TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

George Soros had begun to make a name for himself as a conscience-free economic hitman as early as World War II, collaborating with Nazis, which he described as “the best time of my life.” A subsequent exchange recalls that he went out with a protector who swore he was his adopted godson, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews. When asked if it was difficult, the respondent says, “Not at all. No problem,” and adds that even if he weren’t there, somebody else would be taking it away anyway, suggesting a market-driven rationale for the actions. The narrative then traces a mentorship under the Fabian Society’s Karl Popper at the Langdon School of Economics, where Soros acquired his idea of open societies as a cover for world government control. It also notes an Edmund de Rothschild–connected influence: George Karlweiss, chairman of the Rothschild Swiss-based bank Privy, endowed Soros with the financial resources to launch a new type of organization called a hedge fund. From that moment, the young speculator began to amass a fortune as a financial mercenary, released during the new age of deregulation and deployed to destroy the economies of any nation resisting a banker’s dictatorship through currency speculation. Using his ill-begotten resources, Soros was said to set up a network of private organizations to advance democracy-building around the world. In 1979, Soros’s Open Society Foundations came online and began to interface closely with the National Endowment for Democracy, which soon set up two offices in China in the 1980s. David Ignatius, the former head of the NED, admitted in 1991 that the organization was little more than a front for the CIA, noting that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly twenty five years ago by the CIA.” Throughout the 1980s, a new world order was staged, described by some as the end of history. In Hungary, Soros’ Open Society Foundations infused restructuring, privatization, and other market-driven reforms in 1988, leading to the emergence of a new oligarchical class beholden to Wall Street and contributing to election manipulation that ousted Ferdinand Marcos’s national leadership and installed Corazon Aquino in an early color revolution called the People Power Revolution. Russia warmly embraced Soros and the NED under Mikhail Gorbachev, who ensured the stage would be set for Russia’s submission to a new age of destruction called Perestroika. In the 1990s, the program was titled Operation Hammer by the Trilateral Commission’s George Bush Sr., a program of looting of former state enterprises under the watch of the IMF, taking the name “shock therapy.”

Speaker 0 contends that NGOs (nongovernment organizations) are not truly nongovernmental because they are funded by borrowing money and by money from donors, including billionaires. He claims they receive a large amount of funding, and the process involves borrowing funds and then distributing them to NGOs. He uses Afghanistan as an example, noting that there was a bill to defund the Taliban and that in the Senate there was opposition to adding NGOs to that effort. He argues that billionaire adversaries of the United States will put money into groups with fancy names (citing “feed the children” as a possible example)—a million dollars to start, which is "pennies on their dollars" for these donors. He asserts that these NGOs apply for federal money, and then an unelected bureaucrat in Washington declares them legitimate, leading to billions of dollars flowing to these organizations. Speaker 0 states that in Afghanistan alone, there are over a thousand nongovernment organizations operating there, and when combined with United Nations operations, the number could be multiples of thousands. He questions whether the money is being spent on certain events, asking, “do you really believe we're spending $10,000,000 on a dadgum drag show?” and asserts that the money ends up back in politicians’ pockets, with a paper trail that someone will uncover, though he believes it probably goes into dark money campaigns that oppose good Republicans as well. He concludes that this situation “has got to stop.” He ends by thanking Donald Trump and JD Vance.

