USAID Whistleblower: ‘Harvard Helped the CIA Do This…’ | Mike Benz

You need a middleman, a guy who's got the money and the connections in order to juice this deal in the background while the US government is covertly midwifing it, but publicly denying links to this. And this is the role. Now Bruce Rappaport, there's a funny story. If you go back to the pipeline in high places, the high intrigue article that I think the New York Times won that you had pulled up earlier, what you'll see there is a funny rundown of what ended up happening behind the scenes in this one. This is January 31st, 1988, pipeline deal and intrigue. So what ends up happening here is if you look at, if you just go, yes, but Miss Israel, the Central Intelligence Agency, if you run a search for overseas, you'll see there's something called the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Just Overseas is one word. Overseas in that article, Joe. Yeah, in that article. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That request prompted Bechtel to explore the idea of insurance with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the United States government agency that ensures projects against political risks. Yes. So this is a US, and I know it has the word corporation, but this is a US government agency, a formal US government agency. So it got corporation in the name because it's like USAID, but for contracts, for loans. And so in theory, the US Treasury gets a cut of development work. That's done. So today, in 2019, Trump actually changed the name of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. He merged it with another branch of USAID to create what's called the US International Development Finance Corporation, which is the successor to this. It's the same entity. It should be noted that the development finance corporation today is being staffed by the head of his Ben Black. Ben Black is the son of Leon Black. The $257 million financier of Epstein for the last seven years of his lifetime. Yes. To Apollo Global. Yes. You can see how these networks are the same today. Damn it. Yes. Yeah. Leon Black paid $170 million to Epstein after the first conviction. Yeah. He said that he's got some insane accusations against them too, beyond that, involving some, I mean, impropriety doesn't even begin to describe it. Well, he was a big time Republican donor, VIP at Trump's inauguration. Oh, that's reassuring. And his son is now the head of this same unit that's been involved in all these things for decades. Why is Trump doing it? I try to look at this mic and I don't want to skip ahead of here. We'll come right back to what you're saying. But when you think of every possible thing that a very, very guilty person would do in a scenario of being confronted with some accusations, Trump is doing that. And his tracks are even showing that in like a comedic way almost, he has laid the foundation of just guilt back to the substein guy. So much so even that like, now he's having health problems out of nowhere. I've seen that a million times before a guilty. It starts overtaking your body like, what the fuck is he doing? That's a, that's a longer conversation. I have a lot of thoughts on that. I do. I feel like getting through some of the facts of this. All right. Let's start like we'll make that discussion a little bit more productive. But if you want to pull this up and this is going to get back to our USA thing, if in a new tab, if you just pull up Ben Black, DFC USAID, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about about how this is, you know, Epstein is not dead. The past is not dead. It's not even the past. If you just go to Google and just type in Ben Black, Leon Black, USAID, DFC, you'll see what I mean here. I need to hear Riz Burke back in here to talk about the simulation theory on that. Yeah, if you just do that, like in a new tab. He's got his own and over. Leon Black. He likes to prove himself and watch. Well, go to Google. There's a very specific one that, yeah, just type in like Ben Black, Leon Black, DFC USAID. Boom. Yeah, go down, down. Yeah. Yeah. Benjamin Black weighs shift in USA funding. Try that one. Here you go. What will become of USAID? Yeah, just put that in. He's going on. He's going on. He's going on. He's going on. And what you'll see is, you know how I was saying we had to run through these networks because there was no USAID. You know, for Iran Contra, right? We couldn't just give the Contra's $2 billion in USAID funding because Congress passed the Bolinman banning the USAID funds. We had to drop it on the ground and just they picked it up. Right. We had to run through these dark web networks. And this is what I'm saying is it's the same. What happens now when you don't have USAID funding for all of our covert activity in Venezuela? And in Lebanon, in Ukraine, welcome back to the FC network. So you'll see here what will become of USAID. And this has been Black, who is now the head of the finance side of USAID rather than the grant side. And what you'll see is a lot of this portfolio is going to be moving into the same network that ran through Iran Contra. And so getting back to what happened with the DFC in this, you know, Iran Contra adjacent pipeline in '88 is the DFC at the time was told by