A (3:43)

When you first started working for the State Department, did you have any inclination that you were going to get involved? Did you had any inclination that this was going on? Did you know already that this. You already knew?

B (3:56)

Yeah, definitely. I had already been working on this for many years.

A (3:59)

When did you first discover it?

B (4:01)

Around August 2016. I was deeply passionate about the Internet censorship issue. And, you know, I had some weird experiences playing chess as a kid where, you know, I sort of came of age when Garry Kasparov lost a deep blue and AI took over. You know, really took the spirit out of a lot of. A lot of the chess world. And it was apparent to me as a kid that these AI censorship, these AI chess engines were going to out compete humans. But when I was young, the sort of older people in the room were in denial about it. And when I saw that same thing in 2016 with the development of AI censorship super weapons, I called those weapons of mass deletion. That they would be like weapons of mass destruction, but for speech. A few lines of code would allow you to destroy entire political movements, government's narratives. There'd be no escape from it. It would permanently change the face of political warfare or domestic politics. You don't need a standing army of 100,000 censors if you just have one machine learning just ingested database of 900 million tweets that you can ingest and then make this sophisticated narrative network map of all the different keywords and concepts you want to censor. And to me, that was like this free speech version or the censorship version of the atom bomb. So I started that quest in 2016, but very quickly, that research in the process of Trying to write that showed these international networks immediately. I mean, the nlp, the natural language processing sort of backbone of this, was all being sponsored by DARPA to be able to monitor the speech of ISIS or extremist or terrorist groups. And when I saw that coming home and being advocated here, I spent my whole day, morning, noon, night, 20 hours a day, basically chronicling archiving. That's how I know so many of these characters, is because I feel like I know them better than my own friends and family. Having spent so many years watching this all, you know, develop, what did it.

A (6:26)

Feel like being one of the only people that was sounding the Alarm for essentially eight years? Like, you get involved in 2016 and no one, even the general public, until you came on this podcast, I don't even think we're aware that this was an issue at all. But even then, things got lost so quickly in the cycle of news. Things just come and go so quickly until DOGE started unraveling all the spending, right? And you start seeing things like $200 million allocated to transgender experiments on monkeys, right? Like, what the fuck? Like, this is crazy. And that's just a tip of the iceberg. And then the NGOs, and then that map of 50,000 NGOs, that was essentially just democratic propaganda machine that was exposed. That was all just money being funneled in a circular manner. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Did you know that my website, Joe Rogan.com is powered by Squarespace? It is the platform built to help you stand out online. With their new design intelligence, you can create a stunning personalized website tailored to your needs. It's like having two decades of design expertise and cutting edge AI in in your corner. Need to manage payments. Squarespace Payments makes it simple with options like Apple Pay, Klarna and more. Try it free@squarespace.com and use squarespace.com rogan to save 10% off your first purchase.

B (8:02)

Totally. I mean, it's been exhilarating. You know, there's a sort of. I understand the weight of history here. We are doing open heart surgery on the body of the American empire, our influence abroad, and it has to be done well. And so I want to help the American homeland. And so this is a sensitive process, but obviously it's been a bit surreal seeing the past couple weeks where people are now. I go to my X timeline and I see everyone doing the same exercise that I gave up everything to be doing eight years ago going into. Because all this stuff is open source, you didn't need to Be an inside guy to see this if you knew where to Look. These are USASpending.gov I used to joke is the main difference between. Or was I think until freedom opened up when Elon acquired X and a few institutional changes began to happen in the government and with Congress. But I used to joke that USASpending.gov was the main difference during the height of this censorship total control era was the main difference between US and Russia and China, which was that we have this sort of autocratic control over information and institutions by the US government. So do they. The difference is, is we can go to USASpending.gov and look up how they do it. And so when I've been going to my ex timeline and seeing everybody independently doing that exercise and finding the joy in that, the self discovery process and being able to share it with people and everybody being able to understand and make sense of the receipts because this framework for understanding it has been shared and popularized. That to me has been the goal all along. To be able to give people the language and the frameworks to understand what is so terrifying and necessary to reform. But that's right there in front of your eyes, if you only open your eyes to see it.

A (10:12)

It's gotta be exciting though for you to be there on operation day when they are doing the open heart surgery.

B (10:18)

It is, it is. You know, we need to make sure that the patient doesn't die on the operating table. Just because it's the right move to do the open heart surgery, cause the patient needs it, doesn't mean that the operation goes well. If the operating surgeons don't know the anatomy of the organ they're operating on. And so that I see right now as sort of my prime function is to just teach more and more of the anatomy of the organ so that the people who are operating on the patient, the American homeland and generally speaking, the American influence and power projection into foreign countries comes out better, smarter, a little bit more honest. And there is a hard domestic firewall against our foreign facing dirty tricks, criminal penalties against agencies who go against this, civil penalties, so you can sue both the agencies and the NGOs who are sponsored, maybe with treble damages in a bill from Congress so that if usaid, in whatever form it continues to take, whether that's at the State Department or whether it gets rolled back out into another independent agency, that you could sue the agencies as an individual if you've been, if they've broken that domestic firewall so that there's an incentive at the agency on their own budget to tightly oversee these things. There's so much that can be done to bring this in line in a smarter and more moral and frankly more effective way. And that's the task right now.

A (11:54)

I think one of the most offensive things to Americans is that all this was being done and all this money was being spent while they were denying money to people that clearly needed it, like particularly victims of natural disasters like Maui.

B (12:11)

Right.

A (12:12)

The fact that they're spending all this money on those things and yet they gave those people a one time check of $770 or something. Those lines.

B (12:22)

Right. Well, this gets to the fundamental heart of the breach of the social contract that this thing was always set up to do. It was really set up in 1948 when George Kennan created this NSC 10 2, this National Security Council. We completely reoriented the structure of the American Empire in 1948, after World War II, in 1947 we passed something called the National Security Act. That's what established the CIA. That's what established the National Security Council, which coordinates all of our foreign facing empire management work. It renamed the Department of War to the Department of Defense so that it didn't look like we were acquiring territory by military force which had just been banned under international law under the UN Declaration of Human Rights. And so we moved from primarily kinetic warfare into what George Kennan called just two months before he created the plausible deniability doctrine that we live under. He called this organized political warfare. And he has a great memo from April 30, 1948. It's just 12 days after the CIA's first operation, first time it ever overthrew or rigged the election of a foreign government. This was the April 1948 election in Italy that pitted a pro Western candidate against a sort of pro Soviet candidate. And so the US State Department felt it was essential to tipped the scales of that election because it showed that the pro Soviet candidate was winning 60 to 40. This is all declassified and all the major people who were involved in that operation have all come out and said this publicly. So basically we threw together this ramshackle effort to tilt that election by pumping in propaganda, by using charities and churches as fronts to funnel money into the pro Western political party. We piped in the Greg Garbo movies and whatnot. We worked with some very unseaty, very seedy elements of Italian society there. We worked with the Mafia and we worked with mafia connected unions because these were all assets for the War Department during World War II. Because Mussolini was cracking down on them. So the War Department had a relationship with these organized criminal networks to serve as a beachhead against Mussolini. But we kept those relationships in order to run this pro democracy regime change thing. So in 1948, when we established the secrecy doctrine, doctrine that we now live under, and all these NGOs work under this cover effectively because of their sponsoring organizations, USAID or CIA or State. And he called it the inauguration of organized political warfare. And what he said is, we need to create a covert apparatus to hide what we do from the rest of the world to do secret political warfare on the low. And the problem is the American people are not going to like this. The American people do not understand the intricacies of international relations. They think there's always an easy political cure all. And they do not understand. They think there's a fundamental difference between peace and war. And what he proposed is, and this is just two months before this would formally be given to the CIA to do. But at the time, what he said was, this worked gangbusters in Italy. We need to replicate this everywhere. We need to create a capacity to do black propaganda, to do economic sabotage, demolition. There's a whole list of what's authorized under NSC 10 2. And what he says is, the American people are not necessarily going to like this, and we're gonna need to effectively hide what we do from them, because if they find out, then the rest of the world finds out. If we're trying to run an operation in Eurasia and we report this in U.S. news, well, then any person in Eurasia who reads U.S. news now knows about it. And so that was authorized at the time, simultaneous with the Smith Munt act, which. Are you familiar with the Smith Munt act?

A (16:16)

Is that the 2011, 2012 thing where Obama allowed people to use propaganda against United States citizens?

B (16:23)

Yeah, that was what was done then. Obama was the effective repeal of it. It was called the Smith Modernization Act. But the modernization got rid of the whole purpose of it, the firewall. Because at the time, the media and media control was seen as the linchpin crux of winning the Cold War, piping in pro US media influence. So that because everything moved after World War II from kinetic warfare and military occupation, we used to militarily occupy the Philippines, for example, after we won the Spanish American War. But that was banned under international law, territorial acquisition by military force in 1948. So we had to win elections and we had to influence the passage of laws in foreign countries by having an apparatus inside those countries that influenced the hearts and minds of People which influenced who they voted for, which then determined the government. So you had to move towards political vassalage rather than military occupation. And what the Smithmont act did is simultaneous with the creation of this. In 1948, Congress recognized the Frankensteinian monster they were creating by authorizing a covert permanent department of dirty tricks. And this is their phrase, not mine to do this cloak and dagger to, to infiltrate and co opt the universities, the unions, the media, the politicians, the judges, the whole swarm army. What I have been calling for a long time the USAID Truman show. Because these people in these foreign countries have no idea how many of the things they interact with that are effectively a movie set being constructed by the U.S. state Department and its sister influence orgs. But the point I'm getting at here is the Smith Munt act in 1948 said, okay, you guys can do this, State Department can do this. CIA can do this. USAID when it came along 13 years later, could do this. But we. So there was a guy named Frank Wisner who is known as one of the Godfather figures of the CIA. He's known for creating what was called the Wisners Wurlitzer, which was a. It's like a church organ. And that he would brag that he could play the international media like a symphony to make any media narrative go viral in any country on earth. Because of the suite of CIA proprietary media functions and its distribution network. Especially when the US had first mover advantage in radio and print, basically the US and UK were the only games in town really in having robust radio, film, TV and print media. So the Smith Mundt said, okay, you can do that abroad. You can plant fake news stories in France, you can have propaganda blare into Africa or Western Europe or Central Asia, but that can't come home. You can't psyop our own people with your propaganda organ abroad. Because the whole point of authorizing this is that we get cheaper gas, we get import export markets, we get a high standard of living. Because if a foreign government doesn't want to give up its resources or allow a U.S. military base or allow joint partnerships or exports of goods or US multinational corporations to operate there, then the American people suffer economically. So it was always designed to say, listen, you can do this dirty stuff abroad, but it can't come home. And even that protection, which lasted for 70 years and only we only lost it a decade ago, we're up against a much actually deeper, darker problem with this USAID scandal. And as people will see increasingly the scandals that will break open at The Pentagon and the State Department, which is that we have a Smithmont problem for funding and operations. It's not just propaganda. The Blob, our foreign policy establishment can fund groups that effectively work with prosecutors domestically or that work at media sort of dual use. We give them foreign grants to do media propaganda abroad, but they operate here. Or social media censorship to coerce foreign countries to pass foreign censorship laws that explicitly and are intended to attack US social media companies and in US peer to peer speech. So we need that protection if we're going to keep this function at all. We need a hard firewall and absolute grotesque penalties for any violation.

A (21:03)

This episode is brought to you by netsuite. Until they invent a crystal ball, who knows what the future holds for business. Until then, over 40,000 businesses have future proofed their business with NetSuite by Oracle, the number one Cloud ERP, bringing accounting, financial management, inventory and HR into one platform. With real time insights and forecasting, you're able to peer into the future and seize new opportunities. Download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning for free at netsuite.com rogan that's netsuite.com rogan so when you're watching all this unfold, one of the things that I've been seeing is that there's been legal action to try to halt some of it. They've been told to destroy any information that they got from certain databases. Like, what's your take on this? And whether any of that is gonna hold up.

B (22:05)

Oh, 100%. Well, 100. I don't know if it's gonna hold up. I think it's gonna be a legal dogfight. This is, you know, it's funny cause it's sort of a circular dragon eating its own tail. Because you're going after the primary soft power projection organ of the Blob because it's been weaponized against Americans. But what is the Blob authorized to do? What is USAID authorized to do under statute? Well, something they call judicial reform, which is USAID poaching funding financially the networks around judges, around courts, around the legal system, around the governance structure of every country on planet Earth. I mean, and Jamie, if you want to just go through a fun exercise right now, you can even put on screen just a simple Google search so people can see just how open source this is. And I can walk through specific damning examples of this. But if you just type in on Google the word usaid and then in a Boolean quotes judicial reform and what you're going to see are basically 100 countries that USAID is going after, the judges going after the legal system in order to rig the scales of justice in favor of the foreign policy establishment's interest there. And this has fully come home. And I can go through some examples of this. For example, there's a group called the OCCRP which you can think of as the Corruption Reporting Project. This is a group that half of its funding comes from USAID and the US State Department. OCCRP has to. The USAID and the State Department have a veto right over the staff that it can hire. This is the largest consortium of investigative journalists on planet Earth. This is the group that broke the Panama Papers, that got all these hacked documents. They got special access to it. I don't have any facts on this. I'm simply noting that it's an oddity that a group funded by a major CIA funding conduit, usaid, while the CIA has the ability to hack any target around the world that's authorized by the National Security Council, they're getting these special access documents that are reportedly either hacked or leaked and they're being sponsored by, you know, the group that's connected to something with a hacking power. But I don't know that for a fact. I'm simply noting that for investigative purposes, for oversight bodies who may want to ask questions. But they, so they, they've won hundreds of awards. They've, their, their name has been, you know, so pristine for so long. They've been around for, you know, almost 20 years. And they were sponsored in order to do, they do investigative hit piece journalism about corruption. And what they do is they go after all of the State Department and USAID and DOD's opponents in the region. So, for example, Jamie, I text you this beforehand, but if the first thing you want to put on screen are the first two images that I texted you, this is from the USA.gov website. And I think this will shock people when they see this with the USA.gov URL right there and so that you can see how. Yeah, so if you go, if you go to the first page that I texted that I texted you, and then we'll get to this one. Okay, I'm sorry, the second one then. Yeah. Okay, so here it is. This is USAID's strengthening transparency and Accountability through Investigative Reporting Program. Okay. What you'll see here is, you'll see the life of activity this fund is they are still being funded through this grant. And this is for Europe and Eurasia and you'll see the countries Eastern Partnership, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Western Balkans. If you scroll down, you'll see USAID spending, USAID spending, USAID funding is $20 million. $20 million that our taxpayers paid to listen. They don't report on kittens being saved from falling out of trees. Everything they do is a hit piece about an instance of corruption that can be used by prosecutors in the area to arrest the political opponents of department. And what you'll see here is capacity. Now this is the phrase everybody has to know. Capacity building is what this is all built under. That means pumping up the Blob's assets. Whenever you see the word capacity or capacity building, it means this thing is useful to us. The more money we give it, the more powerful they are to protect our influence. And so if you go back to that page, which is page two of this USAID thing, here's what you see. So for $20 million of, of investment from, from USAID, here are the. And this is live on, on the website. You can find this in the Wayback Machine right now because the USAID website's down. This is, this is usaid, the US Government bragging about the achievements of what they achieved by spending $20 million, at least 4.5 billion in fines levied against targets of these hit pieces. Now by the way, I should note that the head of the OCCRP was busted in a, in a major documentary that is very little distribution. But I encourage everyone to watch where he said because this was I think a year and a half ago or whatnot. But they're up to over $10 billion now.

A (27:37)

What's the documentary?

B (27:39)

It's on the WikiLeaks X page right now. It's by a group of German journalists who had one on one interviews with the head of this group OCCRP as well as the USAID grant coordinator and others. And so it's straight from the horse's mouth. And they say, he says in that interview, I believe his name is Drew Sullivan, that It's now over $10 billion. And he brags that that is a, I think he said it was a 20,000% return on investment because all these dollars were quote, returned to government coffers. So for $20 million of mercenary media for the state, state sponsored hit pieces, the government's got $10 billion back. That's pretty good. That's a 1995Amazon level return on investment. But now let's get into the darker stuff. 548 Policy changes by the government or actions by civil society in the private sector. Now we don't know if these policy changes are good or bad. Do you think USAID would list them as accomplishments if they were not in furtherance of USAID's or the state Department's foreign policy goals in the region? What they are saying and trying to sort of speak through their teeth as they say it is that they proudly sponsored hit piece journalism to ruin people's lives and go after political targets in order to change the policies of foreign governments from the inside. Now it goes on to say 21 resignations and sackings, including of a president and prime minister. Now the head of OCCRP in this documentary openly says that their reporting caused, I think it was five or six different governments to topple and turn over and be transitioned. So this is state sponsored media hit pieces so that prosecutors can arrest presidents and prime ministers to regime change their government and install a more pro US political vassal figure in the region. And then the Last one is 456 arrests and indictments. And this again is listed as a USAID achievement. We don't know what these people did. We don't know whether they're guilty or innocent or whether or not these were political prosecutions. Like you see right now with the New York District Attorney's offices, which is a whole other USAID connected can of worms. But these are state sponsored hit pieces for hire in order to give the Justice Departments, the prosecutors in a region, the ammunition to arrest the enemies of the state. The prosecutors don't have the capacity to do a whole investigative journalism dig. They might not have access to hacked documents that for example, the CIA, the NSA or deeply connected political insiders might be able to give to a group like occrp. Now, now USAID gets a veto right over who they can hire. OCCRP has to submit an annual work plan to be submitted to and reviewed for approval by the State Department and usaid. And here's the kicker of it all. USAID dug up, I'm sorry, occrp, paid for by US US taxpayers, dug up dirt on Rudy Giuliani's work in Ukraine. This is because this was part of the 2019 impeachment and Rudy Giuliani and his work in Ukraine. So they went and dug up dirt on Rudy Giuliani, a domestic US citizen and high profile political figure, actually attorney to the US President. And then that dirt came home and was used as part of the basis for the 2019 impeachment of the sitting President Donald Trump. That would have never happened unless USAID sponsored that hit piece work. And then they did the same thing with Paul Manafort because it's the same foreign policy blob that went after Trump in the first place because of his difference in foreign policy vision around Ukraine, Russia and other major this episode is.

