through people not being willing to shut up.

Speaker 0: In, say, Britain, they've banned CGTN, the Chinese channel, from broadcasting RT, famously. Why is it that, do you think Russia thinks it's fine? I think Sergei Lavrov this week giving a press conference allowing Western reporters, accreditation, whereas in The United States, they obviously don't ban media in The US because of the First Amendment. Certainly in Europe, obviously, there's mass banning of, journalists and journalism. What what's behind, that? And that surely does depart somewhat from manufacturing consent where they didn't wanna ban anything. They just knew that lower selling outlets would fail to engage the populace in dissident opinion? Speaker 1: Well, I think first of all that's quite normal. You look through the, say the take a more recent event, the Iraq war, not that far back. Anyone who dares to say that the Iraq War was the major crime of this century, which it certainly was, is bitterly denounced and condemned. If you look at discussion in the mainstream, you'll be hard put to find anyone who can reach the mainstream who will say the elementary truth, indisputable truth, that the Iraq war was an example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal called the supreme international crime, crime of aggression, differs from other war crimes only in that it includes all of the evil that follows. So find somebody who says President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney were guilty of the crimes for which people were hanged at Nuremberg. Instead what you have is celebration of George Bush, the great criminal who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and destroyed them, Celebration of him as a lovely person, it's called a goofy grandpa who plays with his grandchildren, paints pictures. Just a delightful person. Well, that's the Iraq War. It's quite striking that anyone who dares to compare the Iraq War with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is viciously denounced.

The discussion centers on why achieving a durable peace in Ukraine remains elusive, with participants insisting that every side seeks terms favorable to itself and that genuine compromise is seldom forthcoming. Putin’s true aims are debated. Jonathan argues that Putin’s primary concern is internal regime security rather than territory. He suggests that Ukraine’s shift toward Western political and democratic norms threatens Putin’s rule and his business model, making Ukraine a strategic buffer that could inspire similar Western reforms within Russia. He contends that the issue is not NATO expansion per se, but the regime’s fear of democratic influence emanating from Ukraine. Mark, by contrast, views the conflict as driven by a broader geopolitical contest, with Russia aiming to erase Kyiv’s Western alignment and to neutralize Ukraine as a political threat, a stance he says is explicitly stated by Russian representatives. He also emphasizes that for Russia, security guarantees and territorial concessions would be unacceptable if they leave anti‑Russian regimes in control of eastern Ukraine. The panelists repeatedly acknowledge that, in practice, peace negotiations are framed as a contest of terms. Rubio’s remark is cited to illustrate the perception that all parties want peace “on their terms,” and that Russia has repeatedly rejected deals that require concessions on its core objectives. A recurring theme is that Russia would prefer a permanent settlement that keeps Ukraine out of NATO and restores a neutral status for Ukraine, effectively precluding Kyiv’s future alignment with Western security structures. There is broad agreement that, on the battlefield, Russia has not achieved a straightforward, decisive victory and that the conflict is complex and protracted. Yet there is disagreement about whether Russia is “winning” or whether the front lines indicate a longer stalemate, with some arguing that Russia remains capable of imposing strategic costs and that the West has faced limits in providing advanced weapons or decisive deterrence. The discussion also touches on escalation risk, with some participants highlighting the risk of nuclear confrontation and the perception that Western powers, especially the United States, have been cautious in delivering the most potent capabilities to Kyiv. US and Western roles are examined in depth. Jonathan contends that the conflict has evolved into a US/NATO proxy dynamic, with the West providing support while avoiding a direct confrontation that could trigger a broader war. He argues that the Biden administration has pursued a cautious, incremental approach to armament and economic pressure to avoid escalation, while still trying to prevent a Ukrainian defeat. Mark challenges this, suggesting that Western policy has often been framed as preventing Ukraine’s collapse rather than decisively countering Russian goals, and he asserts that the U.S. has pursued objectives that do not aim for Moscow’s overthrow but instead for preserving a client state in Kyiv. The conversation also covers the Budapest Memorandum, the history of Western guarantees, and questions about whether Western promises would be reliable in a crisis. The role of NGOs, civil society, and media is debated. Jonathan explains that, prior to the full-scale invasion, Ukrainian media was a mosaic with significant oligarchic influence, but that independent voices gained strength after 2014 and became more robust under pressure from government and oligarchs. He argues that Western funding for NGOs has aimed to promote democratic values and press freedom, though he concedes that some Western projects lacked a clear strategic objective. Mark counters by arguing that Russia also used civil society and NGOs as tools, though he asserts that Western leverage and funding were far more extensive and impactful. The debate includes a critique of US funding patterns and the potential for foreign influence shaping political outcomes. The participants discuss the possibility of freezing lines as a path to peace. They deem it unlikely: Mark says NATO presence near Russia’s borders remains unacceptable, and Jonathan notes that such a freeze would leave large Russian-leaning regions in Ukraine under a regime Moscow views as hostile. They acknowledge the political and military infeasibility of a durable ceasefire under the current conditions, given the entrenched positions and fortifications in Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Looking ahead, the panelists foresee a long, possibly generational conflict unless there is a dramatic shift. Mark argues that the ultimate settlement would require regime change in Kyiv, while Jonathan suggests that both sides see no real path to a negotiated end under current terms, forecasting endurance of hostilities with periodic escalation and continued diplomacy as a façade that fails to yield a decisive peace. They anticipate Europe’s ongoing rearmament and potential domestic political shifts that could influence the trajectory of the conflict, with the broader global balance affected as countries reassess alliances and deterrence strategies.