the National Security Council to put up $400 million to back this Bechtel pipeline. And the DFC said, why are you telling us to do this? This guy Bruce Rappaport looks super shady. Because Bruce Rappaport had his own checkered pass just like Jeffrey Epstein did. And so the National Security Council said, don't ask questions. We deal with the National Security. You put up the money, put up the money. And the DFC was running all these checks on Bruce Rappaport and saying, we don't want to put up $400 million for this super shady guy. So they queered the CIA and said, CIA, what files do you have? Do a name trace on Bruce Rappaport? We want to know this, you know, whatever foreign intelligence you've collected on this Swiss businessman with ties to the Israeli defense sector. And the CIA produces basically like a limited hangout. What they do is they say, well, all we have on this guy are these public news clippings that we've collected over the years. But they hid from DFC that they had extensive dossiers on Bruce Rappaport and all of his dealings. They're their own dealings with Bruce Rappaport. And so even the government agency, now there was no to what they claimed is that Bruce Rappaport was not an asset. The same thing that Alex Acosta is reported to have said to the Justice Department in 2020, even though it seemed inconsistent with his reported statements in the daily in the daily beast. But again, we don't have the line of questions like Pam Bondy right now could could the office of professional responsibility that did that 21 month investigation in Epstein and his intelligence ties between February 2019 and in November 2021. That office reports directly to the attorney general. So at that time they were reporting directly to Bill Barr. Bill Barr was called by the New York Times the cover up general for Iran Contra. He was deeply- Bill Barr was? Yes. Look this up. Look at cover up general Bill Barr Iran Contra. I'm telling you it all goes back to Iran Contra. Bill Barr. Remember, Donald Barr, Bill Barr's father recruited Epstein to the Dalton School to be the math and physics teacher without a without a degree. Yeah. And you can look at Bill Barr as the master of covering up political scandals. And look, yeah, and if you just search the term cover up general, maybe if you just do it might be in this article, but the Washington Post I think had a if you just do Google and just do cover up general, I think they had it as a front page story. Bill Barr started his career. So Donald Barr has Bill Barr's father started his career in the CIA when it was the OSS at the time. And so he told his high school guidance counselor his dream job was to be head of the CIA. This is in Bill Barr's autobiography, by the way. Then Bill Barr starts his career in the CIA. He works there for six years and that was getting his law degree. His first job is blocking congressional evidence about Iran Contra. When Congress, the Democrats in Congress were trying to get a full archeological dig on the CIA's involvement in Iran Contra. Bill Barr was the liaison to Congress for the CIA and he blocked it. He blocked the whole thing and then he becomes attorney general for George, you know, HW Bush. And then proceeds with all these pardons and blocking all the investigation into Iran Contra in the early 1990s. This is why you had the Democrats and it's why it took until the late 1990s and the, you know, the John Deutsch and the Kerry reports and all this to actually get transparency on Iran Contra because Bill Barr had been blocking it from the Justice Department the whole time. But you have these direct links with Bill Barr and that very network because he was at the CIA during Iran Contra. He blocked the investigation into into CIA malfeasance during Iran Contra. Epstein is running through Iran Contra through Southern Air Transport and through Adnan Kishoggi. And then Bill Barr is in, you know, putting the, I mean, I'm putting the Fox in charge of the hen house. He's the attorney general that OPR has to report to and he's the one shaping the OPR report on whether Epstein belonged to intelligence. But the public, I think, has a right to see that transcript. What exactly did they ask Alex Acosta? Putting one four words in quotes in a footnote, the 244th footnote, I don't believe that that was the only question they asked Alex Acosta. No way. And the way he answered it. The way he answered it. Yeah. You know, I could see, if someone says the answer is no, I could see him saying, "Well, I was told that he belonged to intelligence, but I wasn't seeing any documents. How should I answer that?" And then them saying, "Well, listen, if you didn't have first-hand knowledge, then you should say the answer is no, okay? The answer is no. Great, perfect. Put that in the footnote. Kill the scandal right there. We have a right to see that full transcript. What was asked? What wasn't asked? Because what wasn't asked will give you the key to what to ask now. Alex Acosta, I believe, is on the board of Newsmax now. Someone could go on. Yeah, look that up. Here you go. These people are like cockroaches. They never go away. So here you see that way. That way you went back in 1992. The first time Bill Barr was US Attorney General iconic New York Times writer