A (31:45)

Brought to you by BetterHelp. People like to throw around all these red flags. You know, things someone says or does that you don't like, which is fine. But instead of focusing on the negative all the time, why don't we focus on the positive? If you're looking for a romantic partner, think about what traits you like to see in a person. If you like to work out and stay in shape, you might want to find someone who's also health conscious. Or if you like to travel, you probably want to find someone who's just as adventurous. Now, once you're in a relationship, it's a whole different ball game. And things aren't always going to be perfect. But that's what therapy is for. Therapy is an excellent way to work through any problems, even the small ones. Like, say, you and a loved one have been fighting a lot lately, but you still really want to make things work. Therapy can serve as a mediary. It can help you identify the problem and teach you positive ways to address it. If you're new to therapy or want to try something different, BetterHelp is a great place to start. It's convenient and affordable. Since everything is done online, it's already helped over 5 million people worldwide. Connect with a credentialed therapist. Discover your relationship green flags with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com jre to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp. H-E-L-P.com jre the lawfare against Giuliani is interesting. Like what is the case that he lost? It was in Georgia and he was accusing these women who worked at this election facility of something some improprietary.

B (33:25)

Right? This is a different case than that because this was related to the 2019 impeachment and all the Ukraine kerfuffle around. The quid pro quo call allegedly that President Trump made to President Zelensky, which, by the way, we should get to USAID's role in the Joe Biden quid pro quo side of this in a second. That case, I believe related to two workers in Georgia and it was related to the whole investigation of election fraud and whether or not there may have been fraud perpetrated in the Georgia election in I believe it was either 2021 or it may have been, I'm sorry, 2020 I'm not that case. I'm not deep in the weeds on. But I have to say this as well. And Jamie, I don't know if the whole audience is familiar with this clip, but it's an incredible, scandalous clip. Do you remember when Joe Biden was at the Council on Foreign Relations and bragged that he got the top prosecutor in Ukraine fired by the Ukrainian government because he explicitly conditioned the firing of the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma? He expressly conditioned their receipt of a billion dollars in U.S. financial assistance on the firing of Victor Shokin, the prosecutor. And he said, well, son of a bee, he was fired.

A (35:01)

It's so crazy watching him brag about that publicly. It just shows you what an idiot he is.

B (35:05)

You know what that billion dollars in financial assistance was? It was a US Aid grant. Yeah, it's the carrots and sticks.

A (35:13)

And it's like, find that video, Jamie, because it's a shocking video. It's just the hubris that and the ego that someone has to have to speak of this publicly while it's being filmed. Not just publicly, not just in a room, not even just saying it out loud, but saying it in front of the Council foreign Relations backdrop.

B (35:33)

And actually, before you play this, can I make one quick note for the audience that everyone can look up publicly? The Council of Foreign Relations was. I'm just about to text Jamie another thing related to this that I'm going to pull up the USAID grant so that everyone can see this billion dollar USAID grant that he's referring to here and what's in the grant details. But when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State running the State Department that USAID answers to. Right. USAID is independent, but guided by the State Department because it's a State Department function, it has to advance US interests. Well, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, Council of Foreign Relations had just opened up a DC office, they're New York based, and she went over to them and she made a speech and she said, thank you, Foreign Relations, for opening up your D.C. office. That way I don't need to travel all the way to New York to be told what to do. I was the head of the State Department.

A (36:25)

She really said it like that.

B (36:27)

Yeah, everyone can look this up. That might not be verbatim, but that was, it was as explicit as that effectively. But if you want to play this, I remember going over convincing our team or others to convincing us that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over the 12th, 13th time to Kiev and I was supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn't. So they said they had, they were walking out to press conference and I said, I'm not going to, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not. The president. The president said, I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars. I said, you're not getting a billion. I'm going to be leaving here. And I think, I think it was what, six hours? I looked, I said, I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money. Oh, son of a bitch got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

A (37:37)

Solid.

B (37:39)

So they made some genuine, substantial changes institutionally and with people. Yeah. So there's two things to immediately follow up on. So, Jamie, I just sent you two things over text here. The first one is the US Is that billion dollar loan guarantee. And then I sent you another one about securing commitments. And then it's just wild that someone.

A (38:10)

Would be so brazen to talk about that so publicly. No one's going to look at that. But someone that was solid. What was wrong with the first guy? Let's go into depth. You know, the fact that you wouldn't think like maybe someone's going to investigate. What was the first guy looking into? Oh, why was my son running Charisma. Like, what is going, why is he making $10 million a year there? What is going on? What, what is this?

B (38:32)

Well, well, okay, so this was a billion dollars. Okay, so this will actually go, go to the, go to the other one. Okay, we'll start with this. Okay, so here's from usaid. USAID announces. Now this is again the, the, basically the final months of the Obama administration. This is right before the November 2016 election. USAID announces a billion dollar loan guarantee. Remember, he referenced the loan guarantee, by.

A (38:53)

The way, do they pay these loans back?

B (38:55)

Well, depends on if they play ball or not. This is another one of these things, right? If you're a good boy and you do what the blob tells you to do, maybe we can be flexible on loan forgiveness. Maybe we can allow you to punt the default, but you'll see. But these are the carrots and sticks. This is why we infiltrate and co opt these institutions and why you have a $44 billion annual slush fund around the world to do this. But you'll see it's the issuance of the billion dollar loan guarantee to the government of Ukraine and it's to support the implementation of governance reforms. So it's for the. We condition it on you changing the policies of your government.

A (39:38)

And this is already 2016 after we installed a couple in 2014.

B (39:44)

Yes, yes. And remember the last time I was here, we went over the 2019 Zelensky's first month in office. The red lines memo. Talk about how do you prove you're a good boy. Well, when you get the red lines memo that you will suffer political instability unless you do the 25 below listed policy things with your government that factors into what the US Ambassador in the region will tell their Ukrainian or other government counterparts. Loan guarantees and whatnot are conditioned on. So if you go to the. You'll notice that Biden there used a very specific phrase there about securing commitments. I don't know if everyone caught that. I want to note the similarity of that to. If you go to the other screenshot, Jamie, that texted you here. I'm sorry that my mug is on this. I just pulled this up.

A (40:32)

What are you doing with your lips?

B (40:33)

Yeah, well, I know we'd been talking right before we started filming about just throwing receipts up on screen. This is just a livestream series that I do on X.

A (40:43)

It caught you mid words.

B (40:44)

I know. But this is $1.5 million. So USAID has given $27 million in grants to the Tide center, which is the 501 is the fiscal sponsor that gives the 501 status to the Black Lives Matter global network and to a group called Fair and Just Prosecution, which basically manages prosecutors who are simultaneously funded by the Open Society Foundation. So they work with Alvin Bragg and Letitia James and all these other ones. And so. But you'll see here in this, this is a $1.5 million grant. You'll see that exact phrase that Joe Biden used about securing commitments from governments to fight corruption. So sometimes this diplomatic statecraft, this strong arm pressure is done directly by the vice president. Sometimes it's done by interlocutors like our state sponsored NGO swarm, who allow our ambassadors and allow the White House to maintain a layer of plausible deniability that it's an intermediary saying it and they can say much harsher things than what can be conveyed and maybe used against you in a formal diplomatic channel. And I sent one more thing, Jamie, if you pull up, if you go to my X feed, and you just type in the phrase USAID Burisma, because this is another element of this. Again, how is this all weaponized at home and whatnot? So Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma. Joe Biden personally weaponized USAID in order to force a foreign country's prosecutor to be fired in order to get that billion.

A (42:23)

Can I stop you for a second? What was the investigation of Burisma? What did it entail?

B (42:28)

I believe it was a similar corruption probe, that there was misuse of funding. All this stuff is well documented in Miranda Devine's book the Big Guy. So if you open those four screenshots, I don't know if you're able to center it or zoom out a little bit.

A (42:50)

Western protection is a great fucking title.

B (42:54)

USAID to help young Biden. This is in 2014. Hey, remember when Hunter Biden's permanent blanket pardon goes back to. It goes back to 2014. And so this directs USAID to guarantee loans. So it's loan guarantees for every phase of development of oil and gas in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Now if you go to the next screenshot in this, this is from. This is a, you know, a foiaed or legally obtained internal document at the State Department which says despite his ruined name in Ukraine, Zlochesky is actively campaigning for. He's been sending letters to Ambassadors Yanik Yovanovitch and Pyatt. They note that Hunter Biden and Devon Arch are on the board. And they say even internally at State, USAID does have cooperation with Burisma. Says pre existing, small scale, pre existing cooperations, they're formally cooperating with Burisma in the region. They're noting that. And then if you go to the next screenshot now this again is State Department email traffic that's been unearthed. Okay, so they're talking about doing co branding with USAID and Burisma and the public private partnership around USAID and Burisma, but then noting, quote, the very sticky wicket of the Hunter Biden connection on Burisma's board. And then they go on to say that, you know, they want to create incentives for journalists to ensure responsible and unbiased. Very sticky.

A (44:35)

Wicked. What a weird way to phrase that in an official email.

B (44:39)

Right? What they're saying is it would be a major scandal if everyone knew the extent of it. They know it looks unseemly. They don't want the media to report on the massive conflict of interest of Joe Biden going in and kicking out that prosecutor and conditioning USAID money on it while USAID is directly working with Burisma, but then the State Department using its Media Mockingbird apparatus, funded by your tax dollars, the swarm of NGOs. It was reported publicly this week that 90 of Ukrainian media outlets are funded by the US government. 90%. Talk about a USAID Truman Show.

A (45:13)

Jesus Christ.

B (45:15)

And so if they're funded by the State Department, guess what? There's a State Department grant coordinator. Guess what? If they want to keep getting their contributions, there's going to need to be review and approval by USAID and by State because often these are co grants. And so they have the capacity to ensure that the incentives are aligned for the journalists to be responsible with the way they report on the USAID Burisma connection. While Joe Biden is weaponizing. While Joe Biden is weaponizing USAID to protect Burisma. By the way, I should note Hunter Biden's law firm actually pitched using Burisma as an instrument of statecraft to the State Department because the more you capacity build Burisma, the more endogenous gas Ukraine is able to supply. And so that's less gas being exported into Europe from Gazprom in Russia. So they blend this. It advances US national interests, but hey, it makes us rich along the way. So, you know, it's the same reason Pfizer gets to keep all the profits when there's a vaccine mandate. They say, well, we're just rewarding, we're doing such good work. If this is a charity, why aren't you giving the money back to the American people? You know, of. Well, shouldn't we put some cap on this? It's. Oh, no. Well, we're incentivizing this, you know, pioneering approach and we're uniquely in the position to do it.

A (46:35)

And what's important about this is this explains for a lot of people that are very baffled by obvious propaganda and misinformation that's being propagated by the mainstream media. When you look at mainstream newspapers and television shows saying things that are just factually incorrect and you could research it, it's not hard to find out. And you see them propagate this stuff. This is all the same sort of thing, but this is happening on US soil.

B (47:05)

Oh, exactly. Well, actually, Jamie, if you pull that receipt back up, there's a paragraph there we didn't read, but that's useful to this. And then there's another topic related to this that I think makes this point even harder. But look at that fourth paragraph there. This is from the US State Department, which is in control of managing all of the media assets, those 90% of media assets in Ukraine and the ones that simultaneously operate here. I would offer that Burisma's incentive to support could plusly read the main objective of Burisma was to create incentives for journalists to offer sympathetic coverage.

A (47:36)

So main objective of Burisma. The main objective, it's an energy corporation.

B (47:41)

Yes, yes. Humanitarian aid. You know, this is a for profit company that's directly tied.

A (47:47)

This is such a wild statement. The main objective of Burisma was to create incentives for journalists to offer sympathetic coverage of the company on energy issues.

B (47:56)

Yes, yes.

A (47:58)

Wow.

B (47:58)

Right? They want to pitch it as a sort of patriotic pro Western.

A (48:06)

They bought the media.

B (48:07)

They bought the media. They bought the media.

A (48:09)

And they bought the media here.

B (48:11)

On that topic, can we talk about a related scandal and frankly monstrosity that the American people need to understand the full extent of its influence on American hearts and minds?

A (48:23)

No, we can't talk about that.

B (48:24)

All right, well let's go on to the next thing. Okay, so Jamie, if you, if you go to X, I think probably the best thread on this currently published is the WikiLeaks thread on, on InterNews which just reading some of the statistics and that will help make sense of some of the clips and screenshots that I'm going to show you about its operations that then impact domestic affairs and, and international governments that are allied with the State Department. So if you just look up, just type in the word internews one word I N T E R N E W S and you go to search down the WikiLeaks profile, you'll see. Yeah, here you go. If you just top that top one. USAID has pushed nearly half the so internews I've been talking about for a long time. But now the stage is sort of set to really show the extent of this. But what we do is we create these pretty little predicates, these pretty little lie words, weasel words to hide from the American people and especially from foreign governments what we're really doing in the area. So we have a catchphrase at State and in statecraft it's called independent media. You can think of that as the State Department's word for good guy. Okay. Doesn't mean independent. They are funded by us. They are not independent from the government. They literally submit their work and approval plans for their work plans for what they cover for review and approval to the U.S. state Department. They are dog walked the whole way. But we call them independent because they are said to be independent from Foreign governments influence. So basically they're independent from the Chinese government or they're independent from the Russian government. So there's just like with the word USAID itself that we talked about last time, it's your mind playing tricks on you. You're seeing aid, but it's Agency for International Development. But, but they do the same thing with independent media, which is that internally to them it means it's a good guy for us because it's independent from our enemies. But when Americans see that, they think, well, independent, that means it's a free actor who's not being sponsored by any government. But under the banner of USAID's Independent Media and media sustainability branches, we fund half a billion dollars a year to this network of again over 4,000 media outlets. It reaches 778 million people. 9,000 journalists trained. Remember last time we went over the Atlanta Council with seven CIA directors and annual funding from USAID as well as the State Department and Pentagon. How they were holding up, I call BS placards and putting Trump tweets on screen to flag for disinformation. If you remember, we went over that. Well, this is what training journalists looks like is not only do they have the direct spawn of a media octopus under their direct sub grantee group, but they then go out and train the journalists who work at all the other ones who aren't directly sponsored. So they reach everywhere. And you'll see here, for example, it makes reference to Gene Bergo who is making half a million dollars a year there. And if you go now I'm going to show this domestic impact real quick. And then a couple screenshots. This has been going viral on X. I've been talking about USA's role in the censorship industry forever. And if you just look up internews and you just plug in the name, if you just copy paste that Gene Burgo phrase, you'll see this in the video section because it's everywhere now. So she made speeches for a long time, but this is a big one. Here we go. This one right here. Okay, so USAID funded internews CEO pushes for global advertising exclusion list to censor disinformation. This is a 28 second clip. Like what they did to X. Yeah, exactly. Disinformation makes money and that's one of the, we need to follow that money and we need to work with the, in particularly the global advertising industry that a lot of those dollars go to pretty bad, bad content. And so you can work really hard on exclusion lists or inclusion lists to really try to focus ad dollars and challenge the global advertising industry all around the world to focus their ad dollars towards the good, the good news and information. The good, the accurate and relevant news and information. So this is USAID sponsoring both sides of this. She runs a $500 million mercenary media hippies for hire empire sponsored by USAID. USAID also gave $68 million to the World Economic Forum itself. And USAID's own internal documents show the explicit political targeting of these advertiser networks. And I can show you receipts on that if you just type in the word ceps, C, E, P, P, S and advertiser on my X timeline. And I don't mean to just go receipt to receipt to receipt. Actually, no, it's okay. Actually, before we get to that, just so I can close the loop on something that's a little bit more accessible and less political. Jamie, I texted you a screenshot of internews in Brazil. And one of them has at the top of it something called Rooted in Trust. If you keep scrolling up. Yeah, there you go. That one. Yep. Okay, so this is internews with a worldwide media octopus. Sponsored a half a billion dollars a year, you know, reaching 9,000 journalists, 5,000 media outlets. And here's what they were doing. Just in. Just on. Just on. Covid censorship. So rooted in trust is a internews program. It's a global pandemic information response program to counter the unprecedented scale and speed and spread of rumors and misinformation.

