TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the Smith-Mundt Act, initially designed to prevent the US government's foreign propaganda from being used on American citizens. The act, created in 1948, acknowledged the potential dangers of a "covert permanent department of dirty tricks" influencing foreign universities, media, and politics to promote US interests. Frank Wisner, a CIA figure, created a media network to influence international narratives. The Smith-Mundt Act originally prohibited the use of these propaganda efforts domestically, aiming to protect Americans from manipulation while securing economic advantages through foreign influence. However, the speaker claims this protection has eroded, leading to a deeper problem where the foreign policy establishment funds groups that operate both abroad and domestically, influencing media and promoting censorship. The speaker advocates for a strict firewall and severe penalties to prevent the misuse of propaganda and protect domestic interests.

In the 1930s, a law was passed in the United States to prevent the government from engaging in misinformation propaganda campaigns targeting its citizens. However, in 2012, the Obama administration and its sister agency, the FBI, intentionally spread misinformation and propaganda to American citizens.

Message to President Trump: A supporter who voted for you three times asks you to revisit what Barack Obama and Joe Biden got rid of in 2013—the Smith Mundt Act—that held news corporations accountable for lying to the American people and spreading propaganda instead of truth. They propose reintroducing it as law (Smith Mundt Act or Charlie Kirk Act) to make it damn near impossible for these people to lie to the American public. They say lies have brought chaos, hatred, division, and anarchy; a man lost his life over it due to hateful rhetoric of calling him a fascist and a Nazi and a white supremacist and a bigot, the same thing they called you, this man is dead. They urge Congress to pass a law to hold journalists and content creators accountable for lies and half truths, and hold news corporations—right, left, or center—accountable for their behavior.

There are Americans involved in propaganda that could warrant civil or even criminal charges. Addressing this could serve as a stronger deterrent.

The CIA's main function is gathering intelligence, but it also engages in covert actions and propaganda. We disseminate propaganda to influence public opinion, sometimes working with journalists. This involves planting false stories, sometimes by using compromised journalists or even creating false narratives with fabricated evidence. This practice isn't limited to foreign countries; we've also planted false stories in the US press. For example, during the Angolan war, we used false stories about Cuban atrocities, including fake photos, which were then spread internationally. We've also sponsored the publication of numerous propaganda books in English, influencing public opinion about Vietnam. While the CIA admits to some propaganda efforts abroad, they deny similar activities within the United States. However, this is untrue, as we planted false stories in the Washington Post.

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

There are Americans involved in propaganda efforts that could warrant civil or even criminal charges. Addressing this issue could serve as a stronger deterrent.

In 2013, the United States legalized propaganda, allowing false narratives to be presented as factual news. The Smith Modernization Act repealed the 1948 Smith Munt Act, which previously prohibited the release of propaganda in America. This change made it easier to manipulate and deceive the American public. The act was signed into law by Obama, giving propaganda a reboot. Now, scripted and orchestrated propaganda can be propagated as factual news to the citizens. This legalization raises concerns about the erosion of freedoms and the potential for government manipulation.

Project Mockingbird aimed to control the public via media, but was less effective with the rise of alternative media like podcasts. To beat the "deep state," one must challenge it in unfamiliar territory. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, passed in 2012 and enacted in 2013, legalized propaganda for US citizens, repealing the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act which had prohibited domestic release. Obama essentially reopened the door for Operation Mockingbird, allowing the CIA to propagandize Americans. High-level intelligence officials or people associated with the intelligence industry are running journals. The CIA is the biggest funder of journalism in the world through USAID. Intelligence agencies manipulated information on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Before 1975, the CIA compromised journalists from major publications, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Politicians are repeating the same talking points from a script like actors.

In the 1980s, a law was passed prohibiting the U.S. government from engaging in misinformation propaganda campaigns aimed at its own citizens. However, in 2012, the Obama administration and Congress repealed this law. Now, it is legal for agencies like the FBI to intentionally disseminate misinformation propaganda to American citizens.