William Safer referred to him as, quote, "cover up general bar" unquote, because of his role in bearing evidence of then-President George H. W. Bush's involvement in a Rangate, in a Rackate, and a Rang Contra. He has been. He got his career. He made his bones as the, as the Iran Contra guy who coordinated the CIA and DOJ side of Iran Contra. And he became Trump's Attorney General while Epstein, Epstein himself or whatever happened in the missing two minutes and 53 seconds of the raw footage. That they said was not doctored at all as if we couldn't look at fucking metadata. I mean, Jesus Christ now. How long does it take you to open a door? Less than two minutes and 53 seconds. Oh my God. But so he's the guy in charge of the Justice Department while Epstein dies in prison and while they bury the investigation. And whose father gave Epstein his star because his father after work and at OSS just decided, you know what? The most prestigious school for children in New York City, I think I'll go be the head of that because you know, the people that send their kids there, at least I can talk with them like it's the old days, is if there's not something behind that, of course there is. And Columbia before that in Columbia in the 70s and after he went to OSS, he went to Columbia. Columbia was where there was that first real merger between intelligence, academia and philanthropy. You can look up. Yeah, can you explain that? Yeah. So in the early 1940s, the CIA only had I think 36 analysts studying Soviet-- And only 12 of them spoke Russian. Right. What they did is they worked with the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, all the early foundations to pump up money into the university system. In fact, there's a great piece on this if you want to look it up. It's at the National Endowment of Humanities, I think. If you look up, Philip Mosley, Cold War Organization, man. Jimmy Will stop asking me for fuck of money. Just go to the CIA. They give you enough. Well, he sort of does, if you look at-- Yeah, no, that's-- It's CIA-apedia. All right. He's very close with James Clapper. Yeah. So OK, so this piece is in that-- this is we paid for this piece to be published as of the National Endowment for Humanities, which is a government-funded endowment. And it's called How Philip Mosley helped Soviet studies moderate American policy. So you'll see here, 46, you see, I incurred and descended over Europe. They only had about-- OK, two dozen experts on the Soviet Union and even 38 Soviet analysts, only 12 of whom spoke Russian. So what they did is they-- it's the same network. So Donald Barr went straight from the OSS to Columbia. And what they did is they pumped up these Columbia and Harvard Russian Institutes. If you just run a control laugh in this for intelligence. And then go to the next hit. Yeah, we have five. Yes, OK. So you'll see what happens here. So this guy Philip Mosley, who's running the Sovietology Department at Columbia, basically pioneers this nexus where Columbia University would serve as the long arm of the CIA for doing exchange programs with people in the Soviet Union with bringing dissidents over with getting copies of Soviet literature so that the CIA can analyze it. You'll see here, it says this sentence, sitting at the intersection of scholarship intelligence and philanthropy, Mosley created a field in which practitioners like himself could imagine, as Secretary of State William Rogers noted, no line between government and academic work, no line between the government and the universities. This is why I always say universities are not what they seem. There's no private market in higher education in America. Harvard was set to receive when Trump was on the day of Trump's inauguration. Harvard was owed $9 billion, $9 billion from the federal government in grants. It was that high? Yes, look up Harvard, $9 billion. Also, can we Google Harvard's size of endowment? I forget the number off the top of my head. $56 billion. Right, so why the fuck do they need that money? Well, they invest in the very actions that they facilitate. What they get with this money is they serve as the long arm of the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the US military for doing the sorts of work that the US does not want formal fingerprints on. This is how you have the Harvard economist going in to shape the economic reforms of Russia in the 1990s. In fact, we should do a separate thing on that in a second. But even if you look up within this own article, if you just run a search for CIA, you'll see that, like, Fulton Mosley, for example, or, yeah, just like, you'll see 25 mentions. You'll see that he not only set up all the CIA fronts within Colombia, but he had, right, so part of this was, you know, was subsized directly by the CIA. But you'll see that he even had how many different security clearances. If you go down, go down a couple more, just hit the down button. You want to type in security clearances? Yeah, let's see. C.I. Financial case. Yeah. So after the CIA's proposed Eurasian Institute failed, he ended up setting up a different one, but scroll down to, yeah, C.I. and Rand. C.I. C.I. Boom. Yeah, here you go. Here are all the security clearances that this Colombia professor held here. National