TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Since 2017, France has spent a staggering amount, allocating 25 billion euros to multilateral funds. This includes contributions to UN agencies, Bill Gates-sponsored vaccine NGOs, and organizations involved in reforestation efforts in the Amazon rainforest. However, according to the Court of Auditors, there's a lack of clarity regarding the allocation and expenditure of these funds, as we're unable to effectively track where the money goes.

USAID and similar NGOs, such as DFID, operate in Africa under the guise of humanitarian aid and grassroots initiatives, but their real purpose is to destabilize governments. Many leaders in Africa and the developing world are celebrating USAID's exit. Despite claims of filling gaps in healthcare and education, there is no evidence of improvement in countries where USAID has been present. The social services provided are insignificant, and only a fraction of the billions of dollars given to USAID reaches the people.

USAID and other NGOs like DFID claim to rescue Africa with grassroots initiatives, but they destabilize governments. Many leaders in the developing world are celebrating USAID's exit. Despite filling gaps in healthcare and education, no country shows improvement in these areas due to USAID. The social services provided are minimal. American taxpayers should know that only a fraction of the billions given to USAID reaches the people.

The GAO estimates that only 10 to 15 cents of every dollar reaches the intended recipient. There are multiple layers of theft, like contractors and subcontractors, peeling away at the money. Sometimes, after peeling away the layers, there is nothing left.

According to the speaker, the Gates Foundation provides 88% of the foundation donations to the World Health Organization. The speaker claims this violates competitiveness laws in both Europe and the United States. They assert that these donations are not independent or charitably funded, but rather directed donations, which are forbidden under the tax laws on both sides of the Atlantic and have no place in the charter of the World Health Organization or any UN-affiliated organizations. The speaker alleges this constitutes tax crime, racketeering, money laundering, and racketeering leading to murder and global terrorism.

There's significant fraud in USAID, with radical groups receiving funds they don't deserve. A staggering amount, like a hundred million, is being misallocated. It's crucial to investigate the kickbacks associated with this spending. Who would invest such sums in questionable projects? It's likely that those who received the funds are not returning any to the government, indicating a high level of corruption. The key issue is understanding the extent of these kickbacks.

Poverty could be solved globally with a simple decision, but corruption prevents this, especially in regions like Africa and Ethiopia. Wealthy countries gather annually for the Cap 28 summit to pledge around $100 billion for poorer nations, yet almost none of this money reaches those in need. Corruption is the main issue, but it remains largely unaddressed in discussions. Despite numerous visits to places like Haiti, the reality is that very little of the pledged aid actually benefits the intended recipients, as most funds are misappropriated.

USAID and similar NGOs claim to rescue Africa through grassroots initiatives, but they are wolves in sheep's clothing using humanitarian access to destabilize governments. Most leaders in the developing world are celebrating USAID's exit. USAID claims to fill gaps in healthcare and education, but there's no evidence of improvement in any country where they've operated. The social services they provide are insignificant. American taxpayers should know that only a fraction of the billions of dollars given to USAID reaches the people.

This wastefulness needs explaining. How was such a squandering of money possible when we ourselves are borrowing from financial markets to finance an ever-increasing debt? Why didn't anyone stop this? The answer lies in ideology. If you question those involved in public development aid, they'll accuse you of opposing gender equality, climate change efforts, and being okay with world hunger. There's a moral blackmail and arguments from authority that paralyze my fellow members of parliament.

They tell us that with our money, they finance global public goods, like replanting trees in Indonesia or the Amazon. Deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia is authorized by these very states. Multinational corporations are profiting from deforestation. Then, French development agencies, authorities, President Macron, the EU, and the UN try to guilt us, holding out the begging bowl, citing climate change. Those countries and corporations profited, but they won't pay. Instead, taxpayers like you will pay. People have been paralyzed by the fear of being seen as pro-climate change, so they say nothing. But it's scandalous! Brazil, Indonesia, and the deforesting multinationals should pay, not French taxpayers. This fleecing must stop immediately.

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 Inter American Foundation (IAF) receives $50 million annually to give grants for projects like alpaca farming in Peru and improving the marketability of peas in Guatemala through jam. Unlike private sector nonprofits that give 80-90% of funds to grantees, IAF gives 58%, with the rest going to management and travel. Most of the money never leaves DC, ending up in the pockets of locals. The GAO estimates that only 10-15 cents of each dollar reaches the intended recipient. There are layers of stealing through contractors and subcontractors, sometimes resulting in nothing reaching the final destination. It's possible that no one got a sex change in Guatemala. A contractor was overheard telling a colleague to falsify billable hours.