A (54:31)

All which turned out to be true.

B (54:32)

All of which turned out to be true. Our own CIA says that. Our own House Oversight Committee says that.

A (54:39)

Now, every single step of the way, there's not one thing they said that turned out to be accurate. Not the death rate. Not the ability to stop infections and transmissions. Not the side effects. Effects. Not the fact that natural immunity is far superior. None of the. Nothing. Not one thing. Not the lab League theory. Nothing. Not even the funding of the research. And the actual lab, which is also USAID. Right?

B (55:06)

Yes. Yes.

A (55:07)

$50 million.

B (55:08)

Right. Right. From UC Davis to EcoHealth directly into. Because I always say when it's too dirty for the CIA, you give it to usaid. And that's why. That's why you have all this pandemic stuff. And maybe we can get to that later, but I wanted to show the scale of this. You sponsored your own state? Censorship rooted in Trust has tracked more than 19,000 rumors about the virus across 14 plus languages globally. Over 81 million people. In response to the unique rumors sourced from each country, context this USAID sponsored project has produced a total of over 130 rumor bulletins, 500 radio broadcasts and 480 media stories. Through a series of training opportunities, events, peer to peer networks and small grants, Root and Trust has supported 550 local media organizations in order to scan and ban the Internet and more importantly to.

A (56:07)

Connect communities with directly with timely and accurate COVID 19 information. This all turned out to be lies.

B (56:14)

I only had time before this to text one page of this. I mean this is. Everyone should go through this. This document I'll post on my X feed. And there's millions around this. I mean the whole global coordination was done through this through USAID and the U.S. state Department and its partners in the UK and in NATO. And the fact that these very organs are implicated in it. These strange DARPA grants around creating the gain of function. The USAID grants that we're all jumping animal to human for these things. The presence of folks like Avril Haynes, the Deputy Director of the CIA and then head of Director, the Director of National Intelligence at these censorship planning conferences for event 201. The fact that State and DOD and the UK Foreign Office all funded all of the censorship organs like the Atlantic Council and Grafica and these others that we went over last time, basically they're the prime suspect for the crime and they sponsor the entire white blood cell apparatus to swarm any kernel of truth penetrating the membrane in order to orchestrate the COVID up. So they're on both sides of it and we can talk more about the internews work there. But I want to.

A (57:38)

But I want to. This is the darkest of conspiracy theories. The darkest of conspiracy theories was that the leak was intentional. The darkest of conspiracy theories is that this was planned. They knew this is going to be a financial windfall. It is the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the United States by far. From the working class to the elite. It's like three plus what, trillion dollars or something crazy like that.

B (58:04)

Yep.

A (58:05)

We've already established that it was created in a lab. We already established that USAID funded it. We already established that Fauci et al lied about gain of function research what they were doing. The worst theory possible is that this was released on purpose.

B (58:24)

Yeah. That would be the worst case scenario. Yeah.

A (58:26)

Have you ever danced that one around your head? Because that's where you. We know they're willing to do horrible evil shit. But is there a ceiling on that?

B (58:41)

Even now, to this day, having spent so much of my life in it, I try to just pursue the leads that I have and then try to let the conclusions come to me. Certainly the fact that they funded the capacity to do this, they work directly with all the networks that were both doing it and censoring it puts you pretty much as they created it and they covered up at least the leak in terms of the intentionality for doing it. That is a really dark scenario. There are a lot of things in American history that have that same miha le ha distinction. Do they make it happen or do they let it happen or do they make it happen? And both of them are major scandals that completely change the legitimacy and credibility of policy changes in response to the crisis. For example, take something like Pearl Harbor. It's been declassified now. The McCullum memo, the Eight Action Plan. Are you familiar with this? Yeah. And this was written before the bombing and it was eight ways to get Japan to attack us because we don't have diplomatic cover to declare war on them. But if we get them to attack us and we can then spiral that into a war predicate. I mean the same thing, for example, with the Northwoods memo with pretext to war with Cuba and cooking up all these hijacking our own planes, sinking our own ships, doing riots on the streets of Miami. Miami and then saying that it was the Cuban government behind it. Same thing with Vietnam, Gulf of Tonkin. Same thing with the weapons of mass destruction predicate for invading Iraq. Did we know that that were we duped and the crime was negligence for letting our national security state believe the New York Times reporting on chemical in biological and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or did we make that happen? Was that something that we knew was not true based on our own intelligence, but because there was a useful thing there and a lot of people have the same thoughts about issues around 9, 11 and any number of crisis events. And I. I suppose I have my own thoughts on it. They're not fully settled. And because they are beyond the evidence I currently have, I stay in the zone of this is what they did to create it. This is what they did to cover it up. Here are the stars in the sky. Draw your own constellation from there.

A (61:37)

That's a good way to put it. Okay, back to what you were just about to talk about.

B (61:41)

Yeah. So. Well, well, so again, there's two simultaneous tasks that I have. One is to burn down these rogue institutions that have been weaponized domestically and salt the earth behind them so that these kind of excesses can never come home again. The other one is we do need us soft power projection in order to maintain the standard of living and prosperity that we have. I give the example all the time. No blob, no pencils. You can't even make pencils in this country unless you depend on governments in Malaysia and South America and parts of Africa. And if that's the case for pencils, now do that exercise with petroleum. Now do that exercise with cobalt. For example, there was only one operational cobalt mine in all of the US and in 2022 even that mine shut down. So most of the cobalt's in the Congo. If the Congolese government decides they don't want to allow you access to cobalt, there goes your capacity to create any high technology or renewable battery or anything. There is potentially a need for some modified and more honest restrictions on our department of dirty tricks. For example, the CIA used to be allowed to assassinate world leaders in the 40s and 50s. This is where we got in trouble in Congo with Lumumba or Allende or any number of these. And then when those scandals got revealed, there were legislative reforms put in place and executive branch national security reforms put in place to say, okay, you can do dirty work, but not that dirty. You can't do that. The same thing needs to be done now for all of these things, many categories of things. For example, we just played internews and the internews CEO campaigning to governments and corporations and private sector civil society organizations around the world that they need to economically blacklist news sites that operate on social media. And those are U.S. news sites. This is the basis of lawsuits here in the US like Daily Wire and the Federalist suing the State Department because U.S. news sites are in these advertiser blacklists. And to that end I want to note two things. First, if you go to my X feed and you type in the word advertiser or advertisers and if you need to, you can plug in the word USAID or CEPS C, E, P P S in this. And I want to show you that this is not internews gone wrong. This is not a half a billion dollar year grantee of USAID going rogue and being ideological about this. This is top down US government policy from the White House and I'll show you the documents on that to the White House executive branch agencies like USAID and State. Okay, if you go to search and you put in the word advertiser. Yeah. And it could be advertiser or advertisers. Okay, so there you go. So click on that left, the left image first. This is now we talked about this group seps Last time in our hit a few months ago. SEPS is a program that is basically a joint baby of USAID and the State Department and is implemented by USAID's key operational arm, the national noun for democracy. But this is a USAID program on countering disinformation. Internet censorship is what they do. And we went over last time, remember we played that two minute video where they were openly saying that the plan is to get foreign governments to pass legal reform, pass laws and regulations to stop the spread of misinformation on US social media websites. So USA would not be able to lobby the US government to do that because we have a first Amendment. Europe doesn't, Brazil doesn't. But here is from an internal document, February 2021 of USAID STEPS program. And now this is a 97 page document. They referenced the word advertiser and advertising in this document 31 times in 97 pages. So this is, and that was three years before that clip. We just saw how far back in motion this is. And I can go back even further that in 2017 and Sherry Cliffs on that and how this network coordinated the very ad boycotts that Elon is subject to. And that brought Facebook and Google to their knees when they folded to advertiser boycotts. There you go. In order to disrupt the funding and financial incentive using the same phrases that the Internet CEO did to disinform, attention is turned to the advertising industry, particularly with online advertising. So it goes on to say, thus cutting the financial support in the ad tech space would obstruct disinformation actors. They're not human beings. They're not Americans running mom and pop shops that depend on their Facebook page to be able to advertise their flower business. No, they're reduced to the inhuman disinformation actors from spreading messaging online. So the efforts being made to inform advertisers of their risks, such as the threat to brand safety. So this is USAID saying we gotta talk to these advertisers and say, hey, you know, brand safety is really important to all your little, all your brands. It would be a shame if you were known for putting ads next to misinformation websites like Daily Wire and the Federalist. And that goes on to say additionally with this data organizations, and these are partner organizations, this group SEPS runs, you know, is together with USAID and the State Department there run a network of hundreds of NGOs around the world that all jointly carry this out. This is what they're sponsored to do. It says the aim is to Redirect funding to higher quality news domains and improve regulatory market environments. Regulatory means, laws, laws about this like the EU Digital Services act redirect. So this is a top down US government plan to financially re engineer the entire economics of the news industry in order to make it so that if you spread messaging against the state or against a sensitive policy issue by the state, you are put out of business. You cannot professionalize, you can't compete with CNN or New York Times or msnbc. Just like this is what happened to Breitbart for example. And they got caught up in this web they lost 99% of their advertising revenue. They were going up like this. And however you feel about Breitbart, these are the plain facts of this inaction. They were a rising Star in the 2016 election. Steve Bannon, who was the head of that, went on to be basically the top White House advisor directly. They got crushed when 99% of their ad revenue. This is why everyone's having to switch to bilking our own citizens to pay for it. Because the natural thing advertisers would want to do, a return on investment for putting ads on news sites or social media, they can't do because they're getting pressure from the government. And so now look at the bottom. Now I don't have this, but any members of Congress or Doge or House or Senate oversight or White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, I implore you. A few examples of advertiser outreach are included in Annex 3. I don't have that annex. It's not available on the USAID website that I downloaded this from before it went down. The USAID is giving out examples of advertiser outreach, how to pressure them in order to do this. And there's much more there. If you go to the next slide, for example, you'll see this is they have whole categories of what USAID wants media companies to do, wants regulatory bodies to do, wants all of its other whole society partners to do. But here's just the first two entries from this what can technology companies do? So this is USAID telling Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, Twitch, eliminate the financial incentives, nuke their ad revenue if we don't like what they say. What could national governments do? Again, this is our government funded by our tax dollars telling foreign governments that they should regulate ad networks to kill the ad revenue of US social media websites and US news entities. Like has been caught up in the advertiser database at State and USAID under the Biden administration. And there's a million more examples like this. But if you want to go to a really crazy one, there's a YouTube video that is still live, it's by Globsec. Actually, before I turn to that, do you mind? Am I going. No, we're going to go to this May 2017 Globsec video. But before I do that, Jamie, I texted you an image of a piece that my foundation just published. It says 23 EU Organizations Dr. EU censorship law. If you scroll up, or actually if you scroll down. Oh, you know what? Actually, maybe I didn't text you. It's at the top of my ex feed right now and you'll see it might be like the fifth or sixth one down, but just down a little bit. Okay, okay, Right there. Okay, so. Oh, sorry. No, it's both the one above and below that. So before we get to the one above that, let's go to the one right below that. So one more below that. One more, one more, one more, one more, one more. It's that one. It's. Yeah. See those four screenshots? Yeah. So we just reported this. This is 23 US funded organizations who are all signatories or implementers, signatories to the EU's Code of Practice on Disinformation, which if US tech companies don't comply with what the EU, a foreign body, calls disinformation, the penalties for that are losing 6% of US social media companies global annual revenue or get kicked out of the entire EU market, which is 550 million people. So we go through this in this here. But if you. So not only are they the signatories to it who basically helped craft this thing and put the US government stamp on this, but if you go to, if you'll see, they're also the implementers, they're the ones who are helping define disinformation in the EU that targets US social media companies and US news websites. So go to the fourth one, go to the fourth, the fourth thing right here. Now this my foundation just reported as well, we got access to a White House interagency working group for information integrity. This is one of these censorship weasel phrases, Weasel words. Information integrity is what you just saw in that USAID document about redirecting ad revenue from high quality news outlets to low quality news outlets. They make that determination by determining high integrity news and low integrity news. So basically, if they like you, they call you high integrity. If they don't like you or you're publishing a scandal or you say, hey, the COVID vaccines Might have some problems with them. Hey, there might be some issues with, you know, what happened in the 2020 election. Hey, you know what's happening with our Ukraine aid. Low information integrity. So this phrase information integrity is one of these evolving sets of weasel phrases in order to do Internet censorship while making it look like the it's just an intervention to help you. We're making the information integrity ecosystem better so that we have a healthier information environment. Well, this is directly from the. This was centrally coordinated from the White House. This working group has 26 US government agencies and programs participating in it. They're partnered with 14 outside universities, as well as a whole row of private sector firms. USAID is one of those, by the way, USAID is a contributor to this in the Biden administration. This was started in December 2021, really got the wheels turning in December 2022. But this is from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy itself, where it's someone from White House. The other co chairs are from odni, the Director of National Intelligence, the job that Tulsi Gabbard is currently campaigning for. Darpa, the Pentagon's brain, as well as the National Science foundation, which is the civilian arm that funds all the censorship work. But here you have from the Joe Biden White House itself, engagement with international partners that this is three years ago, before this thing even really kicked in in the way that it now is engaging with our international partners outside the United States on our censorship efforts, assessing establishing a partnership with the European Union to provide US researchers. Now that's their cover word. That's the big lie word of all of this. It's operations. But they call them researchers to make it look passive rather than active. And I can go through a million examples of that to show how deep that lie goes with access to social media data accessible under the 2022 EU Code of Practice on disinformation. Every single one of these researchers is connected to the Blob, whether directly or indirectly. They're either a part of organizations that are sponsored by usaid, the State Department, the Defense Department, or they're transatlantic networks in the UK like the UK Foreign Office, or they are indirectly partnered with one who is Every single one of these, they don't just like researchers. They got to be accredited, they got to be credentialed, they got to be vetted. In fact, a lot of these internal documents talk about how only basically the trusted inside web should be able to get access to this. But what they're saying is the US Government can't pry that out of Facebook's hands. We have a First Amendment. We can't make them subject to a code of practice on disinformation. There is no legislative bill that'll pass Congress that will force them to give over. That will force Facebook to give over the, you know, the private messages and all of the internal algorithm and spread of information to a random US University, like, you know, pick your poison, the University of Washington or the University of Stanford to a random university that everything you thought was safe and secure on the platform is now being given to a private university because it was crowbarred out of the platform's arms by the government. This is the sort of thing the NSA does when the NSA has secret warrants forcing Facebook to compel private information about the platform for the FBI when they're doing an investigation, or the NSA when they're doing a national security one. This is doing it for private actors. And they're using foreign governments to crowbar US Companies because we in their eyes are unfortunately bound by the First Amendment. There's a lot more there, but I can pause.

A (76:52)

Jesus Christ. It's so amazing how thorough it is. Like the. The people that want to think the government is completely inept and the conspiracies aren't likely because people are not motivated and not very good at their jobs. Like the people, same people that want to say the government is terrible. It's filled with bloat. They don't know what they. They're not capable of pulling off something to this, with this depth. So when you see it, when you actually see it laid out and the mechanism in which it was done through NGOs and through these other non government organizations, it's kind of astonishing. It's kind of impressive.