Security Council, CIA State Department, Office of Naval Research. I think they have, like, nine in total. And this is all to merge Colombia with the Central Intelligence Agency. You know what Hillary Clinton, where she's employed right now? She's employed by a University of Colombia. They have something called, where's Mike Pompeo right now? The University of Colombia, the CIA director. And from him's gone. I don't know if you've seen him lately. Yeah, the sample. That was his baby. But, and so where's Victoria Newman now? Where she employed? Oh, no. The University of Colombia. No. And now that they're all at the exact same place. Yeah, damn it. Type in Colombia, C.I. S.I. P.A. School of International Public Affairs. They're, are, look this up. And specifically within that, it's the Institute of Global Politics. But all of the major universities, if you want to make it big as a university, your biggest customer is not the students paying you 60K intuition. It's the federal government because you are running centers and institutes out of there that are, that are helping a CIA operation or a State Department operation. Yes. So, this place has got Victoria Newland, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pompeo, and a bunch of other, you know, CIA operatives on USA Payroll, like Maria Ressa. But you can just type in Mike Pompeo, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Newland. You'll see they're all there. They're all they went straight from. Victoria Newland was the undersecretary for public, I'm sorry, for political affairs. That's the head of the political section. That's number three at the State Department. The JFK files showed, yes, here you go. So, Columbia City, you know? That's true. That's a lot of problems. Less pixels now. But they're all there. The Victoria Newland ran the CIA side of the State Department. Arthur Schlesinger in 1961, and his 15 page memo to JFK. He was the senior White House advisor to JFK. JFK gets in in '61. They immediately have a problem with the CIA. They have pigs, although the Cuba stuff, JFK wanted to go on a different foreign policy track. Stop advisor writes them a 15 page memo. This all got declassified in March with the JFK files. It's an incredible memo. And it's called, the title that's called CIA reorganization. And what Schlesinger says to JFK is, if we don't reorganize the CIA, you will not be able to administer US foreign policy. The State Department is being co-opted by the CIA. And one of the ways they do this is by control of the political affairs branch of the State Department. So I was in the economic bureau for state. That's, you know, things around trade. We have another bureau for political affairs. And this has to do with the domestic political affairs in a foreign country. So every embassy will have a political section. The political section is actually the most powerful section in every embassy. The head of the political section for any embassy acts as the charge to affairs when the head of the embassy is out. So the ranking order is, you know, US ambassador, then deputy, and then head of political affairs. Now what Schlesinger told JFK in this memo in '61 was that on the day of JFK's inauguration, 48% of all state department employees in the political section were not actually state department employees at all. They were CIA under diplomatic cover. And so while they were parked at a US embassy, they did not answer in the chain of command within the state department. They were covert operatives for organized political warfare being carried out by the CIA. But because they dominated the political section of the state department, they could set their own political policy for the country. If the state department did not want to overthrow that regime, but the political section, the CIA did, then the CIA could simply use the bandwidth of the political section of the embassy to make contact with the various dissident groups, to run money to them, to help them logistically to connect them, and run a parallel operation without it observing the typical White House National Security Council chain of command. And he gave examples where he said in some embassies, 80% of the political affairs staff are CIA, not even state department at all. In fact, who was Joe Biden's CIA director, Bill Burns? What was Bill Burns before he became head of the CIA? He-- That body of Jeffrey Epstein. Well, yes, yes. In the 1990s, Bill Burns was the head of the political section for the US Embassy in Russia in Moscow. So he ran the CIA-- Bill Burns were told never work today at the CIA in his whole life before he--he was handed the range to be the CIA director. Right? He was the state department guy the whole time. But where was he at state? He was the head of the political affairs section for Russia in the 1990s when we were running the whole Harvard operation, which we should get to after this. But the second--the second part of this-- I don't know where to go with this guy, bro. It's like just four trains at any one time. But then Bill Burns was the head of the entire political affairs branch of the state department before he became deputy secretary of state. But he ran the CIA side of the state department until 2014 when he then met with Epstein three times when he