The speaker argues that there are fake NGOs functioning as fake charities and that arrests should be made in relation to them. The claim is that these organizations are predominantly operated by Democrats, with occasional involvement by Republicans who are supposedly kept quiet by those false charitable activities. The speaker describes this pattern as evidence of a broader “uniparty” dynamic, suggesting that both major parties are involved in a system designed to influence politics. According to the speaker, the majority of the money flows to Democrats through these NGOs. They assert that billions of dollars are given to NGOs run by Democrats, and these organizations then channel funds through a large network of additional non-governmental organizations. This network allegedly creates a “giant money laundering scheme,” to the point where the speaker states that the words NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Key claims highlighted include: - Existence of fake NGOs that operate as fake charities. - A call for arrests related to these fake NGOs. - Predominant involvement of Democrats in running these NGOs, with occasional Republican involvement used to quiet concerns. - A description of a uniparty dynamic, implying bipartisan collusion or alignment in this activity. - Large-scale funding (billions of dollars) flowing to NGOs run by Democrats. - A subsequent cascade through a network of additional NGOs, forming a vast money laundering scheme. - The assertion that NGO activity and money laundering are nearly interchangeable in this context. The speaker emphasizes that the overall operation constitutes a substantial financial mechanism linked to political influence, portraying the NGO network as a conduit for laundering money rather than purely charitable activity. The overall framing is that the integrity of NGOs involved in political funding is compromised by this alleged system, tying NGO activity directly to money laundering in a way that equates the two terms in the speaker’s characterization.

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.

The Obama administration, and even the early Trump administration, used taxpayer money to support the socialist government in Albania. This involved partnering with George Soros on projects aimed at weakening the independence of the Albanian judiciary. This wasn't isolated to Albania; similar activities occurred in Romania, Hungary, Guatemala, and Colombia. Soros, a billionaire, doesn't need this funding, yet the State Department and USAID enabled his influence, allowing him to shape foreign policy and even review funding applications. This taxpayer funding, the speaker argues, indirectly subsidizes Soros’s activities, both domestically and internationally, and is a way for the State Department to oppose conservative agendas. The speaker highlights this as an example of the government funding groups that oppose American interests, while right-leaning organizations are largely ignored. Legal action was necessary to obtain the documents revealing these activities.

The focus is on USAID, which significantly funds global leftism, primarily benefiting Democrats. However, the concern lies with Republicans who also benefit from USAID funding through their affiliated organizations, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, which receive equal funding. Despite a Republican-controlled Congress potentially wanting to shut down USAID, many Republicans are tied to its funding through corporate interests. This coalition of internationalist Republicans and Democrats may prevent any significant changes. Attention should be paid to Republican opposition to USAID, as it reveals deeper issues within the party and its historical ties, particularly in light of past events like the January 6th committee. The need for grassroots pressure on these Republicans is crucial as this situation unfolds.

I see NGOs as a hack, and George Soros was a master at it. He understood how to use a relatively small amount of money to establish a nonprofit, and then lobby politicians to funnel large sums of money into it. For example, a $10 million donation could be leveraged into a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs, or nongovernmental organizations, often have appealing names, but they can essentially be graft machines. They receive grants with minimal requirements, and the government often assumes they're doing good work, even when they might not be. Many within the government are aware of this dynamic, but the funding continues.

The whole NGO thing is a nightmare because government funded non-governmental organizations are essentially just government organizations, it's an oxymoron. Government funded NGOs are a loophole that allows the government to do things that would otherwise be illegal, by sending funds to a nonprofit. These nonprofits are then used for people to cash out and become very wealthy, it's a gigantic scam. There are probably millions of NGOs, and tens of thousands of large ones. It's a hack to the system where someone can get an NGO for a small amount of money. Soros was really good at this, he figured out how to leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that nonprofit.