B (77:31)

Oh, it is. And you see how it all synchronizes, just like Wisner's Wurlitzer did in, you know, from 1948 through the 1970s, when formally it was supposed to have stopped. But just that's why I say when it's too dirty for the CIA, you give it to usaid. The CIA used to do this work under covert action. But USAID has a couple of cute tricks that make it the central warehouse for all of this. And this is why when we started this conversation, I was saying, you ain't seen nothing yet. This thing is going to get so deep and it's going to connect to so many institutions that everybody thought like in the Truman show, they thought it was their best friend. They thought this thing was totally independent, and these were authentic. Conversations you're having with the cashier. And it turns out, oops, okay, actually you're a part of this USAID sponsored network or the state or DoD or Intel sponsored network, because this is fundamentally covert action that's being done. And when the CIA is subject to restrictions on the kind of COVID activity it can do, every covert action the CIA does, which is our organ for organized political warfare, George Kennan himself, as well as William Casey and Colby and everyone, the express purpose of it was to carry out the subversive side of the political struggle so that we'd have a mechanism for influencing foreign affairs by creating an internal, what looks to be an organic, grassroots, authentic network within the country. But we're actually funding and directing their actions, their actions to be favorable to U.S. interests. But where I'm going with this is USAID. Most of the worst scandals of U.S. statecraft and covert action in the past two decades have actually been from USAID rather than CIA. And there's, there's a reason for this. So after the big scandals against the Democrats and liberals and anti war groups in the 60s and 70s, reforms were put in place. And some of this goes back to the 40s itself. But every covert action the CIA does has to be authorized by the President in what's called a presidential finding to take that covert action. So if the CIA senior leadership, or just a rogue cell that's not even at the top of leadership, but just a rogue desk, a rogue portfolio, a rogue network wants to run a covert action in a region, but they don't think the President will approve, or the President doesn't want to formally sign off on it in case it goes wrong, they can walk right over to USAID who can do the exact same thing the CIA does, except they can call it discrete democracy promotion because it's not technically an intelligence agency, so it's not technically covert action. So it doesn't require executive branch approval or foreknowledge. And they've gotten in trouble in these cases in some pretty incredible ways. Can I show that, please? So let's start with even the whitewashed version. Go to the Wikipedia of Zunzuneo Z u n Z E N E o Z Just on the Wikipedia. And then we can go deeper on this if you want. This was a scandal during the Obama USAID era. Now we were running a number of rogue USAID operations in Cuba at the time. By the way, I have to say for the record, I'm no fan of the Cuban government and I'm not even weighing in on whether it's the right or wrong thing to do in terms of regime change there or, or liberating people there from autocratic excess by that government. I'm simply showing the American people where your tax dollars are going and how these things are structured in order to systematically fool you and to fool Congress and to fool the White House. So for example, so this is. I'll show a couple other things in a second here. But, so this is Zenzanillo. So if you just scroll for a second, we'll start with this, right? So. So it was an online social media. Just scroll up one second. We'll start at the top here. It was an online social networking microblogging service created by USAID and marketed to Cuban users. This was a Twitter knockoff. See the background of this is, this is 2009, 2014. That period the State Department and USAID were gangbusters, gung ho on the promise of Arab Spring style social media revolutions to topple other governments. The Arab Spring was a Facebook revolution and a Twitter revolution. USAID pumped $1.2 billion in and we sponsored these activist groups and these civil society organizations to learn how to use Facebook, learn how to use Twitter, learn how to use hashtags, learn how to coordinate street protests so that everyone knows where to go, what street to show up on, what kind of slogans to use in order to create the pro democracy, you know, predicate for it. But the problem was at the time, Cuba did not allow US social media in. So they said, hmm, so they're not allowing Twitter in. How can we get a Twitter there, but without calling it Twitter, without making it look like it's coming from the US So what they did is they took the exact same thing as Twitter, same user interface, same like and retweet button. Zunzonillo is the Cuban slang word for hummingbird. So it means it's bird. It was the Twitter bird, the whole thing. But the whole trick about it was you have to make it look like it's coming from the Cubans if you're going to do this operation. So what you'll see is it began running. So this is 2010, this is right during the Arab Spring. And what you'll see is they took funds, millions of dollars of funds that were concealed as humanitarian funds designated for Pakistan. Now, I don't know if Joe or the audience, if you've looked at a map lately, but Pakistan is not exactly the next door neighbor of Cuba, right? So, and this is the Wikipedia whitewashing and we can get into the deeper layers of this, but contractors funded by usaid. I should note the main contractor was Creative Associates International, who's a frequent one. It's cai, not CIA, I promise. So they concealed in the budget it from Senate, from Congress, from the White House, National Security Council. They said that these were humanitarian funds for Pakistan and then they ran that to their contractor CAI to set up a byzantine system of front companies using Cayman Islands bank accounts and recruiting unsuspecting business executives who would not be told of the company's ties to the US Government. According to the ap, private companies like Creative Associates International designed the network. The idea arose after they were given 500,000 stolen Cuban cell phones that are available on the black market. And then you'll see if you scroll down is okay. The network, dubbed the Cuban Twitter, reached about 60,000 Cuban subscribers. The initiative appears to also have had a surveillance dimension, allowing a quote, vast database of Cuban Zunza NEO subscribers, including gender, age and receptiveness and political tendencies to be built with the Associated Press noting such data could be used in the future for political purposes. By the way, these are all quotes from the internal documents and we can go through that. The data would then be used for micro targeting efforts towards anti and pro government users in Cuba. The developers aimed to at first use non controversial content such as sports and music and hurricane updates. By the way, they used hurricane updates in the internal things. You know, basically a humanitarian front that if you sign up to this app you'll, you'll know about natural disasters in the area. Meanwhile, what was the plan the whole time? Once they built up enough subscribers, they would begin to introduce political messages through social bots and encourage dissent in this, in this astroturfing. There's a great Guardian write up on this. If you, if you go to Guardian Zunzinillo so you can see, see how crazy. Just type in Zunzenillo smart Mobile Guardian. You'll see the internal files explicitly said we're going to lure them in with music, sports and hurricane updates. You have to join. You have to join. You know this, you know Twitter in Cuba. If you want, you know, to be relevant in the culture and see what's trending in sports and music. If you want to be safe in your homes, if you want to know where hurricanes are going, Twitter, Cuban Twitter is the fastest place to get this. It's humanitarian work for, you know, that's we're saving lives by doing this. But the whole point is once they hit a critical mass, they would create rental riots and they would use this the same way they used it in Egypt and Tunisia to topple those governments under the Obama administration. They would organize smart mobs rental riots. And if, and if you scroll down, there's some. You know, this is a fantastic article. Highly recommend. There's a lot more there, but. Okay, stop right there. Scroll up a little bit. It. Okay. Documents show the US government planned to build a subscriber base through non controversial news content, news messages on soccer, music and hurricane updates. This is in the Guardian. Later, when the network reached a critical mass, perhaps hundreds of thousands, operators would introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize, quote, smart mobs, mass gatherings called at a moment's notice that might trigger a Cuban spring, or as one USA document put it, quote, renegotiate the balance of power between state and society. So one more thing. If you want to look up on this, you see how they conceal it. If you just type in USAID Zanzanillo and discrete or discrete action and you'll see how usaid, when this scandal popped off, everyone said, what the hell? How did this happen? This is classic CIA work. You're using Cayman Islands bank accounts. You're saying you're earmarking it for Pakistani aid. This has clear implications for US Statecraft. If this gets busted. This is what the CIA. This is why we task the CIA to do this. Plausible deniability. If something has diplomatic blowback and we don't want US fingerprints on it, we need a formal intelligence agency because there's diplomatic blowback if US fingerprints are revealed. So, yeah, just discreet. Yeah, like discrete. Let's see if you scroll down, that third one might do. But if you scroll down, if you put discrete action, it may be put discrete action or discrete, covert and action. I believe there's a HuffPo one on this. That's. Yeah, there you go. Yeah. When is covert action not covert? When it's discrete usaids. So basically when this. And if you scroll down to the bottom of this, you'll see if you just control F for the word Senate, you'll see. Last week, Elon Musk held an X space directly with Senator Joni Ernst, who has been on this crusade to reform USAID excesses. And there's a really scandalous moment there where Senator Ernst revealed that she was actually threatened by USAID when she tried to get insight into what they were actually doing. Well, if you actually scroll down, if you just do the next, the next one. Basically what USAID said is, well, it's discrete democracy promotion. So it's, you know, we don't need a presidential finding for it. Okay, maybe this is not the. But basically, if you control that for the word staff, that might help it too. But everyone can look this up independently. All this. Okay, is that the only. Okay, maybe it's a different article. But basically Senate staffers and everyone go on YouTube. There was a formal hearing on this for oversight of what happened. And what the staffers said is staffers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is supposed to be the thing that reins in, that gives the American people oversight and accountability for USAID gone rogue. And what the Senate staffers overseeing USAID said is we had no visibility on this entire operation the entire time because USAID told us if they had to tell us what we were doing, people could die. This is classic CIA stuff. But the Senate was blocked. And I should note again, when it's too dirty for the CIA, you give it to usaid. This is why these drug operations and these terrorist operations run primarily through US aid rather than directly at the CIA. The inspector general just two weeks ago put out a report. This is the first time this has been publicly reported. There's been an inspector General at USAID practically from the day it was born. It's supposed to be. This is what Joni Ernst was complaining about. Senator Joni Ernst was complaining about, which was that how can they get away with this? And it's because the Inspector General who's supposed to hold the agency to account from the inside, but it's an independent agency, so there's limited oversight from the outside. If you have a rogue inspector general, they keep the whole op in house. Don't need to tell the executive branch, don't need to tell the Senate or Congress. Run it just like an Ali North Iran Contra style, self sustained, standalone, off the shelf private enterprise to run covert action on taxpayer dime, but not have it go through the formal approval channels. Well, so basically what they were doing here, what the OIG report, the inspector general report just published, the best article on this with the link to it is John Solomon's just the news, you know, publish this a write up on it as well as the source document from the OIG's office. We're just now learning this two weeks ago, despite them doing this activity for 30 years, it turns out there's a get out of sponsoring terrorism free card at usaid which is that USAID cannot directly provide funding to terrorist groups. But their contractors are not required under the grant agreements to go through those OFAC style, those counterterrorism financing. If a bank did it, you would go directly to jail. Do not pass go, do not have liberty again for the next 20 years of your life. But if USAID does it, it's completely legal right now. And so this is how you have USAID giving they just last week, $122 million to ISIS. We found they fund all the terrorist groups in Pakistan. They fund the, you know, the terrorist groups in the, in the Sahel, in Africa.

A (92:07)

And for what purpose?

B (92:09)

Paramilitary terrorist groups are extremely useful to US statecraft. As for DoD special operations work, as well as for political destabilization work, I'll give you a great example. We'll stay in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden, a peaceful. What. What was it? Yeah, a warrior on the road to peace. I remember the puff pieces about Osama bin Laden before. Before the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen. Here's a great clip. Can you find the clip of Zbigniew Brzezinski? I believe this is around like 1789. Air dropping out of a helicopter.

A (92:51)

1989.

B (92:52)

No, 79, I believe it was. Yeah, if you just type in Zbigniew Brzezinski, that's going to be a wallop one to spell live. But if you just do Zbigniew Brzezinski, you can go to YouTube and type in Mujahideen and you'll watch him airdrop out of the helicopter and make the exact same speech that John McCain made to the Azov Battalion, the extremist paramilitary faction of Ukraine that was banned from getting federal funding. You know, in 2014 when the Democrats said they're all Nazis, but now they're all, you know, sponsored and get standing ovations from in the halls of Congress because now they are geopolitically useful to pump to capacity build. So here you go. So Here you go. U.S. national Security Adviser Brzezinski flew to Pakistan to set about rallying resistance. He wanted to arm the Mujahideen without revealing America's role. On the Afghan border near the Khyber Pass, he urged the soldiers of God to redouble their efforts. Could you pause for a sec? Notice how he said he wanted to arm the Mujahideen without revealing America's role. Okay. The whole point was to pump up this, you know, fundamentalist extremist terrorist group with the funding and support they need, but without revealing America's role. Hello, usaid. That's the function today. But keep their deep belief in God. We are confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours. You'll go back to it one day, because your fight will prevail and you'll have your homes and your mosques back again. Because your cause is right and God is on your side. That land is yours. Go out there and take it. We'll give you the money. Now, Jamie, if you can pull up one thing and I'm going to just talk a little bit more about this case while you're pulling this up. You can find this, I believe on my X feed. I've posted this clip, but you could also find it searching either X or YouTube, of John McCain and I believe he was with Lindsey Graham, making that exact same speech using the same language in I believe it was 2016 or 24. I believe it was 2016. Around then, to the Azov Battalion folks in Ukraine and to the paramilitaries. It's almost word for word. But let me stick on the Mujahideen thing for a second because this gets back to this fundamental structuring of why USAID is tasked with this. There's a bigger budget than the CIA. USAID does it. Capacity builds the assets that CIA liaises with. But if the assets aren't there, CIA has no one to tell what to do. None of their agents on the ground or case officers can build an action plan unless there are assets on the ground that have money, that have training, that have food, that have shelter. And USAID steps in to build, to put the chess pieces on the board that the CIA can play with. Interestingly, I should note that the CIA gets a copy of every grant that the National Endowment for Democracy makes. This was published in the New York Times in a piece called Missionaries for global pluralism, about USAID's top operational arm. Ned. But the point I'm getting at here is why were we funding terrorists in the 1970s and 80s? Well, according to our National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the grand chessboard, this celebrated apex predator of American statecraft, I think he had a quote that was something like, well, what does arming a few Islamic fundamentalists matter when weighed against the history of America winning the Cold War? That this fundamentally destabilized and bogged the Soviet Union down. This was extremely effective. But also, how did we fund the Mujahideen? Well, the Mujahideen is in Afghanistan. They were before they became Al Qaeda and isis. What asset does Afghanistan have to play with in order to fund its war network, its paramilitary network? Well, it's the drug network. They happen to sit on the. Basically the poppy fields that, when exploited, comprise 95% of the world's heroin if you export that. And so the CIA backed State Department, USAID backed. And we can go through receipts of USAID doing the same drugs for cash, for guns work in the 1960s, practically from the day it was born. But what they were doing is they were taking those poppy harvests and then they were depositing them in CIA proprietary banks like bcci, the bank of Credit and Commerce International. Everyone can look this up or if you want to plug in CIA, BCCI and look at all the mainstream media reporting on this. It was a major, major, major scandal. It had become one of the world's largest banks. And it was basically a CIA front and it was a Pakistani frontman for this. And it was converting, effectively washing the proceeds of these drugs so that they could be, so that the Mujahideen could buy arms while the Pakistani militants were being funded and trained in Pakistan. And then they go to Afghanistan and conduct military operations against the Russians who were our stated Cold War enemy. The same thing's happening today, though. If you go on my X feed right now, I'm going to show you something related to this and how this still goes on today. USAID has been busted multiple times for actually cultivating the poppy and heroin production in Afghanistan. Exactly, in Afghanistan. This was actually the inspector there was one of the adjacent units. I don't think it was directly overseeing usaid, but they published a whole report on this that basically USAID was keeping the poppy production alive by doing what was said to be irrigation and agricultural sustainability, but targeting it in the heroin network. And by the way, remember, the Taliban banned poppy production and it was after that ban that Afghanistan became the source of 95% of the world's heroin. So USAID was growing those crops. Now, okay, you can argue, well, hey, maybe it was an accident, maybe they went rogue. I want to show you something now from an adjacent USAID network group which is funded 100% by the US government, created by an act of Congress. If you go to my X account right now and you type in US Institute for Peace or you just put in Institute Peace, you'll see this. This organization gets $56 million a year from U.S. taxpayers. Its office is right next to the U.S. state Department. I literally walk by it. So it's funded by the government. It's accountable to the government. It's accountable to the House and Senate Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations. It gets all of its money as a pass through from the U.S. state Department. Type in. Yeah, there you go. Scroll down, scroll down. That one. That One right there, right there. Taliban's successful opium ban. So this is 100%, top to bottom, a direct organ of the US government. Okay, click that, click that.

A (100:51)

Okay, this HAL band successful opium ban is bad for Afghans and the world. The ban is not counter narcotics victory and will have negative economic and humanitarian consequences, potentially leading to a refugee crisis. How could they say it's not a counter narcotics victory?

B (101:09)

Look. And look at the date. 2024. This ain't ancient history. This is less than two years ago.

A (101:14)

That's crazy.

B (101:16)

This is the State Department saying, yeah, listen, 95% of the world's heroin flows from here. Keep the heroin flowing. It would be an economic disaster. Where do you think those drug money? What paramilitary networks? You hear about all these terrorist networks that like, think about what just happened in Syria with isis, everyone. Well, actually, before I go to that, let's get back to ISIS and the difference between the ISIS foreign policy for the Obama, Biden world and Trump. I'm going to connect this. But wait, can you pull that back up, Jamie, for a second? I just want everyone to see it. Don't look away. Stare straight into the sun. Go to the next receipt here. There you go. 2024 budget and brief. U.S. institute of Peace. Seeking $56 million from U.S. taxpayers to promote global peace and security. Don't you know, by keeping the 95% of the world's heroin flowing in accordance with its congressional mandate. And then, you know, and then I think I have the next screenshot is just, you know, showing them.

A (102:20)

Did they give any examples of how it would promote peace to keep the opium flowing? Well, because the way they're saying it, it's like this Orwellian speak.

B (102:31)

Well, you always have to invert it, right? When they say peace, it's war, Right? So this is war. For example, US Institute of Peace was doing the same thing with the Albanian drug networks that formed a paramilitary fighting squad against the Yugoslavian government as we were overthrowing Slobodan Milosevic. I mean, this stuff goes way back. I mean, this was created in 1984, somewhat thematic, ironic, by Congress. And again, this was a Ronald Reagan creation. And why I come back to that thing that just broke the John Bolton hand grenade, the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch from Monty Python. This is the. Nothing really gets to the heart of what USAID truly is than the image of John Bolton proudly declaring that he was the head of Policy and budget at usaid. And his farewell gift from the agency was a golden hand grenade with his name carved on it. But what he said in that Piers Morgan interview, and I don't know if we could play it if you want.

A (103:38)

Yeah, it wants it off your feet.