went on to run the Carnegie Endowment, which again puts Epstein right there. Why--how's Epstein? While he's working out deals with the Hood Baroque, this is right at the time of the Carbine Investments and all this, he's simultaneously meeting with-- All post-conviction, by the way. Right. All post-conviction. Ampying funded by Leon Black at the time. But he is meeting with the guy who ran the entire CIA side of the state department, who's then presumably meeting with Epstein to get funding for the Carnegie Endowment. I mean, why--I don't think Bill Burns was participating in trafficking or necessary--you know, I don't think he was going to Epstein for girls. He went to his-- No, that's reassuring. Well, I'm saying is, is you go to Epstein for money. You go--you tap into the donor network around Epstein. But who was the undersecretary for political affairs while Bill Burns--at state, while Bill Burns was CIA director, is Victoria Nuland. And now Victoria Nuland is at Columbia where they merged the intelligence world with, you know, with academia and outside funding from the foundations. And that's where Donald Barr went right after the OSS. Right as the CIA was pumping up Columbia, he goes right to Columbia and then to the Dalton School where they recruit Epstein. But on the Harvard thing, there's a great--if you go to the nation, if you go to Google and type in the nation, the Harvard Boys do Russia, the article is called. And this--this is a great example of how this works. That's a great title. Yeah, it's fantastic. And there's a million pieces on this, even in the Harvard Crimson. Oh, wait, they got Harvard on Harvard crime. Yeah. Good for them. All right. Yeah. Nice work, Crimson. Yeah. I mean, seven years of economic quote unquote reform financed by billions of dollars in the US. This is-- Yeah. One news is from the 1998. Yeah. Yeah. So we were privatizing Russia at the time. Russia threw up the white flag in '90, '91. We are--Yeltsin basically puts, you know, his whole trust in the US government to make Russia a small L liberal western democracy and to privatize the trillions of dollars in state held assets. The entire Soviet Union was basically under communist government structure. It was all held publicly. Yeah. So it's being sold off to Wall Street and London. And it's being done by Harvard University, by way of USA--so type in, for example, Harvard Institute. Was Larry Summers involved with this? Yes. Larry Summers and Jeffrey Sands. Always is. So Chubase was basically the US-aligned oligarch that we ran through much--there's Anatoly Chubase, a darling of US and Western financial establishments. He was the oligarch that we--in addition to a few other folks that we can get to--that we ran the Harvard USAID CIA opt-through here in order to privatize Russia's economy and sell it off to Harvard University and George Soros. So essentially the-- I'm joking. Essential to the implementation of Chubase's policies were the enthusiastic support of the Clinton administration. And who was--meber, 1998, Hood Baroque is in--is the Prime Minister of Israel. Jeffrey Epstein is visiting the Clinton White House 17 times. And you have this whole sort of Russia--well, okay, we'll get to that in a second. So--so--and it's key representative for foreign economic assistance in Moscow. The Harvard Institute for International Development, okay? So this was--who the Clinton White House was deputizing to go in to Russia and get them to privatize and set up legal and economic reforms that the State Department wanted. We tapped the Harvard Institute of International Development to do that. Now, if that name sounds familiar, what is the aid sound for--and what is the aid stand for in USAID? It's the US agency for international development. This is Harvard's version of it, the Harvard Institute for International Development. It's the Institute agency, same shit, different-- In fact, they were funded by USAID to do this. Oh, I love that. This is how the--this is how the structure is, right? So the Harvard Institute for International Development, using the prestige of Harvard's names and connections in the admin, Harvard Institute of International Development Officials acquired virtual carte blanche over the US economic aid program to Russia with minimal oversight by the government agencies involved. This is how you have plausible liability, minimal oversight. With this access and their close alliance with two bays in a circle, they allegedly profited on the side and we'll get to how this happened. Yet few Americans are aware of the Harvard Institute of International Development's role in Russian privatization and its role in taxpayer funds. Now, before we get to this next section, let me do a little bit of world building here. Okay, so you're going to see that this is the US Russian Investment Symposium at Harvard's Kennedy School. Where was Epstein most active within Harvard? Go to Google, pull up a Google image of Jeffrey Epstein Harvard. And on Dershoewitz's office? Well, the Harvard Kennedy School in particular. He gave millions of dollars through the Wexner Foundation, specifically to the Harvard Kennedy Center. The Harvard Kennedy Center is what is used to do government reforms. Yes. Millions of dollars that Epstein gave to