The discussion opens with a provocative line about not needing a CIA director this year because the National Endowment for Democracy is in place, followed by introductions of Carl Gershwin as founding co-president of the National Dialogue for Democracy and the plan to cover the topic at length. The speakers claim that democratic groups worldwide could be seen as subsidized by the CIA, noting that such subsidies were curtailed in the 1960s and that the Endowment was created to fund groups the CIA subsidized back then. They assert that, before grants are made, all grants are sent through the State Department to the CIA, and promise deeper exploration of “Ned CIA” material. They list prominent entities alongside the National Endowment for Democracy, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Atlanta Council, Ellen White as an operative who prepared the way for political changes in the past two years, and efforts to take down the Soviet Union through internal coups in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, as well as the Atlantic Council, are also named as funders or players in this network. The conversation identifies the Rockefeller Foundation as a major funder, calling it the “hellspawn of John D. Rockefeller and the octopus of Standard Oil,” and notes its funding of the Atlantic Council alongside the Pentagon and the State Department, claiming over $1,000,000 a year. A claim is made about the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement beyond NATO’s civil society arm, including a reference to Google as the source for who runs the Rockefeller Foundation, and a mention that the foundation had an endowment around $6,000,000,000, making it the thirtieth largest foundation globally by endowment. The discussion briefly covers Raj Shah, described as having been appointed head of USAID by Barack Obama, previously at the Gates Foundation, and later running the Rockefeller Foundation, identifying him as the number one head of USAID. Speaker 2 shifts to criticizing Raj Shah and USAID, then highlights a partnership announcement between USAID and Mr. Beast’s philanthropic endeavors, noting Mr. Beast’s substantial net worth (estimates cited around $2.6 billion, with a referenced $5 billion company valuation). The speakers then pivot to analyzing Mr. Beast’s online influence, citing his enormous view counts across multiple channels and arguing that his content represents the most popular material on the Internet, capable of shaping hearts and minds and, therefore, serving as a finely tuned instrument of statecraft. The dialogue returns to ongoing coverage of Mr. Beast videos, including a live example of a Minecraft-based Hunger Games-style video with multi-minute view counts, and ends with a broad assertion that the Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the CIA in a civil-society capacity and that Mr. Beast’s platform, with hundreds of millions of views, could function as a tool of statecraft, given its reach and influence.

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 US Institute of Peace is compared to the National Endowment for Democracy, with both accused of being "aggressively anti-peace." NGOs are described as the "stem cell of the government's central nervous system," originating with the US income tax in 1913 and becoming fronts for the CIA. These organizations allegedly serve as deniable channels for money, contacts, and guidance, influencing groups without direct US government involvement. A "donor drafter class," including figures like George Soros and Bill Gates, influences policy by drafting off the US government. George Kennan's 1948 memo, "Inauguration of Organized Political Warfare," is cited as a blueprint for American power, using NGOs to rig elections, such as in Italy. The CIA, State Department, and corporations form a "blob" to advance US interests, with NGOs acting as back channels for diplomacy and financial assistance. The Open Society Foundation is accused of synchronizing US foreign policy with its own, influencing governments and speculating on currencies. El Salvador's 30% tax on foreign funding of domestic NGOs is noted as a significant move. The US Institute of Peace is criticized for its stance on opium production in Afghanistan and alleged payments to the Taliban. The discussion touches on the historical context of NGOs, their role in regime change, and their connections to corporate interests.

USAID has been a slush fund for left-wing projects globally, including gender surgeries, DEI policies, and climate initiatives. Billions of dollars funded NGOs, which infiltrated corporations and the public sector. This fueled resettlement of illegal immigrants, promoted equity policies, and advanced radical gender agendas. This massive left-wing power structure, including the media, wasn't organic; it was taxpayer-funded. The outcry against President Trump's cuts to USAID funding stems from this. He's cutting off the funding to organizations that harm America.

The whole NGO thing is a nightmare because government funded NGOs are essentially government organizations, an oxymoron, and a loophole. It's a way for the government to do things that would be illegal if they did it directly. People cash out and become very wealthy through these nonprofits, paying themselves enormous sums. It's a gigantic scam, maybe the biggest ever. There are millions of NGOs, tens of thousands of them large. Someone can get an NGO up for a fairly small amount of money. Soros was really good at this, he figured out how to hack the system. He's a genius at arbitrage. You leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, lobby the politicians to send a ton of money to it, and turn a $10 million donation into a billion-dollar NGO, which the government continues to fund every year.

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).