B (103:40)

But what he said is, listen. It also said, proud Reagan on. And this is why I come back to this. We're fighting a number of ghosts from our past here. A lot of Republicans are fine with fighting Woodrow Wilson's ghost. He was the one who said, make the world safer democracy and gave us this doctrinal blank check to do soft power infiltration work against every plot of dirt and every foreign citizen in every foreign country on planet Earth. Gives us the blank check to be a global empire. Okay? A lot of people say, okay, we're gonna focus on us. Wilson's a bad guy. Okay, okay. But you're also fighting the ghost of Ronald Reagan. I should note that USAID is actually in its headquarters in D.C. is in the Ronald Reagan building. USAID and Ronald Reagan played the key role in fundamentally creating the restructured blob that we live under after the scandals of the 1970s that the CIA was busted in, church committee hearings, heart attack, Gun Mockingbird, MK Ultra, you know, assassinations, all that stuff. Jimmy Carter got into power 1976, carried out the harshest destruction of CIA operations capacity and funding ever in American history. He laid off 30% of the entire CIA operations division in a single day. That was called the Halloween massacre. Crippled their budget. Then the Iran hostage situation pops off in 79. The National Security State argues this wouldn't have happened unless the CIA had its old powers back. Democrats still hated the CIA at that time because it had been directly interfering in their own domestic politics and trying to thwart factions of them just like they're doing today against the MAGA movement side of the Republican Party. The universal thump has been passed around in that way. But so they couldn't get a legislative bill to do this. So what they did is they restructured the intelligence apparatus, the COVID action capacities, and the way our statecraft is done through USAID and the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy to take the baton from what the CIA used to do. But the whole point of it is in tandem. Now. That's why you have these John Bolton at usaid. This is why you have Liz Cheney at usaid. This is what we're fighting against as we're reforming this. It's not really a partisan issue as I see it, even though statistics show there's disproportionate Democrat beneficiaries. But the real issue is the MAGA movement is fighting the Ghost of Ronald Reagan past. The reason Republicans loved usaid, John Bolton types, Liz Cheney types love it is because this was our muscle for U.S. chamber of Commerce multinational companies to pad their profits because ExxonMobil, how many hundreds of billions in the aggregate has ExxonMobil and Chevron benefited from from US regime change efforts or US pressure on foreign governments in order to give them access to the petroleum in order to do partnerships with those governments? We saw that just, you know, a few years ago as we just went over with Joe Biden doing the same thing for Burisma. But so the big multinational businesses love this and it was sold as trickle down economics. This is the Reaganite sort of Reaganomics. And why it's attached to the hip with USAID and why this is something we need to keep in mind as we reform is that the idea was, is look, we do some dirty work abroad, but at the end of the day that pads profits and revenue for US Companies. Those US companies employ US citizens and they build manufacturing plants in Ohio and in Colorado and New Mexico. And that's what allows you to have 401ks, that's what allows you to have discretionary income. That's what allows you to afford higher education and houses and a retirement plan. The problem was, is as globalization kept apace through the 90s and 2000s, these same multinational corporations that the Reaganite trickle down economics use the blob to support the Chamber of Commerce, they don't hire their labor here anymore, they don't have their manufacturing facilities here anymore. We're not the primary export market for this. So you have U.S. state Department and USAID paying to help the corporate welfare of nominally US based companies. But the trickle, it's all being kept within that secular blob of the thicket of government officials, equity holders in these corporations, foreign currency speculators banking on the activity in the region, the banks, financial firms and political insiders. And so it doesn't actually get down to the people anymore. So you do need to restructure if you're going to keep using this. In order to qualify, you have to have a certain minimal threshold of reinvestment in America, which I'm very happy that Trump is doing by trying to bring all this investment, you know, you saw with Japan and other countries, he's trying to get them double, triple their commitments. We need to demand that of our own corporations if they want to have a meeting with the Secretary of State or the head of the Central Intelligence Agency like Pepsi did in the 1970s when we overthrew that if you want.

A (109:09)

To go there, this is also, it's so deep that it makes you wonder is there enough time in four years to unravel this stuff?

B (109:21)

Oh, no, not four years. This is a 50 year project.

A (109:25)

50 year project.

B (109:26)

Oh yeah. There are many fractal layers to this reform process and every step of the way there are going to be layers of resistance. I don't think the people who are, look, we should spike footballs, we should pop champagne, we should do a touchdown dance on this. This is the first serious time in American history that the foreign policy establishment has had to be accountable to the people who pay for it. Even the church committee didn't cause the entire shutdown of a federal agency. Didn't lay off. You know, remember I mentioned the Halloween massacre, Jimmy Carter, 30% of the workforce laid off.

A (110:08)

Yeah.

B (110:08)

Try what just happened with USAID, which employs a lot more people than even the CIA did at that time. 99, 99% went from 14,000 down to 290. This is in every way, symbolically, operationally, financially, the, the hardest blow the Blob has ever had to suffer in terms of accountability. And it's only getting way deeper from.

A (110:34)

Here because he's only been in office for a month.

B (110:37)

Yeah. Well, that's why we need to create a legacy and a pipeline of people to carry on these reforms, which is part of my personal struggle here, which is that most people, 99% of people who got involved with the MAGA movement did it because they care about the domestic. They care about, you know, we talked about this because their school curriculum is woke because the police allow crime, you know, in the streets and you know, the infrastructure's crumbling and there's corruption everywhere and no one's held accountable. They don't think about Pakistan, they don't think about Bangladesh. They don't think. They don't, they don't. They don't think about who's on the U.S. azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce and how if they're living in Louisiana or Houston or Oklahoma, that actually their jobs at ExxonMobil and Chevron sort of depend on this strong arm diplomacy that we have with Persian Gulf countries. They don't care about the Persian Gulf. They care about local Oklahoma and. But they have to now, in order to understand the world they live in, in order to understand what's driving the world around them, in order to understand the actual true face of the characters they thought they've known, they're going to have to become international minded. They're going to have to become versed in the interplay between the domestic and the international. One of the problems when I started out this journey in 2016 is there was no MAGA foreign policy intelligentsia. I could make all of these. I was traveling the country, slideshow presentation after slideshow presentation, talking to every human I could, even DC insiders. In maga, you'd show them all of this and they didn't have a framework for understanding it. They could see that the information was true. They could see that these are formal government documents. These are formal grant outlays to real organizations run by real people with real names and addresses. But you'd have to explain the function of every single one of those. You'd have to explain, for example, that the Pentagon does an awful lot more than kinetic military activity. For example, when I draw, this is what's coming next, right? President Trump tasked Elon Musk with sicing the Doge dogs on the Pentagon. And depending on how you measure it, the size of waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon ranges from a couple hundred billion. They are the biggest federal agency in all of this. They have $900 billion budget compared to only 44 billion at USAID and even less at CIA. So they. But Yahoo Finance published this a couple years ago. A $35 trillion black hole. If you want to pull up that receipt on screen, just so I don't look like I'm saying this directly myself, but just type in 35,000,000,000 Pentagon black hole that's larger than the entire national debt. Just the amount of just a black hole in the size of the accounting budget of the Pentagon over the years from its continual failing. This is on Yahoo. Finance and this is what, 2020, I think when America was born in 1789, in the first meeting of Congress, there were only three agencies that were created in the beginning of time, shall we say. The first act of Congress was to create the Department of State, the Department of Treasury and the Department of War. And the Defense Department became the Department of war in 19. The Department of War became the Department of defense in 1948. What people even now they're seeing these USAID scandals with funding to the Democrats or funding to some of these blob internationalist Republicans or funding these media institutions. You ain't seen nothing yet when you get to the Pentagon stuff because USAID and was created effectively in part to assist Pentagon activity under humanitarian front. And I talk about this a lot, but I feel the point is underappreciated. So this is sort of a good moment to go over It. Am I talking too much, by the way?

A (115:07)

Nope. Perfect.

B (115:08)

Okay, so everyone, you know, they say, you know, JFK is a martyred figure. And in the news again this week, obviously with, you know, the new trove of documents and whatnot, and Trump's EO around the source of his assassination. But the fact that JFK created USAID by executive order in 1961 and he is known and loved as a martyred figure, regardless of who in the end killed him, has given a sort of public imprimatur on usaid, or USAID as it used to be called, in order to try to make clear that it was not an aid organization. But now almost even that parlance has dropped off as they need to defend it more and more. So they think, okay, JFK martyred deeply beloved figure. He created usaid. It was sort of out of the kindness of his heart. It was a charity. This was, it was JFK who fundamentally supercharged the American military's small wars capacity. This is the terminology in the U.S. army War College and Special Forces around sort of not full scale conventional wars. They're either small scale paramilitary skirmishes or insurgency counterinsurgency. So it's. And the problem was, is JFK was bogged down in Vietnam, bogged down in Laos. And the problems that we were fighting against were not the kind of things that you'd have the political predicate after a lot of the disasters of the Korean War in 1950 and the international blowback to having formal DoD boats on the grounds. What he believed was vital and necessary to capacity build and supercharge was a paramilitary covert capacity for DoD in the war fighting space that the CIA had at that point in the political war space. And this is done through the US Special Forces and through some of its sub branches, which are psychological operations, civil military affairs. We can stick with that. But basically civil military is when in order to achieve the military objective, the thing that needs to be done is actually something at the civil layer. Like, for example, in order to win the war against Russia right now, NATO believes we need to build the single largest military base in all of NATO on the Black Sea coast of Romania that points straight out in a line at Crimea and move. This base that's under construction is 100% bigger than the biggest current Air Force NATO base in Europe, the Ramstein base in Germany. We're now moving, as we speak, there are fighter jets and drones being moved from Germany to Romania as we are building this base. That will be the point of source projection against the Black Sea Navy of Russia against the. Against Crimea in order to turn the tide. Well, that's a military operation, right? The NATO military base against the Russian forces in Crimea. But what is actually the most important strategic objective for the military? It's actually not a military one, it's a civil one. See, there's an election going on in Romania right now. You may have heard about this, the canceled election in Romania with the Georgesku, this right wing populist figure who has pledged neutrality in the war. He doesn't want to antagonize America, but he doesn't want to kill the Russians. He wants to basically back NATO off and he doesn't want to allow this military base to be made. Well, that is a civil decision by the elected government of Romania decided by the hearts and minds of the voters of the Romanian people. But that civil action will either in NATO's eyes, win the war or lose the war. So the problem is it would kind of be something of a diplomatic incident, shall we say, if NATO rolled in and did you know, Slobodan Milosevic style strifing of airstrifes against the Romanian parliament building and rolled into the capital with tanks and troops just because the President was responding to the democrat will of the people. So you need another mechanism to influence the civil affairs. Enter civil military. This is where you get USAID in this as well as USAID for psychological operations. For example, I've been playing this clip for months now and showing this US Military document from the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare. I mean the Special Forces, the psychological operations and civil military training and recruiting center at Fort Bragg, the center of our psychological operations. It's called the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Training Center. But USAID does that work? So for example, I've been showing a military document from the Biden Mark Milley era published in 2021 about how to plan race riots in Africa in order to stop the construction of a port by a foreign government that would allow their force projection into the Atlantic Ocean in a sample scenario where the US Ambassador tries to get this West African country on the Atlantic coast there to cancel the port construction in partnership with the foreign government. But that government doesn't want to do it it. And so they refuse the US Ambassador, they refuse the State Department. So this is literally in the planning guide and pitchbook for the US Special Forces. It's available online right now. Everyone can look this up. It's all over my ex feed. I post the link a million times and all the screenshots, but they show the role of Special Forces. They're pitching this basically to get more grant funding that we can help in near peer competition actually with foreign countries by having special forces destabilize the country, inflame racial tensions between the Africans who work in the factories and the business owners of the foreign government in the local regional development cause mass walkouts and strikes. If you want to pull this on screen, I can just show you these two things. If you just go to my ex feed and you can type in rent rights or just type in USAID job fairs or USAID job and you'll see in this scenario they talk about the interagency coordination between defense diplomacy and development. All the roles. Yes, if you do USAID job, you can pull it up. And what they propose is that as they are inflaming these racial tensions to cause these riots and boycotts of the local businesses that USAID would play the role of swooping in. Yeah, go ahead, click those and I can show you the source documents and everything. It's all over. So iwc for example's Information Warfare center at Fort Bragg, again they're in West Africa. Now this is a sample scenario with a hypothetical African country. And I don't want to belabor this. I'm not trying to cause an international incident by saying this. I'm just trying to give the American people insight into why you are going to find US aid fingerprints all over Pentagon operations and no one's going to have known about it before because you park it at usaid. The military doesn't have to tell the President what they're actually doing. This is why, for example, you had the fight over isis. And we can get to this right after this. But you know, we'll get to how the US military duped Trump through these things. Constantly playing shell games with the numbers. In Syria, for example, you'll see what the Information Warfare center did is they saw a sign along the road for this port construction and they say the plan is we need to buy the Ambassador more time because this port is going to be, they're going to close on it and we need to give the Ambassador more leverage at the negotiating table. So this is a support operation for the State Department in order to secure an agreement from the African government to shut the port down. But right now the ambassador doesn't have the smoke, doesn't have the clout, doesn't have the leverage. So the military will come in and provide that leverage by destabilizing the country, inflaming long standing friction between the African workers and the foreign corporations popping off protests and then using their swarm army of internews, usaid, the social media campaign and media articles to that are led actually in the background by the Information Warfare center at Fort Bragg to illuminate the controversy to a global audience. Right. This caused international financial pressure and sanctions on them. But if you go to the next slide. And Here we go, USAID. So this is again, U.S. military document 2021, Biden administration. To make sure this thing really pops off, USAID is going to swoop in along with other NGOs to establish job fairs near the protest areas so that when these racially inflamed African workers want take to the streets, they don't need to worry about losing their careers at those companies they just went on strike at because they're going to be on U.S. taxpayer dime, baby. It's going to be U.S. truck drivers, median income 45, $50,000 a year, paying for striking African workers to get no show jobs as a part of a race riot operation for the US Special Forces to give leverage to the US State Department ambassador in order to stop a random port construction in West Africa.

A (125:22)

And it says here, within two weeks, the construction company lost 60% of its required labor pool. So it's effective now.

B (125:28)

You get, and this is where, I don't know if you want to take a breather and pivot to something lighter, but this is where it starts to get really, really nasty. Because there are layers to this that I see. But because I'm not an insider, I don't have access to the inside government documents, I don't have subpoena power at Congress. Someone has to get an answer on some of these questions. And I was going to talk about the connection of this to, you know, the rental riots, I should say formally, we don't know that the rental riots, formally, the riots that popped off in this country in 2020. And that I see as one of the main ways that the Blob may be able to regain leverage here in the United States in the years ahead. Right. Right now they're doing lawfare. They're trying to mend. They're a little bit impotent right now because their coalition is very fractured. Many of the stalwart international Republicans have gone full maga. So the bipartisan consensus on this is weaker than it was. And then probably most difficult for them, there's a bit of a civil war happening even within the Democrat Party because of all the bad blood between the Biden camp and the Kamala Harris camp. I mean, you need a unified network on the Democrat side to pull this off. And you had Joe Biden was soft cooed out of office by his own party. And you have half the Democrat Party who was in. It was a very contentious, long, drawn out process. Joe Biden put on a MAGA hat, actually asked one of those union workers, I believe he was one of those people at that event for the MAGA hat to put on. And that was quite a.

A (127:17)

How about Jill Biden wearing a red dress when she went to vote?

B (127:21)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good.

A (127:22)

It's a big deal.

B (127:24)

And when Joe Biden walked out at that White House press conference to announce that Donald Trump had won the election the day before, people go back and watch that. I have never seen Joe Biden smile harder in my life.

A (127:37)

When he had Trump in the White House and smiling and laughing, he looked like he was having a good old time.

B (127:42)

Right, Right.

A (127:42)

He was happy. A stark contrast between Obama WELCOMING Trump in 2016.

B (127:49)

Right, right. And Obama was backing the Kamala sort of ouster of Biden. So when they were all united in this bipartisan blob network and the Democrats were completely cohesive and a full half of the Republican Party was internationalist, you could get this buy in. For example, it was easy to synchronize the U.S. chamber of Commerce with the AFL CIO with the Union Street Muscle USAID. Just back at this whole USAID Truman Show. And I say this, there is nothing you can tell me that is not affected by the USA Truman Show. You want to talk about the music industry? I can. I'll tell you about USAID's complete infiltration of the music industry.

A (128:42)

How so?