the Harvard Kennedy School. In fact, if you want to know another really fun thing on this, type in, pull the new tab and go to New York Post, New York Post, Gary Kasparov, Sudan Kasparov with a K. Yeah, with a K. Sudan Harvard. What's going to be good enough? There you go. We'll pull that first one. Why is it pulling up all the SBF stuff? Okay, here we go. All right, so look at this. Wall Street Titan, like that. That's the one. Yeah, okay. Wall Street Titan, New Hired SBF, defrauded and dispending 7 million on AK-47s grenades for South Sudan and Ku Klat. Let's talk about this. All right. So the suit's coming off. Shit's getting real. So this is super, super recent, okay? And we're going to come back to the Russia story in a sec, Russia and Harvard, because actually one more thing before I talk about this, I'm sorry, one more tab. Penny Pritzker, Harvard Corporation. Who's running Harvard right now? And then you can see that you can just, if you pull that up right now, just so everyone can see that I'm not making this up. So she is currently running the Harvard Corporation, the hedge fund on top of Harvard University. Now, hedge fund. Yes, now, yes, yes, because that's the endowment. They watch this all through the invest in hedge fund and private equity and alternative asset funds. That's how they make the money on their $56 million dollar endowment. So now look, now type Penny Pritzker, Ukraine Reconstruction. Because I want to connect this so it's not ancient history. I want to show you how Harvard is doing today what Harvard was doing in the 1990s running the same operation. So Penny Pritzker, while she was the head of the Harvard Corporation, running the investments of the Harvard Management Fund. was simultaneously serving as the US special representative for Ukraine's economic recovery, starting in September 2023. This is the same thing Harvard was doing to make billions of dollars for the Harvard endowment in Russia. So I just want to pull that up so that when we go back to to put the button on the Harvard candy school, go back to the, yeah, that one right there. So here's what happened. We again have this Russia up, Russia and Harvard for C.I. covert action. So what happened here was you have this co-founder of Jane Street, which is this major Wall Street trading firm where SBF got his start. Right, where SBF got his start. And what you'll see here is, by way of Gary Kasparov, Gary Kasparov was the chess player? Well, the chess player who became the C.I.A. State Department backed opposition figure in Russia. In the early 2000s, they ran him for president. He became the head of all these, you know, USAID, you know, NGOs in Russia. He was an early Putin dissident in the early 2000s using the clout of his international fame. Now he's been living in New York, I think, for the past decade and some. But what you'll see here is, this was an operation to run guns to sedan. And what happened was, these, so if you scroll down, I'm going to walk you through this. Okay, so you have Grinieri 53 allegedly provided $7 million in two payments after meeting with Ajak at a Midtown Manhattan condominium. And then-- In 2024. Yes. And that his financing was vital to the plan. And if you scroll down, I'll say, okay, so he's a longtime supporter of human rights causes. And he thought that he was just paying for human rights, you know, affairs in sedan. So if you scroll down, the case also references chess champion Gary Kasparov, though he's not named as a defendant and a wrongdoing. Ajak, a former child soldier in sedan who resettled in the US and studied at Harvard's Kennedy School and worked as a World Bank economist before becoming a South Sudanese opposition activist. He and Keach, the other guy from Harvard Kennedy School who get rolled up in this, met with an undercover agent and expect for weapons in a Phoenix warehouse. And if you scroll down one more time, this is where your aid money is, is buying. So defense attorneys alleged US authorities were aware of the plan, citing a public authority defense and claiming the State Department told Ajak in October 2023 it would not support a non-democratic regime change. They accused-- okay, so basically they say the financing was allegedly arranged through meetings, including at Paul Weiss. Wait, go down one more. Delofer? Yes. And what you'll see is basically these two-- the finance here, the outside finance here. And if you scroll down to the Kasparov reference, you'll see basically Kasparov is also at the Harvard Kennedy School where he's been running these anti-Putin ops for about 20 years now. He's been working with the Kennedy School since the early 2000s. And so Kasparov introduces these two Sudanese opposition activists who are also getting, you know, fellows getting paid by the Harvard Kennedy School to work with this outside finance here to get money for guns so that Sudanese rebels can use them presumably to kill Russians in the area, or at least Russian-backed rebel groups. Because right now we're in a proxy war with Russia over much of Africa. A bunch of these US and French-backed governments in Africa have been toppled by what I've seen is Russian coups. We give money in arms to groups in Niger and Chad and Koti Vart and Sudan. Russia is making a play for those