The speaker states the Clinton Foundation acted as an agent of a foreign government, giving the example of Mozambique in 2002. According to the speaker, a memorandum of agreement existed between the foundation and Mozambique to work on their behalf through their Ministry of Health program. Emails suggest this was not a Clinton Foundation program, but rather support for the Mozambique Ministry of Health. The speaker claims the foundation brokered money and pharmaceuticals, taking a vague fee. They negotiated relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The speaker concludes the Clinton Foundation functioned as a closely held family partnership, not a charity.

During my brief work involving budget review, a high-ranking official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs revealed a shocking detail. I questioned why the state holds a minority stake in the board overseeing Mr. Rioux and the French Development Agency (AFD). The official explained that if the state became the majority shareholder, the AFD's debt, totaling €50 billion loaned to countries unlikely to repay, would have to be included in France's national debt. So, beyond the uncontrolled spending with little benefit for France or the aided populations, a significant portion of France's debt is concealed within the AFD's balance sheet.

A $100,000 donation intended to buy food for poor kids in Africa doesn't fully reach them because the NGO subcontracts the work, creating multiple middlemen. Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, estimates that 88¢ of every dollar goes to middlemen. Only 12¢ of each dollar spent on humanitarian assistance reaches the people who need it. There is a lot of waste.

Speaker 0 argues that the world has been lied to for 110 years by a small group of criminal industrial conspirators who aim to subjugate humanity to enrich themselves, impoverish and kill others, and that the words “acceptable death rate” have become an industrial norm. They claim this is not just a political disagreement but a crime, asserting that the World Health Organization (WHO) and pharmaceutical companies authorized to begin the process of killing human beings in the interest of advancing their goals. The speaker declares this is a criminal cartel and states they will show documents proving it, insisting this is not an allegation but something that is provable by their own words. The four-step process alleged for executing nefarious plans is: 1) they begin by planning an exercise, 2) they fund that exercise, 3) they create the rationale for what they will do, and 4) they deploy and profit from it. They claim this violates 15 U.S. code section 19 (and connect it to the Clayton Act and the early formation of WHO in 1947), and they claim violation of the TFEU (the treaty for the functioning of the European Union), asserting Article 101 sets out that this was never public health but racketeering to instill terror to adapt population behavior. Data from Zurich is used to argue there was no pandemic: the speaker notes that during the death pandemic of the globe, life insurance claims fell by $30,000,000,000, stating that the data is unambiguous and that there was genocide rather than a pandemic. They pivot to the 2011 WHO, Welcome Trust, PATH, and Gates Foundation malaria vaccine program for children under six months, highlighting that 66 children in the vaccine group were murdered and 28 in the control group were murdered, with the control described as a cocktail of pathogenic injections rather than saline. The speaker references Article five, section 13, claiming immunity from arrest or legal process was designed as permanent immunity for a criminal organization formed in 1947; they connect the first WHO director general, Renee Sand (sic) from the Dachau-era milieu, to Brock Chisholm, who allegedly advocated population control as a primary objective. The claim extends to funding and influence: Gates Foundation allegedly provides 88% of WHO’s foundation donations, which the speaker says constitutes a tax and competition law violation in Europe and the United States. The four-step process is illustrated again with sourcing: to sustain funding beyond the crisis, to increase public understanding for medical countermeasures like pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccines, and to use media hype to attract investors who see profit at the end of the process, as documented by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board and Peter Daszak’s partnerships. The 2014 Rand Paul–Anthony Fauci correspondence is cited, showing a letter from NIAID to UNC Chapel Hill stating that gain-of-function research would continue during a moratorium with a budget funded by DARPA and NIH. The speaker quotes that the Wuhan virus was anticipated, citing a 2016 publication stating SARS-like Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one is poised for human emergence, implying foreknowledge and manipulation of the virus in Wuhan and UNC Chapel Hill. The talk shifts to the characterization of the work as biological warfare enabling technologies, referencing Ralph Baric’s 2005 DARPA/MITRE presentation and subsequent NIAID and DARPA funding, concluding that the project was to produce biological warfare enabling technologies rather than public health measures. They highlight substantial profits for Pfizer and Moderna from public funds and accuse the WHO of laundering money via a budget expansion request of 11%. In closing, the speaker maintains this is not a public health crime or constitutional crime, but a criminal conspiracy of criminal racketeers. They call for ending the criminal organization itself and urge everyone to destroy the WHO.

Most of these projects never actually materialize, often leading only to investigations or studies. French companies, NGOs, associations, and businesses connected to the Agence Française Développement, including international consultants like McKinsey and French consulting agencies, travel to distant countries. They get paid handsomely, sometimes €500 to €1,000 per week, or even €500 per day. With studies lasting weeks or months, the bill can reach €10,000, €100,000, or even €150,000, all paid by French taxpayers for projects that never come to fruition. This not only brings no benefit to France but, more importantly, it also fails to help the countries it's intended for.