The discussion centers on the Smith-Mont Act (referred to as the Smithmont Act) and its modernization, arguing it enabled U.S. influence operations abroad while constraining them at home. The claim is that, after World War II, winning elections and shaping law in foreign countries required an apparatus to influence hearts and minds, which shifted warfare from military occupation to political subversion. In this view, the 1948 act authorized a covert, permanent department of “dirty tricks” to infiltrate and co-opt universities, unions, media, politicians, judges, and the broader “swarm army” of influence, effectively creating a global propaganda machinery controlled by the State Department, CIA, and later USAID. A key figure cited is Frank Wisner, associated with the so-called Wissner’s Wurlitzer, described as a “church organ” that could play the international media like a symphony to cause any media narrative to go viral worldwide. The assertion is that the United States and United Kingdom dominated early robust radio, film, TV, and print, enabling foreign propaganda operations. The Smith-Mont framework supposedly allowed the U.S. to plant fake news abroad—“propaganda abroad”—but prohibited such activities from affecting domestic audiences, shielding Americans from comparable interference. The speaker argues the rationale for this separation was economic: if foreign governments resisted resource access, military basing, or U.S. multinational operations, Americans would bear economic costs (lower living standards, fewer imports, higher prices). Thus, foreign influence operations were designed to be accessible abroad and barred from coming home. This protection lasted about seventy years but is claimed to have eroded in the last decade, with reference to a broader “Smithmont problem” now affecting funding and operations. The claimed evolution is that the foreign policy establishment can fund groups that operate domestically in a dual-use fashion—providing foreign grants for media propaganda abroad while also operating within the U.S.—and can influence social media censorship to coerce foreign governments into enacting censorship laws that affect U.S. peer-to-peer speech. The speaker warns that, to preserve the foreign influence function, there must be a hard firewall and severe penalties for any violations, implying the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between foreign propaganda activities and domestic communications. Overall, the transcript asserts that the Smith-Mont framework created a permanent, cloaked apparatus for influencing foreign audiences, with a historical showcase of Wisner’s organization and its reach, while stressing the need to reinstate stringent firewalls and penalties to prevent domestic misuse of such operations.

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

The speaker describes “true fifth generation warfare” as a scenario where you do not know who your opponent is. As an example, they ask who is responsible for the puppet master behind the COVID crisis, suggesting potential names like Klaus Schwab, Joe Biden, and Tony Fauci, but stating that “these are surrogates” and that you don’t really know who is managing the message being propagated—the essence of fifth generation warfare. They claim that over the last three years, governments, nongovernmental organizations, transnational organizations, pharmaceutical industry corporations, media, and financial corporations have cooperated via public private partnerships, which the speaker asserts is a euphemism for fascism, to deploy the most massive, globally harmonized psychological and propaganda operation in history. The speaker asserts that, during this period, people have been subjected to the most massive, harmonized, globally coordinated propaganda campaign in the history of the Western world. They state that governments of many Western nation states have turned military grade psychological operations strategies, tactics, technologies, and capabilities—developed for modern military combat—against their own citizens. They conclude by labeling these as inconvenient facts and claim that the world many people believed in no longer exists, if it ever did.

In 1948, George Kennan authored "Inauguration of Organized Political Warfare," advocating for overt and covert actions, including psychological warfare, to further US national objectives. This followed the CIA's first election rigging in Italy, where $250,000,000 was spent to influence the outcome, utilizing media, churches, charities, and even the mafia. Kennan's memo argued for a permanent capacity for such interventions globally, despite potential public disapproval. NSC ten-two, also sponsored by Kennan, sanctioned illegal covert operations with plausible deniability, transforming the CIA from a spy agency into one that could lie. This required lying to both foreign countries and US citizens. The Smith-Mundt Act, intended to prevent domestic propaganda, was later repealed, allowing the US government to disseminate "government-made news" to Americans. Initially, the US had only three government agencies: State, War (later Defense), and Treasury. The Monroe Doctrine and subsequent "Banana Wars" expanded US influence. Woodrow Wilson's promotion of democracy facilitated interventions globally. Post-1948, the CIA orchestrated coups in 85 countries. Scandals led to the Church Committee hearings and initial congressional oversight, but Reagan later restructured the intelligence state, diffusing it into society via captured institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy. The intelligence state serves the State Department and Pentagon, with the CIA doing the "dirty work."