B (128:43)

Oh my gosh. Okay. So maybe I can show receipts on screen here for a second. Do you want to. We'll start with an easy one because it's directly connected to what we were just talking about with Zunz and EO in Cuba. So if you go to. This is Max Blumenthal's outlet. It's called Gray Zone News. And again, I'm not trying to beat up on our foreign policy establishments. Foreign policy on Cuba or way into that. But this is how the sauce is made. And you're going to see a million examples of this in a second of this. But go to just type in on Google or any search engine Gray Zone News, Cuban rappers, usaid. And you'll see this. And these are basically sponsored hip hop artists to write, to do revolutionary hip hop to appeal to the Afro Cuban community who the National Endowment for Democracy had identified as being a demographic. See Every time we do these operations, USAID, the NGOs, they'll submit what they call baseline assessment or strategic assessment to the State Department where they will do a demographic segmentation of all the demographics in the country, who's pro us, who's against us in the region. And then they will micro target the grants in the capacity building to capacity build the burning ember to turn it into a flame. So for example, and just so you see this, you can go to the CIA World Factbook right now. This is just a public facing CIA.gov you can type in a random country like Burma on just type in CIA world book Burma. You'll see the. We keep meticulous tabs on the racial distribution, the religious distribution, the gender distribution, the heteronormative versus LGBT one. This is why USAID and NED were backing and supporting Pussy Riot in Russia to do these sort of insane, sort of feminist LGBTQ styled left wings street riots. This is what they, you know, caused this international incident. You can see all the USAID nad stuff on them for Pussy Riot is the music industry. And go to YouTube and look at their music videos if you want to see what state sponsored music looks like. But in the Cuba case, they were. Ned had published this document. NED is the operations arm of USAID and they get a ton of their grants through it. And they're a companion star, said, okay, all of our previous attempts to overthrow the Cuban government failed. Well, you know, something like 60% of the Cuban population is Afro Cuban. They're radically underrepresented in the Cuban government. They have their own grievances around policing issues and around representation issues. And they even noted in the document that that demographic, and I'm not saying this, Ned is saying this in Cuba is disproportionately drawn to drugs, influenced by rap music and suffers from overwhelming amount of youth unemployment. And so capacity building, those desperate networks, capacity building the anti addiction programs will get you into the drug networks doing job fairs and getting these people on US payroll will alleviate their pain points on employment. And they're, you know, predominantly listening to hip hop. So we need to work with. I believe the group is the San Ysidro and I'm not beating up on it. You can make an argument that I'm not weighing in on whether this is good or bad. But the American people have to know this because this gets played on their radio stations in Miami. This gets art. Testimonials to this are at Art Basel in Miami every year. And this is the Truman show around you. But you can read that gray zone report, for example. I'll write up on that. All the USAID funding, all the meetings with the U.S. ambassador and Western Hemisphere assistant secretary, folks, how the whole thing was. You can talk about musicians like Dua Lipa. You familiar with Dua Lipa?

A (132:59)

I've heard the name, yeah.

B (133:00)

Don't stop now. She's a million of these great hits. Fantastic musician. I'm a big fan. On the music side, Dua Lipa won the Distinguished Leadership Award. I forget if it was last year or the year before. From the Atlanta Council. The Atlantic Council, that's the same organization that we played on screen during our first conversation where we went over the Atlanta Council holding up I call bullshit placards, BS and looking at Trump tweets and training hundreds of journalists for how to flag and censor him saying tweets like witch hunt or Brexit slogans for cheaper health care. The Atlantic Council, who has seven CIA directors, seven former number one heads of the CIA on its board of directors, that gets direct grant funding from the Pentagon, the State Department and usaid. The Atlantic Council, who had a formal partnership agreement with Barisma, I should Note, signed on January 19, 2017, one day before Trump became the US president. Why the heck would they give Dua Lipa a Distinguished Leadership Award? Well, she's ethnic Albanian and has activities in Kosovo. And I'm not trying to cause an international incident when I say this, but her messaging around the post Yugoslavia breakup Balkan states and a lot of the geopolitics around Serbia right now, the U.S. state Department has been pursuing as well as USAID. And to whatever extent you may or may not be there, you know, the civil military arm of the US Military, I believe, and I'm not privy to any inside information. This is my reading of the tea leaves that I've been laying out before. Everyone is not very happy with the government of Serbia and they want that Serbian government, people in the Serbian government arrested, indicted, and put through a process that they call Transitional Justice. And transitional justice is the idea that when you transition a country, when you overthrow its government or you pump up your favorite political party to win the election, it transitions from autocracy to democracy, or it transitions from illiberal democracy to genuine democracy. It's a turnover of government. And we have doctrine, we have a whole field of scholarship at the State Department, at usaid, and that is carried out in covert ways through civil military, DoD and at CIA called Transitional justice, which is weaponizing the Justice Department and creating the criminal predicate to eliminate Your political adversaries you just narrowly vanquished in a nail biter vote in order to stop them from ever rising to power again. And I'll show you some great receipts on this so that everyone can see this with their own eyes. But before I do, let me just flesh this out for a second, which is that every regional desk at the State Department or in the USAID portfolio has to compete every year for their budget. They have to fight for their lives because the people who are at the regional desks around Kyrgyzstan and Georgia, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, they're competing in the budget for what's going to Western Hemisphere, what's going to Argentina and Brazil and Colombia, and they're competing against Sub Saharan Africa. So the cheaper it is to manage the political vassalage of a country, the better. They may have had to ask for a lot more money in the budget one off in election year to run that money through Democracy international or through SEPs or any number of USAID or NAD programs to fund the political party. They want to win. But they can't keep that. They were only given that money because it was a special thing. They're not necessarily going to be able to get that the next time around. And they'll be able to spend money on other soft power goals in the region if they don't have to worry about the other party rising again or doing what Trump just did. Winning, then losing, then winning again. And so Transitional justice is a whole field at State and in the NGO PLEX to make it cheap to manage the course end result of foreign elections by making sure anyone who's a serious challenger to you ends up in jail. And I'm just gonna show you something because it's now in the news. Elon Musk this week tweeted out about a horrible situation where someone from the PIs, the Law and Justice Party in Poland, I believe is now facing arrest for clicking the like button on a social media post.

A (137:46)

Jesus.

B (137:47)

And you know, what was the post? I don't actually know what the post was.

A (137:51)

Was it one of Kanye's?

B (137:54)

I played the fifth. I don't know. But the fact is, is, you know, Poland plays and I've been saying this forever and this is maybe too far afield for the, the narrow topic of discussion today, but Poland plays an absolutely huge, probably the linchpin role in all of Eastern Europe with everything that's happening with Ukraine, because the whole play was to kill Russian gas and then you need an alternative gas supply into Europe to offset that. And there's only Two ways to do that. One is Ukraine builds up its own gas infrastructure and exploits its endogenous hydrocarbon supply, which it has a lot of. It's the third largest in Europe, Europe, but it's underexploited, unfortunately they can't do that right now because Russia reconquered that exact territory in Eastern Ukraine that those sit on. The other way to do that is through exporting LNG liquefied natural gas from North America, from the Permian basin or whatnot in Houston, freezing it, shipping it 6,000, 7,000 miles across the Atlantic, up through the the Baltic Straits, through these newly built routing terminals into Poland and the terminals there, and then routing it there into Slovakia and Ukraine and Central Europe and on from there.

A (139:09)

Doesn't this bring us back to what Mike Johnson said, that Biden had signed an executive order that he hadn't read about liquid natural gas?

B (139:18)

Yeah, well that's interesting because that has to do also with the economics of it. You don't want too much supply because then the profits of the corporations, they're selling it for less margin as the supply goes up. But yeah, the LNG fight is the major one in the energy space. But it's much more expensive for lng. That process, liquefication, transport, deliquefication, transport back is way cheaper than just taking it out of the ground and putting it in a pipeline straight to the customer. The European countries don't want to do this until they were strong armed. And what the State Department and NATO have done is they've selectively bred and financed and politically supported all of the European political parties and candidates who have vowed to basically go forward with this plan and put their country through an energy diversification policy and buy this expensive LNG which has skyrocketed, I should note the profits of many of these Western exporters. So again, there's an argument maybe that's in the US interest if there was that trickle down. But I'll leave that aside. But the point is Poland basically has a veto right on this whole plan because if the Poland government says, hey, you know what, we don't want to antagonize the Russians, the Russians may actually attack us. This is provocative because this is in tandem with the plan to cut off Gazprom. Also, we don't want to become a political vassal state of the US or the UK or NATO. And this is what was starting to happen with the law and order, you know, Law and Justice PIs party in Poland. And so this whole network, the Atlantic Council network, was backing to the full hilt. Donald Tusk, who became the Prime Minister of Poland In, I believe, December 2023. With that context. Jamie, can you pull on screen? I just re upped these receipts. I've been posting this for months. But this is very. Everyone should see this with their own eyes because this gets back to OCCRP and state sponsored media to prosecute people. This gets back to the role of the USAID capacity building the networks around prosecutors here in the US The USAID capacity building the prosecutor networks. And we should get to that on Brazil. But let's. Can we start here with Poland?

A (141:32)

We kind of like bypassed the whole music industry.

B (141:34)

Oh, oh my God. Wait, we've just started on that. Okay, here's an easy one. Look up the US Music diplomacy program.

A (141:43)

So this is. But this is all music overseas or music domestically as well?

B (141:49)

Well, that's the issue is because there's this interplay. So first of all, getting back to the DUA LIPA Atlantic Council thing. So again, essentially, she's calling out human rights abuses from these Balkan governments with a family pedigree and popularity in Kosovo and other places that are hugely in the geopolitical crosshairs right now. And so, and I'm not saying whether it's good or bad, again, I'm not even weighing in on, you know, the humanitarian abuses or whatnot. What I'm saying is, is it's music as an instrument of statecraft. DUA LIPA is. This is the U.S. military, the State Department, USAID, seven CIA directors, the Burisma networks. Because, you know, she's got tens of millions of social media followers, people, you know, who are die hard. Follow her concerts. She's an international superstar and her public for calling out human rights abuses by, you know, these Balkan governments that are in the crosshairs of the US State Department makes it easier to prosecute those political figures. Just like with the OCCRP publishing hit pieces for hire, these people become less popular because the people who love DUA LIPA have to sort of hate those U.S. state Department enemies. This has been going on forever. Okay, Jazz diplomacy. The State Department was doing this with black African jazz musicians to win the soft power war against the Soviet Union in Africa in the 1940s. The State Department was working with Louis Armstrong and most of the major jazz musicians because Russia, the Soviet Union, was making the argument in these newly sovereign, independent African countries who had to pick a side in the great power competition that America was racist. America discriminates against African Americans. There's all this upward mobility limitations. There's no legal. You're underrepresented in the government. The Marxist socialist egalitarian concept of communism will liberate you from the racial inequalities of Western imperialist capitalism. And so to offset that, we did jazz diplomacy. You can pull this up on screen as I talk about this, Jamie, just so you see, this is on state.gov, you can look at up this whole history. I'm telling you, look up US State Department jazz diplomacy. I'm looking it up. Louis Armstrong initially pushed back on it, though. He said, the way they're treating my people in the south, the government can go to hell. Yes, well, many of them did or had a complicated relationship with it. But you can look up everyone. For example, they targeted other African American musicians who were, you know, who are using their platform. Who's the guy who sings Old Man River, Paul? Oh my God. Why am I blanking on the name?

A (144:36)

Dizzy Gillespie.

B (144:37)

Yeah, Dizzy Gillespie headed the first State Department sponsored tour. Okay, but we've. This is every. Joe, I'm telling you, it's every single genre of music.

A (144:45)

Is it rap music as well?

B (144:47)

Oh my God. Rap music. Can I, can I tell the evolution from, from, you know, jazz to classical to rock music to rap?

A (144:53)

Sure.

B (144:54)

So in the 1950s and 60s and again, Jimmy, you can just follow along as I'm saying all this, if you want to put it on screen. There was a big classical music. Shostakovich and other Russian Soviet classical composers were more popular in Europe than American ones were. And these were big aristocratic concerts and elites and they would be listening to Russian, you know, they'd be listening to Russian music and getting to know more Russian culture. And that would come, money would flow into the institutions, prestige would. And so to combat that, the CIA backed front group and this is all public unknown, it's called the Congress for Cultural Freedom sponsored American classical musicians to travel abroad there sponsored classical music concerts in Rome and in Paris and in Germany in order to pump up and sponsor and have our classical musicians be more predominant in distribution or basically dominate at the time where effectively the airwaves in Europe. And nor do that we did the same thing with rock music. For example, I mentioned Pussy Riot and Pussy Riot being backed by USAID and Ned in 2012 in Russia. But also look at the German rock music scene that we were sponsoring these protest rock anthems against authoritarian governments all over the Iron Curtain throughout the Cold War. And in fact we were sponsoring them basically right up against the side of the Berlin Wall as we were taking it down Everyone right now can go on YouTube.com and watch the the documentary called Taking Down a Dictator which is a in depth pro regime change. I think it was PBS who produced it. This is US government funded media where it has in depth interviews with all of the architects of the color revolution against Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s. Working with a group called OATPOR which received $72 million of US taxpayer funding in order to pump up their political operations. Again, I'm not weighing in on whether it was good or bad. I leave it to the audience to make their own determination. But you can see how even in that effectively state sponsored documentary, the State Department's website, it's just going through the years of the. We're going to have a lot more on that when we get to the rap program because they just sponsored 22 rappers and hip hop artists from around the world to personally come to the State Department and be trained in youth engagement and democracy mobilization in their countries and art as activism. 22 rappers from Cameroon, Algeria, France. We'll pull that up as we get to it. But coming back to the. I think we were on the rock music side of it. They were sponsoring this protest rock. Okay, I just lost my thread for a second. I felt like I was.

A (148:13)

Have you ever read that Laurel Canyon book about the CIA's involvement in the rock scene in the 1960s?

B (148:19)

Yeah, yeah. Weird scenes inside the canyon.

A (148:21)

Yeah, yeah.

B (148:23)