The shocking part of investigating government-funded NGOs is that small decisions lead to massive, multi-billion dollar outcomes. I saw one instance of $1.9 billion being sent to an NGO that was formed a year prior and had no prior activity. Government-funded NGOs are essentially a loophole, allowing actions that would be illegal for the government directly but become permissible through nonprofits. These nonprofits are then used for personal enrichment, with individuals cashing out and paying themselves exorbitant sums. It's a giant scam where people can establish an NGO for a relatively small investment and then lobby politicians to funnel vast sums of money into it. There might be some good that comes from them, maybe 5 or 10%, but the rest is not.

USAID and other NGOs are not rescuing Africa, but are wolves in sheep's clothing, supporting those who keep governments in turmoil. American taxpayers should know that only a fraction of the billions of dollars given to USAID reaches the people. An HIV AIDS program in South Africa allegedly injected people with the virus, contributing to its rapid spread in Southern Africa. Africans were used as guinea pigs for experimental activities. GMOs are destroying African agriculture. While some good may come out of these programs, the end result is that they mean no good.

It's crucial to address what's called tied aid, which is allocating development aid to friendly countries and exclusively to French companies. For example, when funding transportation upgrades or water access in developing nations, ensuring French companies benefit from these contracts is paramount. I was told this is not allowed by the OECD, an international organization that tracks and compares development aid amounts across countries. If we restrict our development aid to French companies, the OECD won't count it. So what? There are no real consequences. We can still do it; the OECD will just exclude it from their count. Is it better to support French companies, promote France through development aid, and control how we assist countries in need, or appease OECD officials? I don't understand the issue.

The speaker discusses various financial contributions made by France to different countries and causes. They mention that France has given 138 million euros to Papua New Guinea and Congo for forests, 500 million euros to Brazil for forest preservation, and 1.5 billion euros to the Sea Summit. Additionally, they mention that France has given 50 million euros to the Pas-de-Calais municipalities and 100 million euros to Gaza. The speaker expresses confusion about why President Macron would allocate such large sums of money to these causes and asks for an explanation.

Where's the money going? $520 million for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. $40 million to include sedentary migrants. $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social change in Uganda. What about us? $70 million for Purdue to research solutions to developmental challenges. Then, $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique, $9.7 million for UC Berkeley to develop Cambodian youth enterprise skills. $2.3 million to strengthen independent voices in Cambodia, $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center, $14 million to improve public procurement in Serbia, $486 million to strengthen elections, including $21 million for voter turnout in India. It continues: $20 million for fiscal federalism in Nepal, $19 million for biodiversity in Nepal, $1.5 million for voter confidence in Liberia, and $47 million for improving learning outcomes in Asia. This involves hundreds of billions of dollars, and I could continue reading examples all day.

Where is all of our money going? $520 million to consultants for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million is going to Colombia to promote biodiversity conservation and socially responsible behavior. $40 million to improve social and economic inclusion of migrants, and $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social and behavior change in Uganda. Purdue is getting $70 million to research solutions to developmental challenges, while $10 million goes to Mozambique for voluntary medical male circumcisions. UC Berkeley receives $9.7 million to develop enterprise skills in Cambodian youth. The Prague Civil Society Center, a very liberal group, gets $32 million. $14 million is for improving public procurement in Serbia. We're giving $486 million to strengthen elections and political processes, including $21 million for voter turnout in India. This is fraud, and it just keeps going on and on.

In France, the speaker explains that the country operates under a neoliberal system rather than a liberal one. They argue that when financiers cannot win through competition, the government intervenes to manipulate the market so that the financiers always come out on top. This is what will happen with EDF, as the state has mandated that EDF must sell 25% of its production to private suppliers at a cost price of €49 per megawatt-hour. This means that EDF will lose 25% of its profits, allowing private companies to add their margins and make a profit. However, these profits will not be used to maintain the nuclear power plants. The speaker questions why EDF didn't use its existing profits to invest in renewable energy instead. They argue that most of these private suppliers rely on the cheap electricity they obtain from EDF rather than investing in renewables themselves. The speaker clarifies that it is still EDF producing the electricity, but they issue fake ownership titles to private suppliers who then sell it back to consumers at a higher price.

We're spending massive amounts of money in other countries on things nobody's ever heard of. $520 million for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social change in Uganda. $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique. $9.7 million to UC Berkeley for enterprise skills in Cambodia. $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center, and $14 million for public procurement in Serbia. We're giving $21 million for voter turnout in India, while Nepal gets $20 million for fiscal federalism. Millions more are going to biodiversity in Nepal, voter confidence in Liberia, social cohesion in Mali, and learning outcomes in Asia. It's fraud, and I could go on all day.