During the 1989 revolutions, you funded dissident activities and civil society groups in Eastern Europe, including Poland and the Czech Republic; are you doing similar work in Ukraine? He replies that he set up a foundation in Ukraine before its independence from Russia, and that the foundation has functioned ever since and played an important part in events now. He says Ukraine can assert independence from Russia and move toward the West, though Putin will try to destabilize it; the large majority of Ukrainians are determined to be independent, and with freedom, free media, and a flourishing economy, his regime would be unsustainable. He is asked about antisemitism in Ukraine; he notes antisemitism is part of the DNA of that part of the world, and there is antisemitism.

George Soros explains that he set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent from Russia, and that the foundation has been functioning ever since and has played an important part in events now.

When the Maidan revolution happened, I was asked to advise the new Ukrainian prime minister on the economic crisis. I flew to Kyiv, and while there, I was told that the US had financed the people at Maidan. This supposed spontaneous revolution of dignity raises some questions. Where did all the media outlets come from? Who organized this? Where did the buses come from, and who called all those people in? It was clearly an organized effort.

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.

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

Speaker 1: "a couple thousand people." The country was "Millions. 25, 50,000,000." How could a couple thousand take over? "People didn't respond"—they thought it would blow over. "One building" housed the entire Bolshevik party; "one building could have saved all of Russia, all of the people. No gulags, no Solzhenitsyn, none of it. No Red Terror, etcetera." The czars faced "Equal parts pride and fear." They believed "There's no way that these rebel rousers are going to provide an actual threat," and then "blood" followed. The pattern: "operational preparation of the environment" (OPE). First stage: "separation"—oppressed and oppressors; Lenin and the "coalition of the fringes" building. Then "Soviet" to Soviet—"councils of workers and factories"—not millions. Then "messaging"—"peace, land, bread" and "mass formation hypnosis" to unite; "infiltrate" key institutions; stage of revolution. "September '17."

Wars in the past 50 years were often caused by media lies spreading government propaganda. Populations must be deceived into supporting wars because they don't willingly choose conflict. A strong media environment can lead to peace.

You must study to discover the origins of things. Consider the Russians who discovered their government wasn't what they believed. Their world collapsed because they didn't do their homework or stand up for what's right, choosing instead to go along to get along. Now, they're in a very uncomfortable situation. We must face uncomfortable truths, recognizing nothing is permanent. I want to see a spiritual revolution where people just say no. Just say no to organized religion, organized government, and tyranny, regardless of its source. Say no to bigotry, ignorance, and stupidity. The key is to do your homework.