Fake NGOs are often fake charities, mostly run by Democrats, though Republicans may be involved to maintain silence. Billions of dollars are given to these Democrat-run NGOs, which then go through a network of additional NGOs. This is described as a giant money laundering scheme, where the terms NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Arrests are needed in this regard.

I discovered a way to work the system, like George Soros. He realized you could establish an NGO with relatively little money. You then lobby politicians to allocate significant funds to that organization. For instance, a $10 million donation could be used to establish a nonprofit and turn it into a billion-dollar NGO. These organizations often have appealing names, such as the Institute for Peace, yet they're essentially graft machines. There are hardly any requirements associated with the funds they receive. The government largely assumes they're doing good work, although many officials are aware that this isn't the case; it's simply a massive system of graft.

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.

Secretary: Today, we are announcing that we have stopped all grant funding that's being abused by NGOs to facilitate illegal immigration into this country. It's amazing to me the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent by the federal government that has been sent to NGOs to facilitate this invasion of our country. I have taken action to stop that funding, to reevaluate it, and to make sure that we're actually using taxpayer dollars in a way that strengthens this country and keeps us safe. People are curious how grants given out by federal agencies are utilized, and that evaluation needs to be done. We're not spending another dime to help the destruction of this country. We're going to follow through on what president Trump promised, to secure our border, depart those who are here illegally and committing criminal actions, and ensure taxpayer dollars aren't spent to assist it. Speaker: And, Madam Secretary, I don't think people fully understand the role that NGOs play in facilitating illegal immigration. I want to share these numbers up on the screen: we spend over $380,000,000 in 2024 for sheltering and service programs for illegal immigrants. But the vast network of NGOs that help facilitate it through Panama, through Mexico, and make it a landing spot here in the United States is a massive contributor to illegal immigration. So what you're telling us today is that now stops? At least the federal funding of that stops? Secretary: Yes. The Department of Homeland Security has stopped spending those dollars to fund those NGOs. What’s been revealing is that many of these NGOs actually have infrastructure and operations set up in Mexico on that side of the border, telling illegal immigrants to come to them, and they will get them across the border. So they're not just operating in the United States. They're operating outside of the United States to help make it easier for those who want to break our laws. And while I was one of those Americans years ago when somebody said NGO to me, I thought, oh, that's amazing—a nonprofit telling somebody about Jesus or spreading faith and charitable work, helping people less fortunate. Then I realized over the years it's been perverted into this shadow government. An NGO is sometimes an operation that does things the government cannot do, can't legally do, so they create an entity to use government dollars, taxpayer dollars, to do something that the federal government isn't allowed to do—to perform a shadow government operation that has recently been used to undermine our country's national security.

Government-funded NGOs are a way to do things that would be illegal for the government, but are made legal through nonprofits. These nonprofits are used for people to cash out and become wealthy, paying themselves enormous sums. It's described as a gigantic scam, possibly the biggest ever. There are potentially millions of NGOs, with tens of thousands being large. Someone can establish an NGO for a relatively small amount of money. George Soros is described as a system hacker who figured out how to leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to it, turning a $10 million donation into a billion-dollar NGO. The government continues to fund these NGOs yearly, and they often have nice-sounding names, but are essentially graft machines with no real requirements. Many in government are aware they are not doing good work.

We were covering an article about 55,000 Democrat NGOs discovered to be contributing to campaigns, moving things around, and pushing propaganda. It was discovered through AI that to figure out where the money's coming from, you have to go through layers and layers, and it's all funneling down to one group or another. It's a giant propaganda machine, a giant regime change machine.

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.

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.

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.

I see NGOs as a hack to the system. People can establish one fairly inexpensively. George Soros was excellent at this, leveraging a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobbying politicians to direct substantial funds to it. A $10 million donation could become a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs often have appealing names, like the Institute for Peace, but they can be graft machines. The government provides grants, assuming they're doing good work, but there are really no requirements attached to the money, and the government continues to fund them annually. While many in the government are aware they might not be effective, the system persists.