I think it would benefit greatly from a lot of the stuff that I'm laying out now to see how these things had a foreign purpose for pumping up a domestic scene and why you see these military interlinkages with all these music promoters. For example, they sent in that Gray Zone article I recommended in Cuba. USAID ran that operation to sponsor protest rap music through a contractor posing as music promoters in Cuba. You know, basically looking at these local rap groups and saying we can make you an international star, baby. You know, type thing. And then they get radio distribution. And this is how you see these Bono types and Sting types who are at every single Save Ukraine conference. Again, not even weighing in on the substance of it. You know, you want distribution, you use, you know, you use it as a battleground. And I'd be remiss if I didn't say this, even though I know that this is going to cause a lot of headlines. But here's a great example of this. The NATO Psychological Operations Planning center in riga, Latvia in 2019. And you can pull this on screen if you type in Taylor Swift, NATO or you type in what was it trained to share messaging or just trained messaging? And I but this was a big news cycle. There was a huge controversy around it. A lot of people misreported it by closing the loops on things that I didn't say but that are open questions about what really happened, which is this sort of Taylor Swift as an instrument statecraft. And the example I give here is. And if you pull this up on screen, Jamie, you'll see this and I have it all underlined. This is a public YouTube right now on NATO's formal website. The Western military alliance they set up this psychological operations strategic communication cell to do Internet censorship and information operations out of after Crimea in Riga, latvia. And in 2019 they held a conference there about how to use AI scanning technology to map out narrative distribution networks on social media, Facebook, Twitter, whatnot. And there's three people who are at this thing. One of them was 77th Brigade from British intelligence who are presenting to NATO. One of them started their career in the Central Intelligence Agency and one of them was put in the description as someone who worked at it was part of the Johns Hopkins School of International affairs school. But that actually was announced on the panel and according to their LinkedIn was actually working at the time for Graphica, which is the. Which does this Internet censorship. They get $7 million from the Pentagon. They were incubated, they were formally incubated inside the Pentagon's Minerva Initiative, which is the psychological Operations Research center center of the Pentagon. When the Pentagon wants to do psychological operations in Africa or in Central Asia, they turn to the thought leadership, the sort of policy planners who pitch ideas about well, you know, these tactics work. So for example, one of the Minerva Initiative grants not to Grafka this group but to others because theirs was for Russiagate stuff, you know, sort of psychological operations, you know, stuff around fighting the hearts and minds of war against Russia. But others in the cohort were how to secure citizen buy in after a crisis event in order to make people trust their government against when we topple the government and people think it's a coup. I mean basically how to get people to trust their government when they're skeptical of it. And then you turn around and see Grafika was partnered with the Atlantic Council as well as the U.S. department of Homeland Security to censor the the 2020 election and partnered with our own NIH to censor Covid. But the fact is all three people on this panel were involved or had a career at one point in intelligence work and specifically at least with two of them psychological Operations and on screen. Jamie, if you can find it, I think you're gonna save us both a lot of headache because everyone will just see it right there in red underline on a YouTube video. Everyone can pull up right now. Let me know if you're having trouble finding it. Just trained to spread maybe, and I'll have this my time. But it literally has a pitch to NATO. I'm not sure what I'm looking for exactly for that video. 2019 NATO conference. Right? Yeah. If you just type in. If you just go to my X feed and you just hit the search bar and you type in Taylor Swift. I'm on YouTube, though. You said to go to YouTube. No, no, my ex feed is the best way to search it. But it has a picture on that slide deck where again, this is psychological operations planners pitching to NATO, the world, you know, the Western world's military alliance. And the slide has a picture of Taylor Swift. And it says, basically says something like. And when the receipts are. Well, screen, you'll read it directly. It says example of celebrities who can be trained to spread desired messaging. I think that was the exact phrase. Trained to spread desired messaging. And the presenter goes over the drawbacks of this and how. And you know, we need to decide some of the moral efficacy of this. But basically saying that, you know, Taylor Swift has worked in various things before that have been empirically shown to move the needle on government initiatives. For example, her get out the vote. You know, her get out the vote work, increase the vote. Her public health campaign stuff bought by. And there. Well, don't. That video has a lot of curse. Okay, yeah, pause right there. Okay, no, no, no, scroll up, scroll up right there. Pause right there. And if you see that goal. Identify key actors to train and spread desired messaging. This is on NATO's. We pay for NATO. We paid for this to be pitched. Now here's where some of this story got misreported. I don't know that anyone from NATO directly reached out to Taylor Swift or her campaign to do that. And if they did, this would not be formalized in a formal Pentagon grant or quid pro quo. But I should note, look at who the biggest sponsor of south by Southwest is in Texas. Now. It's the military. Go ahead and look up the scandal if you want, about south by Southwest Pentagon funding. They've taken over the music industry because it's hearts and minds work. Okay, I guess that just happened in 2024. Let's see if you go to. Okay, so this has caused so much problems for the past couple years that I guess they're now reforming this. But if you run a Boolean search for before 2024, you'll see this. But basically the Pentagon, or if you scroll down, maybe it might be right there. So it caused this big boycott because the Pentagon in tandem with this music diplomacy program and these US aid backing of these things. Okay, well that's a US army in Palestine one. But you'll see the numbers on this. Basically the Pentagon moves into this and just like they were giving Dua LIPA the awards, just like they're working with Pussy Riot, just like they have 22. In fact, you can look this up if you want. The State Department Music Diplomacy Program 22, Rappership, Hip Hop. You'll see again, these people become network nodes. They become assets to play with with. And an incredible example of this that I hesitate to discuss here because I know that the organization that these documents leaked from is contesting these documents, but there's evidence to suggest the same play around recruiting the hip hop artists in Cuba and you know, in El Salvador. Here you go, breakdancing news. Diplomacy meets hip hop as 22 artists visit the U.S. okay, this is the U.S. state Department. We are paying to recruit them as assets. So when they go. And go ahead, look at the country list if you want. Look how far and wide this is to the edges of the earth, you know, Mongolia, Cameroon, you know, there's a whole thing here. But basically it was protest rock. You know, it was protest rap. In Cuba for that USAID operation, it was protest rap. There's language, for example, in this Gray zone report around Bangladesh. And I'll leave it to the current fight between them and the National Endowment for Democracy about the nature of those documents. But you know, those documents that the Gray Zone published have two rap songs in Bangladesh that have lines like they were designed to inspire anti government sentiment and to promote street protests and political reform. I mean, literally writing rap albums to get people to take to the streets and pull off the exact riot that the State Department wants to destabilize the country. And music penetrates. I mean, this is what they got really attached to this during the Cold war and the 1980s because it's. And in fact, in those documents they talk about how sponsoring individual artists is actually sometimes a lot more effective because they do art and activism while they're doing. They're putting on these festivals, they're promoting an agenda at the festivals, while they are putting these songs on radio distribution and supercharging. They're their brand. Those Songs have themes and messages about taking down authoritarian governments and the people gotta rise up. And you know, and you know, we have to represent the will of the people. We have to, you know, end poverty, you know, and then they'll make the argument it's the government's fault that there's poverty. We have to end racial or gender inequality. And then the State Department or USAID will be working through its demographic segmentation with those exact groups. This is another reason we've been pumping up these, these feminist groups and these LGBT groups. If you want, for example, you can pull up the WikiLeaks CIA Red Cell memo that showed how the CIA pitched to the State Department during the Afghanistan war that the best way to shore up additional funds from European parliaments is to transition states media octopus messaging from a national security predicate for the war to a, to a feminism and a women's empowerment one because of fieldwork and polling from the Central Intelligence Agency around Europe showed that European parliaments and voting demographics felt said on surveys that they were more willing to give money or wanted to give more money from their own government coffers, their own taxpayer funds to the war in Afghanistan if it was about stopping repression against women or if it was about giving women more rights in the society and whatnot. And so that wasn't because the CIA loves feminism. Now this was a cold, calculated instrument of statecraft to shift the messaging and then also to work with these exact groups who have that cleavage point axe to grind against their country as part of the mobilizations. This is how you see a lot of these women's marches and women's protests, or you see a lot of these sort of protected class ones because that also gets you the human rights predicate to add sanctions and other protected speech measures. This is why the State Department pushed Facebook to put hate speech provisions in place to stop hate speech against the Rohingya.

A (160:29)

One of the things that's come up that has been talked about quite a bit over the last couple of years is that the government had some sort of an influence on the emergence of gangsta rap and the promotion of it. What do you know about that?

B (160:47)

I don't have a good record in the 80s and 90s. There's a lot of strange things there. And I want to tell you what I really feel. It is highly controversial though. And I, I'm not sure with everything else that we're covering and some of the other things that I'd like to be able to just hit before the conversation concludes about USAID's control and influence over prosecutors. And an example in Brazil since I know that a lot of people in.

A (161:18)

Brazil, I really want to get to Brazil.

B (161:19)

Okay, I'm gonna get in a lot of trouble if I say when you read that National Endowment for Democracy. Oh, we didn't do the Poland one. Can we circle back to this in one second before.

A (161:36)

Yes.

B (161:36)

Just because this really is an appropriate international incident to talk about this here. If you go to my X feed and you just type in Search Poland or the word PIs as a one off or you can just scroll down, you'll see I re upped it earlier this morning. You're going to see the National Endowment for Democracy's in house journal called the Journal of Democracy Again. The NED is this CIA front group. The New York Times reported the CIA gets a copy of every grant that they make. Their own founders say that the CIA got in trouble for sponsoring pro democracy groups around the world in the 1960s and that's why we don't do it anymore. And that's why the National Endowment was, was created basically to take the baton from the CIA during that transition between Carter anti CIA and Reagan pro CIA. This was the compromise between left and right in that that's why they have two political cores, IRI and NDI. But can you pull that back up? Okay. USAID's partner in operations arm national down for Democracy has been specifically demanding Donald Tusk's government in Poland must find ways to arrest high ranking members of the PIs party in order to quote, stamp out populist. They wrote this the first month in office. So. And again, you'll see this is responding to someone facing three years for flag bus. Now let's click on this again. We pay as taxpayers for the production of National Endowment for Democracy's in house journal the Journal of Democracy. So can you zoom out, just zoom out a little bit. I want you to see this. Yeah, there you go. Perfect. How to dismantle in a liberal Democracy. So again, NATO was at war with the PIs party. They wanted more cooperation on, on security, on economic issues. Whole other can of worms. They wanted Donald Tusk, the pro eu, super pro NATO candidate to win. He wins the month, he takes office. This is December 2023. National Endowment for Democracy. The CIA publishes this think piece how to dismantle in a Liberal Democracy. And again I think formally what's published here is supposed to. Not technically it's published in the NED publication doesn't mean it's NED foreign policy. But this is what they're Publishing and you're paying for how did. So they're saying, listen, it's not an autocracy in Poland, unfortunately we can't call it a dictator like Putin or the ccp. It's democracy because the people voted for it and they won fair and square. But it's illiberal democracy because the democratic institutions don't, you know, are not having their way. But here's what it says Poland may be saying on its first steps in quote, stamping out populism and holding those responsible for the worst violations of rule of law. That means the criminal justice system. Now get to the next one. Next slide. Poland's new government must therefore do more than just return to liberal democracy. It must address trend, address transitional justice. The same thing all over every USAID operation. It has to arrest the people from the government we just transitioned from. Prime Minister Tusk and his coalition must again not, not should, not maybe, should consider maybe if there's something there must stabilize the political system mean ensure the reign against losing in the next election to ensure that populism does not return in the next election. Donald Trump is a populist. President Bolsonaro is a populist. President Marine Le Pen is populist in France. Matteo Savini's populist in Italy. The Vox party is populist. This is State Department and USAID policy everywhere and this is part of the can of worms that's going to have to be unwoven here. But this is a direct order that in order to make sure you win the next election and we don't need to keep funding you or projecting our lending our soft power apparatus to prop you up. Arrest these people so they can't run against you again, go to the next one. Can you zoom out? It's not just telling them that you must do it it if you want to get US aid support like the, you know, the Ukraine, you know, Ukraine burisma loan type thing. But here's what it says. The new government should therefore focus attention on whether and how suspective normals can be punished. At present there are a number of cases that should be tried immediately. The chutzpah. The frigging chutzpah. This is a foreign, as far as the Polish people's people are concerned, this is a foreign government, its foreign CIA front apparatus imploring their own elected government about which citizens there that they need to arrest those citizens and even giving them the list of targets. Imagine if the Russian Ministry of Affairs sent Donald Trump said, not only do you have to, you know, arrest the remnants of the of the Kamala Harris Joe Biden campaign. But we're giving you the list of target names. Here's who Pam Bondi the attorney general must file criminal indictments against. This is an international incident. Again, technically I believe what's published here is not, they're not supposed to be, you know, does not represent. It's like retweets are not endorsements. But you're paying for this organization, you're paying for this journal and this is what they're publishing as a command to a foreign country. This was a Trump ally, by the way, the PIs party, which is another part of this. Ned is doing a boomerang attack by preventing PIs popularity in Poland. They do a boomerang attack against the foreign policy international coalition that Trump has. So here are the cases. These include the 2015 appointment of judges. So going arresting people for appointing judges. Here's another one. To arrange a supposedly unconstitutional presidential election by mail in voting during the pandemic. WTF we hate. It was practically a crime to not support mail in voting with the national end for democracy here. But over there they're saying it's a crime to have done it and then.

A (167:31)

You know, arrange a supposedly unconstitutional president election by mail in voting during the pandemic. Wow.

B (167:38)

Yes. And again, we can get all into this usaid, Ned Rabbit's nest and all the domestic entanglements of all. And also the 2023 visa scandal. Oh yeah, this is the same thing they do. Have you ever seen Alejandro Mayorkas visa scandal from when he was in the Obama DHS and he was the deputy there? You can pull this up on Google, I believe it's 2015. The guy who was our head of DHS, which is the domestic interplay with all these foreign blob organizations, was busted by his own Inspector General doing FastPass. No, look, expedited visas for Obama political donors. And not putting it through the process just to. And the visa scandals are all over this. It was John Brennan as CIA station chief by the way in Saudi Arabia in the romp to 911 who together with the US consulate issued the visas to 15 of the 19911 hijackers. That was our visas. Now look, There were only 11 of the 19 were Saud. They were actually giving Saudi visas to non Saudis. 15 of the 19. You can read all about this in the guy who ran the visa desk for that US Consulate is J. Michael Springman. He wrote a book called Visas for Terrorists where he goes over how the whole thing was done. But wait, wait, I'm not done. There's one more on that. Can you pull up the fourth thing? Because it's a doozy. So go to the, go to the next one. These are just illustrative tips cases and maybe just the tip of the iceberg of who our CIA front group, our US Aid operations arm is saying must be done naturally. The leader of the Law and Justice Party himself, the democratically elected president. Hey, does what happened to Donald Trump now after the transitional justice that happened when Biden Justice Department took power. Starting to make a little bit more sense now. Should be held responsible. But legally proving allegations against him will likely be difficult. Damn. The problem is we don't have a case. We want to arrest him, but we actually don't really have anything good to get him on. So let's get all his lieutenants. And again, the objective pacification, stability, you don't need to worry about them winning the next election. Populism as a, a political possibility in Poland will be stamped out because the intelligence networks and the money arm of USAID and the corrupted and warped prosecutors are all on the take.

A (170:13)

Jesus.

B (170:15)

By the way, multiply this problem basically in every country on earth because you know, we can get to a dozen of these. Here's a fun, can I do a fun exercise real quick? Go to google.com and just, you know, I mentioned this exercise before and just literally we're just going to go maybe five, six pages and just read what, what pops up. And I haven't even fully done this exercise. I'm just, I'm so confident in what I'm about to say that we can do it live. Go to Google and type in usaid. And then again, Boolean quotes the phrase, quote, judicial reform. And I can also show you, I've showed something. Okay, all right, so here you go. Let's just go through a list of countries that we are, we are seizing the judiciary. We are influencing the judges, the courts, the legal system, the criminal justice system, the prosecutors. Okay, let's just start at the top. Okay, so what is that country? Click on that link for a second then go back in the project in the Republic. What republic is that? Okay, Serbia. Oh, what do you know? We're back to Dua Lipa. Can't stop now. All right, so, so we are, we are. So that Atlanta Council Distinguished Leadership Award is starting to make a little bit more sense now. There is an in process attempt to basically bribe and co opt the very same criminal justice system that our state sponsored musical performers I shouldn't say sponsors. Our state awarded ones are calling to take action against. Okay, let's look at. What's the next one? This one didn't come up. They gave me a blank page. I mean the website's done. I don't know if they do it for advancing EU integration. Can we just see the country name in number two? Okay, EU integration. That's like for example, they want to fold the Ukraine into the eu, Right? There's been a big thing about this. Join the market, also join NATO. That's what this is. How do we get the criminal justice system on board with basically criminalizing opposition to it? Okay, and we can keep, wait, just keep scrolling down. We're just going to do this for four or five pages. I just want to, you know like literally every single one of these is a government program. Okay, so here, there, that, that one above was DRC with Democratic Republic of Congo. Okay, we're how we are taking over the court systems in, in Congo. All right, go on, go on to the next page. Or here? Okay, yeah, next page. Okay, so let's see here. Okay, more on, more on Congo. Okay. Uzbekistan. We're doing this in Uzbekistan. Albania. We're doing it in Albania. Yeah, keep scrolling down here. Let's see. El Salvador. We were doing it in El Salvador. This is one of the reasons you can imagine Bukele was the first one on X to say, oh my God, there's no more rental rights in El Salvador anymore. And why was USAID so opposed to what we were doing, getting rid of the drug networks. Okay, here's for Ukraine, here's for Central America. Here's more for Serbia, here's for Georgia. This is stock standard doctrine. It's the same USAID Truman show everywhere we go. This thing has been dialed in for 60 years. And that's why I say it's gonna take 50 years to untangle this. Cuz you're gonna run to political headwinds the whole time. You don't think you're gonna have money flowing back. By the way, they're gonna go straight to their partners in Europe and around the world to do top up funding for what they lose from usaid. For example, they might go to the European Endowment for Democracy. They might go. The EU may have to start making funds to these US anti Trump networks. They may have to tap into their allies in China or their allies and other Central American or South American governments. But mark my words, that USAID Truman show, that joint, these censors in exile, these regime changers in exile right now are going to glob on to every international ally they humanly can. They will be pressurizing the United nations, they'll be pressurizing multilateral organizations like NATO, the EU and even some of these economic development pacts to use the critical components they have there and sometimes dominant spot they have there to weaponize those assets. And that gets back to this sort of EU fight. But I can pause and move to Brazil if.

A (174:31)

Pause, I have to pee.

B (174:33)

Okay.

A (174:33)

When I come back, rap music. Brazil.

B (174:35)

Yeah. All right, back.

A (174:37)

So first, hip hop.

B (174:39)

Yeah.

A (174:40)

Okay. The thing that you think you're gonna get in trouble for.

B (174:42)

Oh, you're gonna make me do this?

A (174:45)

Well, you already teased it.