same minerals and those same natural resources. And so they back rebel groups as well. And so we need to run guns to the, you know, the Sahela is the big belt in Africa that this runs through. So we're back, we're doing sort of Iran contra for Sudanese and, you know, ivory coast and, you know, Niger rebel groups. Is that how you say it? Niger? Yeah. I'm always so afraid to say. I just pointed out one on the map. Keep it safe. That one. Yeah. But it's running through Harvard University here. And so back to what they, what Harvard was doing in the 1990s, if you go back to that first article, we were wrong. Joe has been cooking today. Yeah. It's the Harvard Boys Do Russia one. There you go. Okay. So you'll see that Harvard was running the economic aid. And because of this, you couldn't foie them. You know, you, you, they're, because it's running for them. Well, they're not a government agency. That's right. This is, this is how the company basically this is exactly how Sissa that DHS structure the censorship work. They said, well, we're hiring Stanford University to, you know, to do this work. And you can't, they're private, private university. So you can't get the public documents unless they're subpoenaed by Congress or come out in a lawsuit. You see what what happens here is if you go to USA, if you go to USAID in this, you'll see what happened was USAID then funds the Harvard Institute for International Development to do this. So you have the US government paying Harvard to advance US government causes. And what does Harvard get out of it? Well, type in Soros. Just control that for Soros here. Okay. So here's, here's what happened. In 1995, two bays, that's the Russian, the US friendly Russian oligarch, organized insider auctions, insider auctions of prime national properties. The Harvard management company, which invests the universities in Dauman and billionaire speculator George Soros were the only foreign entities allowed to participate. The Harvard management company in Soros became significant shareholders in Russia's second largest steel mill as well as in Stanko oil, whose reserves exceed those of mobile, this is Exxon mobile. Harvard management corporation and Soros also invested in Russia's high yield high yield IMF subsidized. So again, IMF subsidized domestic bond market. So basically these are insider auctions. Harvard gets paid by the government to do this and then they get first pick, they get insider trading on the very CIA USAID opts their task to do. This is the business model of Harvard. This is why people say that Harvard is a hedge fund with the university attached because they, they are insiders. They're on the ground. They're the ones who are using the backing of the US government to coerce foreign leaders to make economic changes to their entire industrial structure. And then they get close hold insider no, no competition bids on the very assets that they are commanding foreign governments to privatize. They ran the same operation in Ukraine and Soros who also, you know, through the open society and you'll see USAID is there too. If you look at the bottom of Cornyd Williamson, the US assistance program in Russia was right with such conflicts of interest involving the Harvard Institute of International Development and their USAID funded Chubay's allies. Harvard management corporation managers, favored Russian bankers Soros and insider expatriates working in Russia's nascent markets. Now obviously it didn't work out and a lot of the players that got involved with this are straight up corrupt and the ways that it was set up. I would argue are straight up corrupt and I'm not sure there's any good evidence against that. At the front end of it though, before they made all those mistakes to do that, do you think that when a quote unquote enemy like the Soviet Union topples after whatever it was like 70 years, 75 years in 91, do you think that there is a use for something like a USAID or not even USAID? Just like the US government to have some form of trying to get soft power over there to ensure that the next regime is better than the last, which obviously they failed miserably at, but the idea of doing something like that might make sense. Yeah, I don't even fight that battle. I totally see both sides of it. I think different schools of foreign policy thought everyone's got a reasonable position on this in terms of the role of covert action versus if you don't do it, you see the territory that Russia, China, the like. The issue is in order to get around the handcuffs that are put on the intelligence agencies, they end up co-opting outside institutions who we do business with. We are paying $9 billion to Harvard University until Trump just put them through the ringer with a lot of these cuts. $9 billion of our tax money goes to Harvard and that's not so that Harvard can you know research the impact of climate change on squirrels. They are an arm of the CIA and what happens is what happens when you become so, because they always call it the third option, right? You don't want to go to war with the country, but you don't want to leave it alone entirely. So covert action is like the third option. You know, we're in there, we're influencing things, but you know, we're not committing huge amounts of