The speaker discusses the Smith-Mundt Act, initially designed to prevent the US government's foreign propaganda from being used on American citizens. The act was created in response to concerns about the "Frankensteinian monster" of a permanent department conducting "dirty tricks" to influence foreign governments through media, universities, and other institutions. Frank Wisner, a CIA figure, created "Wisner's Wurlitzer," a media network to spread narratives globally. The Smith-Mundt Act originally allowed such activities abroad to secure resources and economic benefits for the US, but prohibited its use domestically. The speaker claims that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act under Obama effectively repealed this firewall. They express concern that the foreign policy establishment can now fund groups that influence domestic prosecutors and media, and promote social media censorship abroad that impacts US companies and speech. The speaker advocates for a strict firewall and severe penalties for violations.

In the 1970s, Carl Bernstein exposed Operation Mockingbird, revealing how the CIA influenced over 400 journalists to spread propaganda. The CIA manipulated major news outlets like The New York Times and CBS. The 2013 NDAA legalized domestic propaganda, allowing misinformation campaigns against Americans. Media ownership has consolidated to just 6 conglomerates like Comcast, Disney, and 21st Century Fox, controlling film, TV, and news. These conglomerates have significant influence over what the public sees and hears.

Intel agencies have a significant influence on television broadcasts, Facebook, and Google. Many anchors, including a national security reporter, act as mouthpieces for the Pentagon and the CIA, knowingly spreading lies. This is a common practice, even at CNN. These reporters read government propaganda from intel agencies, and it's frustrating and offensive, regardless of whether one agrees with the lies or not. For instance, when the CIA and Pentagon claimed that Bashar al Assad used poison gas, there was no evidence to support it. Despite this, many people were killed in response.

The speaker discusses the Smith-Mundt Act, initially designed to prevent the US government's foreign propaganda from being used on American citizens. The act was created in response to concerns about the "Frankensteinian monster" of a permanent covert operation influencing foreign governments through media and other institutions. Frank Wisner, a CIA figure, created "Wisner's Wurlitzer," a media network to spread narratives globally. The Smith-Mundt Act originally allowed such activities abroad to secure economic advantages for the US, but prohibited them domestically. The speaker claims this protection was lost a decade ago and that the US faces a deeper problem with USAID, the Pentagon, and the State Department funding groups that operate both domestically and abroad. These groups allegedly engage in media propaganda and social media censorship, influencing foreign countries to pass laws that target US social media companies and speech. The speaker advocates for a strict firewall and severe penalties for violations.

Propaganda through film and mainstream media has been occurring for decades. A bill that died in the senate was brought up again as an amendment in the 02/2012 NDAA on pages 326-328. According to maxkaiser.com, it is the same bill, but one word was removed. Section b expressly allows the use of propaganda domestically if there is a possibility that at least one non-US citizen will eventually receive the communication. This is reminiscent of the movie Wag the Dog.

Project Mockingbird was a Deep State project to control people through the media, which was more effective when there were only three broadcast networks. The narrative broke because the Deep State focused on controlling mainstream media and didn't think it needed to worry about podcasts or "pirate radio." People realized they were being lied to and that these lies were harmful, so they stopped watching mainstream media and started looking for information elsewhere. To beat the Deep State, one must drag it into territory it doesn't understand.

A major piece of legislation was quietly signed into law that allows the US government to combat foreign propaganda by creating its own. The Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016, sponsored by Senator Rob Portman, is designed to combat foreign propaganda from organizations such as RT, China's CCTV, or Iran's Press TV. There is currently no single US governmental agency charged with synchronizing strategies to counter foreign propaganda. This bipartisan bill will establish an interagency center at the State Department to coordinate counterpropaganda efforts. It also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, and other experts engaged in counterpropaganda work. This law essentially funds U.S. propaganda. Three years ago, an amendment removed the ban on the US government creating propaganda and showing it to US citizens, a ban that had been in place since 1948.

The speakers discuss the events in Boston and express their belief that it resembled martial law. They mention the use of propaganda by intelligence agencies and the passing of a law that allows the government to propagandize American citizens. They question the authenticity of news events and highlight examples of spectacles and events that may have been subsidized. They also discuss the Smith-Mundt Act of 2012, which allows the government to produce and disseminate media for both foreign and domestic audiences. They suggest that this law enables the production of staged events and propaganda.

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.

In 2013, the United States legalized the propagandizing of its own citizens. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, buried within the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, repealed the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act. The original act allowed the State Department and mainstream media to engage in propaganda in foreign countries, but prohibited its release for public consumption in America. Obama signed the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act into law, lifting this prohibition. Since July 2, 2013, scripted and orchestrated propaganda can be presented to the American public as factual news.

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