B (174:53)

I think it was the 2009 National national down for Democracy, the Cuba Rap Journal of democracy article that I believe was co authored by Ned's founder Carl Gershman, who openly said that Ned does what the CIA used to do, that they effectively took the baton from it. And again, the CIA has copies, according to the Washington Post and New York Times of every grant Ned makes. When you look at the analysis, the in house analysis done by Ned, there's that there was this dense interplay between the Afro Cuban population and the drug networks in Cuba. And then you look at the role of hip hop and drug culture in retailing. What is wholesaled in, obviously usaid, CIA, Pentagon narco networks. Like for example, we talked about the Mujahideen narco network. They even set up a CIA bank right there to back it. We did the same thing in 1960. You know, USAID set up in 1961, at the very moment, two weeks before USAID was created, JFK awarded the Green Beret to the Special Forces just two weeks before that. Then he creates us. That was October 1961, November 1961, he creates USAID. December 1961, one month after he launches Operation Pincushion in Laos for the US Special forces to train and recruit hillside guerrillas in Laos who are primarily funded by the drug networks that they sit on in the Golden Triangle. They sat on the opium of the Golden Triangle and the way they financed their own guerrilla war, CIA backed war. And this is all well known. Ving Pao was the CIA, was the commander there of the CIA mercenary rebel forces there. This is 1961 to 1967. In this period that I'm talking about, Special forces go over there to recruit these hillside guerrillas. They form an army. Vingpao is made the head of it. This is going to connect to the RAP thing in a sec Ving Pao was financing the CI's mercenary army by retailing the opium from Laos into these networks in Southeast Asia, like these CI proprietary banks. Everyone can look up Nugent Hand bank or Castle bank and Trust, these CIA banks that were set up to launder basically drug proceeds. And they all got in a lot of trouble for this a few decades ago. Now the problem was is they couldn't sell enough because they were a scrappy little upstart group of hillside guerrillas. So what did USAID do in, in 1967, this is the 1960s, how long this has been going on? So they were recruited by Special Forces. They were managed by the Central Intelligence Agency. USAID provided the financing. And this is all according to, and in the Senate testimony of Professor Alfred McCoy, this book called the Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. He's testified from the Senate Senate Foreign relations committee in 1972. He detailed all this in his book. But USAID financially provided the financial assistance for Ving Pao and his narco terrorist network to purchase two airplanes from two CIA proprietary companies. One of them was Air America. Another one was Continental Air Services. Both of these have been revealed in subsequent years to be CIA proprietary airlines. So the CIA commander, the commander of the CIA rebel army buys two planes from two CIA airlines and then uses them to traffic and retail the drugs by selling them to the market in Vietnam, where we had Special Forces boots on the ground. So basically it was wholesaled by the CIA in that case, and then it was. The logistics for that network were provided by usaid and then it was retailed to poor unsuspecting souls all over Southeast Asia. Play the same game in the Golden Crescent with Afghanistan. Play the same game with the cocaine trade in its route from Peru and Bolivia up into Colombia and then up into the distribution networks in Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, you name it. When you start having organized crime and drugs and drugs as the front end, that retails the products and services that are wholesale, then part of a intelligence or military operation. You can't sell those drugs by having someone with a Department of Defense ID badge on the street corner on 187th and Broadway. There are retail networks for that. And that is the role of many of these drug mule and organized crime networks all over the world. And I have serious concerns about networks in Chicago. I mean, Gary Webb obviously wrote all about this in Dark alliance. And there's, there's all sorts of fantastic books on all this. If you want to read more like Operation Gladio by Paul Williams. And I mean, there's so much in this field. But the role of narcotics in financing black budget military covert operations in every major place they spring is a black box. That is not my crusade, frankly. Again, I wish we didn't even go here because but I do feel like you do need to have a side eye glimpse into some of these worlds to understand Internet censorship because you are going to find US aid NGOs. If Bukele had not done the radical reforms that he had had, the Internet would have been completely censored by USAID and the State Department in order to rig hearts and minds against against him because they would want to stop him from cleaning out these drug gangs. He would stop him from cleaning up the crime. You're going to see the same thing about fact checkers in Pakistan. For example, according to the grey zone report on USAID and NED in Bangladesh. And in fact this is actually I believe on the US Embassy in in Pakistan's US Embassy in Pakistan's website, the countering misinformation training seminar they had with the guy who's now the top foreign advisor in Pakistan and they brought in the executive director of PolitiFact, flew him all the way out to the US embassy in Pakistan to train journalists about how to counter misinformation. These same journalist training seminars we're seeing internews do we see seps do you know, we see the Atlanta Council do. But I come back to the US Institute for Peace on a live URL as we speak, not even two years ago made an impassioned plea to the Taliban to keep 95% of the world's heroin flowing. You have to explain that to the American people. That is the State department's policy. If U.S. institute of Peace is not going to go rogue against the State Department foreign policy there because they're funded by the State Department. You see the same thing with these ISIS terrorist drug narco networks. Anyone remember the WikiLeaks email Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. ISIS is on our side in Syria. Well, that means the more of those poppy crops that get retailed off to ISIS networks, the more powerful and well financed they are, the more they can pay their soldiers or stop their soldiers from defecting from being mercenaries. And lo and behold, that same network just toppled the Syrian government. And I should note structuring through USAID is the sauce to this because there is a sitting tweet from the US embassy in Syria from 2017 when Trump was wiping out ISIS that put a $10 million bounty on the head of Mohammad Al Jelani, the commander of those forces, the current basically head of state in the interim government in Syria. There was a $10 million bounty on his head under Trump. They made the argument that his HTS group was an Al Qaeda spinoff and no Al Qaeda allowed. Well, according to his own military generals who said this openly in mainstream media after the fact, we were constantly playing shell games with the numbers to hide the troop activity and you know, and what we were doing on the ground in Syria and the broader region. If you don't need a presidential finding to finance a terrorist group or a paramilitary group, it's too dirty for CIA. President won't approve, Run it through usa.

A (184:19)

And what does this have to do with hip hop?

B (184:21)

Well, you have these narco networks like for example, like what I was saying about the USAID bought the airplanes for the wholesalers to move it to the retailers. And when you have this intersection between hip hop and the drug economy, hip hop popularizing it, you know, you have a lot of these rappers who've said, you know, we were told by our promoters or our managers to, you know, lean into that stuff. You have the whole organized crime gang. I'll give you an example. This is in Gary Web Stark alliance where he goes through this network from, you know, basically the CIA and the Defense Department playing a leading role in propping up these narcotics trades in South America because they were pumping up right wing death squads and right wing paramilitary narco gang networks that were violent and effectively shut down left wing Marxist theology movements who were considered to be pro Soviet. This is how you have a lot of this, for example, with Iran Contra and the Reagan years. So he makes a very compelling case about the role of, of the US intelligence community at the wholesale level in Peru and Bolivia and at the actual processing in Colombia and then the movement and transport to the gangs in Los Angeles and Miami and Chicago and the like. And that wholesale movement effectively goes from Langley Crystal City in D.C. d.C. Virginia to a sort of Hispanic population in South America into other, into gangs that are retailing it into these Compton gangs, into these Chicago and Miami and New York ones. You have a culture of drug use that creates a market for selling the proceeds so that drugs can be turned into cash which can then be used to purchase guns. And when you see this just liquid seamlessness there and then, I don't want to tax Jamie too much, but this gray zone report in Bangladesh has specific language with the National Endowment for Democracy and one of its subarms making explicit grants to Bangladeshi rap groups. For the explicit purpose of getting people to take to the streets in street riots and protest movements and to undermine public faith and public confidence and favorable sentiment for the then in power Bangladeshi government. They were targeting the youth movements. Remember when we pulled up the 22 hip hop artists on screen and the whole thing was about youth mobilization. These people form the front end of the destabilization.

A (187:32)

So your argument is essentially that this game plan is ubiquitous and that this game plan is done in the United States too to promote drug use and drug selling, which they profit off of.

B (187:44)

I'm not even going that far. What I'm saying is there's a useful role of music and other artistic and cultural ventures for creating a market for something that helps US statecraft. For example, this is the major, major scandal. The head of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Deutsch, had to travel to Compton in 1997, I believe that was the year in order to plead with the black population there that what had happened with the CIA's role in the drug trade was a sort of occasional one off accident. Wasn't authorized, wasn't supposed to happen. But the fact is, is those narco networks supported the Nicaraguan Contra movement. You needed a market to sell it. And those were inner city urban populations in Los Angeles that were, they weren't the ones growing the cocaine that was grown in Peru and Bolivia and then it was processed in Colombia and then it was, you know, that's all that.

A (188:49)

Stuff that Michael Rupert exposed.

B (188:51)

Yeah, there's been a million and it's everywhere you look. And it's not just south. Again, I don't want to, you know, this stuff is all to me, just interesting. I don't have a hard opinion on it. I almost don't want to take away from so much of the important factual stuff where I have the receipts on screen. But what I'm saying is you are going to see resistance from very strange pox pockets as you do this disentangling process. How many people knew that an arm of the State Department right next door to it, that gets all of its money from the State Department, who sets the foreign policy is telling the Taliban to keep the drug networks open or that same arm is going after Bukele when he tries to arrest the drug criminals in El Salvador, which by the way was the most intense of these narco right wings death squads during the Cold War. And we pump up every cultural vector we can again watch Taking Down a Dictator, that documentary and look at the role of music in the State Department's eyes. In being able to galvanize street protest movements, gets everyone on the street united, gets everyone listening to the same thing. They're all sort of aligned like a magnet. I mean, even look at places like the Azov Battalion and how they sort of grew out of this black metal, rap, Black metal music coalition with highly extremist lyrics and whatnot. In Ukraine, the same sort of extremist lyrics you saw in the Bangladeshi rap songs or the call to take to the streets and the Cuban ones. And again, this has been going on a long time. Look at the lyrics of a Pussy Riot song and remember, they literally are standing at the Secretary of State's podium arm in arm with the U.S. state Department while. And everyone can look up CIA's role in rock and whatnot. There's great Guardian articles about all this as well. But it's more to say coming back to this USA Truman show, that everything and anything can be an instrument of statecraft left, whether that's prosecutors, the universities, the unions, the media, the social media, arts, dance. This is where you get these transgender dance festivals and this demographic segmentation, you know, to see who hates the government. Well, if the government is cracking down on transgenderism or is not kind to it, or they feel like, you know, they want more rights, that's a useful demographic as a cleavage point for the US State Department to capacity building, flow money to so that they can be used as a battering ram. And I'm not endorsing that, but that is just why we work.

A (191:38)

I understand what you're saying. Okay, we're running out of time, so let's get to Brazil.

B (191:42)

Yeah. Okay. So, Jamie, I sent you a bunch of these screenshots that my foundation is going to be publishing in our final report. But I wanted to just go through these here because we've been talking about the role of, of the criminal justice system more than anything. You know, media is rigged. Okay? It's a headline, it's a reputational smudge. It can cost you your job. When the criminal justice system and the judges are rigged and the prosecutors are rigged, you don't even have a country anymore because they can arrest the President, they can arrest the politicians, and it's a shortcut to control over the whole side. And we, we went through examples with Ukraine, Burisma, Serbia. We went through that whole exercise. But Jamie, if you can pull on screen, we can just go through the text messages. This will be the last thing of USAID's role with the judiciary in Brazil and specifically against Bolsonaro, who is Targeted by these anti misinformation populist president. Populist, right wing populist. They called him the Trump of the tropics. Same thing. Part of that same international coalition. Let me know if you have any trouble, okay? Okay. Yeah, well, maybe if you start with the first one. Actually, I think this is it. Unless I'm the wrong way. Yeah, if you know. Okay, maybe scroll down. Do you see the ones where you. Where you have, where you have the lead judge. Your phone number too. Because if I put the wrong thing on the screen, your phone number is going to show. Oh, yeah, sure. Okay, so how about just the pictures with the pan? Okay, here you go. So, yeah, we can start. We start with that one right there. That image right there. Does that guy look familiar? This is the Lord, actually. He actually looks kind of like a mixture of both of us, Joe. It's kind of funny, but this is the man that they call the Lord Voldemort, judge of Brazil. This is the head of the tsc, the Censorship court, which is the subgroup of their Supreme Court. And here you see a seminar that he is being trained in. Where is. Does that name ring a bell? Seps, how many hours have you and I now spent Talking about the SEPs program, the USAID program that explicitly set its job to get foreign countries and foreign courts to pass censorship laws. This is USAID funded and implemented by the National Endowment for Democracy. This is seps.org, but this gets much. If you go back to the panel, I'll show you more on this. Okay, here's another one. SEPs core partner, Ifez. This is basically the election strengthening, teaming up directly with Brazil's TSE court. That is the censorship court that seized X's, that shut down X and that seized Starlink's assets and that effectively criminalized the speech of virtually any significant Pro Bolsonaro voice in Brazil. This is our USAID network doing the training, doing the networking. And if you go back, I'm just gonna show a couple more of these. Okay. This is Internews. Internews who we covered $500 million from USAID every single year in Brazil doing training seminars for how to flag Pro Bolsonaro disinformation. I can go on and on. I got layers of all these different judges and the pitches to the prosecutors to arrest it. The whole thing was a USA Truman show taking over the judiciary, or at least substantially influencing and tilted to take out their political enemy Bolsonaro the whole way down.

A (195:22)

And X is still banned in Brazil?

B (195:25)

No, I Believe X, you know, entered into compliance by taking certain actions.

A (195:33)

So they have to censor.

B (195:35)

Yes, I believe, yes. They're still subject to the edicts of the court, I should note.

A (195:40)

Okay, lift ban October 8th after it pays a $5 million fine.

B (195:45)

Right, right, but and by the way.

A (195:48)

The ban is in place essentially to keep Bolsonaro from regaining power.

B (195:52)

Well, right, well, they wanted to make sure that again, it's the same thing with Poland. They want to achieve stability, democratic stability, so that he can't rise. Hugely popular right now. It was a razor close election. And remember, we pull a lot of tricks in order around that. And you're gonna find a lot more of that when you look into the role of unions like the national for Democracy Solidarity center and the whole suite there. Remember, we literally pulled favors with Taiwan. This is reported in the Financial Times. In order to get them the semiconductor chips to build the voting machines against Bolsonaro's wishes, the head of the CIA went down and threatened him. Bill Burns did. The head of the Pentagon went down and you met with the army to tell them you have to trust the result of the election. Lloyd Austin, the head of the Pentagon, we're saying the head of the CIA, the head of the military, we're running semiconductor chips just so that they can make make voting machines that the elected head of state doesn't want. And then we're funding their workers movements.

A (196:58)

Through so we have a very specific outcome that we want. And then we also make sure that they use voting machines that we provide.

B (197:05)

I'm not even weighing into the voting machine issue, except to say that it's very strange that we would divert semiconductor supplies bound for the US during a critical shortage and give them to a foreign government to put in voting machines that the elected head of state doesn't want. That's a very curious thing. You can read about all the inside details of that published in the Financial Times and other places.

A (197:27)

Jesus. It's also daunting. It's so overwhelming. How do you sleep?

B (197:38)

Mostly I don't. But we have an opportunity. We've already done more than anyone has ever done. No foreign facing government agent, no cog in the wheel of this dirty tricks apparatus has ever had 14,099.8% of the workforce laid off. The name taken off the building from a month in terms of the lightning speed of it. But I feel a sense of hope and optimism and a kind of spiritual fulfillment, if that's too big a phrase to say. But you don't see me happy or doing cartwheels or it doesn't really show on my face because I know the scale and the duration of this fight is going to continue for the rest of my lifetime. And so I don't. This is not a sprint, period. We're running fast, but it's a marathon the whole way.

A (198:46)

What's unbelievably baffling to me is the complete absence of the coverage of all these things that should be very concerning in mainstream media. Complete absence, absence. All the discussion, the negative anti Trump discussion about USAID shutting down is all the good that it does. And then also you're going to get access to people's private data. That's all you're hearing. You're hearing the gaslighting spin is those two things, right?

B (199:19)

But every single one of those people need to understand the category. They talk about public health and all the lives and how many more people are going to have have AIDS and HIV. In 2014, USAID was busted running a covert operation where according to their own people who were involved in the operation, they set up an HIV prevention program in foreign countries. Because it would be the perfect excuse. Because counterintelligence would never think that the HIV clinics were the place that they were using as keynotes in the regime change network. How many other facilities they were caught there, how many other. But in every single one of those, it's dual purpose. Because the fundamental reason you do this out of US Aid is to dupe people. And this puts our oversight bodies in a difficult spot. Let's just say we're funding transgender dance festivals in some country because turns out they really dislike a government that we consider authoritarian. And so you could actually see a sort of, I don't know the situation in Venezuela, but let's just say that the Trump administration, who's been at war with Maduro and wants to pursue a policy of turning over that governed. And it just so happens that that government is persecuting the transgender population. And the transgender population, if they could just be built up more, would be able to convert more hearts and minds to vote against Maduro. Well, you could see a sort of, if I may say again, I'm not saying this should be done. I'm just saying you could see a sort of MAGA foreign policy explanation for funding transgender dance festivals in Venezuela, if that's what the baseline assessment reveals. The problem is American people are never going to be allowed to know about it because imagine the Senate Oversight Committee, why are we funding these transgender dance festivals in Venezuela? Oh, actually, because we're running a Lie there. By the way, everyone in Venezuela can watch this live hearing. The whole thing is actually a carefully constructed lie because we're cynically exploiting the transgender people to serve as battering rams against the head of state we want to overthrow. But we have not declared that publicly. I mean, we're back to plausible deniability.

A (201:28)

Jesus, this is a lot. I think it's probably good to end right here.

B (201:36)

Okay.

A (201:36)

But thank you, Mike. Thank you for everything. Thanks for being you. I don't think a lot of people would chase this down like this. And I know this is a lot of weight. It's a quite a burden that you're carrying, but, I mean, I think you're being vindicated in, like, a scale that I've never seen before. It's pretty. It's pretty impressive. And all the stuff that you were talking about before all these documents were exposed, before the DOGE went into usaid, you were dead right about all of it.

B (202:04)

Thank you. And again, I don't want to get you in trouble with this stuff. You know, some of the topics that we talked about, like the drug stuff and the rap stuff and the, you know, some of the terrorism stuff is not my primary focus. I'm not making hard facial claims there. I don't care about the Taylor Swift thing. It's frankly, it's just fascinating that you would see that on a native. Like, this is what I care about is what we talked about with its control over media, it's control over prosecutors, it's control over social media and pushing, you know, social media censorship and these sorts of things that. That we have a once in a lifetime chance to reform. And I want to thank you and express my personal gratitude for having these difficult and I'm sure taxing conversations to crack it all open.

A (202:49)

My pleasure.

B (202:50)

Thank you.

A (202:51)

All right, bye, everybody.