money, but we are, we're in the game secretly. And the problem is is in order to structure that covert action so that it doesn't have U.S. government fingerprints and because the CIA does not really do these proprietary's anymore, you end up having to use other pieces on the chess board that we all know and interact with, whether that's the unions, like the AFL CIO, the biggest union in America, which has been You know the the Union Armour the CIA since the 1950s the Union Armour the CIA you started to talk about this last time Yeah, can you expand upon that? Well, you know, there's used to be called the AFL CIA. Yeah, yeah so so unions are Muscle their street muscle. They also control logistics. They control the ports. They control the trucks. They control You know the the roads if we want to get This okay this time well I was at state Belarus in Belarus In the summer of 2020 We tried to run a regime change operation against Lukashenko who was you know that the head Called what the last dictator of Europe is what we always called them You know Belarus was very closely aligned with Russia How did we run the attempted color revolution against Lukashenko in 2020? We went straight to the unions We went to the national government for democracy Solidarity Center that's named after the Solidary Movement in Poland Which was the Union Workers Group in Poland under like Valesa that toppled the Soviet government during the Cold War and You know this is all come out declassified the CIA was running black duffle bags of cash to the Solidarity Solidarity Movement we that was a CIA funded Union Group. We see Union movement It relies on masses of workers Taking to the streets and because the unions are how Industry is affected through labor if the unions all agree to walk out and and boycott then the whole country shuts down What our strategy whenever we are trying to do a bottom-up revolution is supposed to a top-down military Coop we do a people-powered color revolution is to get masses of people to take to the street Shut down the roads shut down the industry so there's nothing for the dictator to weaponize They can't there's there's no economy Pumping into the country because nobody's getting paid the hospitals aren't working because the hospital workers have all run out the The schools aren't working because the teachers unions have all walked out There's there's no oil in the country because all the you know the oil workers have all worked out walked out There's no mining in the country because all the mining workers have all walked out and So the whole country shuts down now there's no money to pay the police There's no money to pay the military and so you can't even pay for people to contain the riots because there's no more Capital for the for the dictator to use while these same union groups are surrounding the parliament building and throwing Moltaf Cocktails and police cars in a peaceful protest very peaceful, right? So we use you know the union stuff really grew out of before it was really taken over in large part by the Intelligence and military sphere there was a very robust community organizing apparatus in the early 1900s through the 1920s with with union groups and it was you know you had this this labor versus management and In order to stop that you needed a counter union force that would go in and break up those protests That would that would have its own this is how you get involvement with organized crime groups And you have the CIA moving through these unions for cold for right wing cold war activity and this is forward to the 90s right in the 1950s and let and by the way No, where was Alex Acosta made and what was his position in the Trump cabinet? labor. Yeah Labor is the unions. It's the Department of Labor is who funds all of the we have an international affairs branch in the Department of Labor and they give tens of millions of dollars to AFL CIO affiliates so that their branch in Belarus will take to the streets their branch in Brazil will you know We'll help you know the workers party leader there. I'll just say And in Germany you I mean you can look this up This came out in the JFK files the the fully declassified version of this but even look at the teachers unions So Randy wine garden is the head of the American Federation of teachers What was she doing in Ukraine? You know a dozen times during the look of Randy wine garden machine Ukraine? Oh 2022 2023 2024 When we took over Ukraine in 2014 one of the first things we we made yats and yuk do is turn over the mystery of education to a To an EU credentialing body and we sent Randy over there to give a little yeah, and that's a Taciione now now look this up look up CIA Millie I think start with a million dollars to the national education's national education association There you go the first one on C.I.gov Yeah, now this is just this is just one alone so so this is in 67 you'll see now the National Education Association and so there are two groups that that got a million dollars to this But this is just through this one op alone. So a couple things the World Confederation of Organizations of the Teaching profession was funded by a CIA proprietary fund called the the Vernon fund and this all got busted the Vernon fund was a sort of George George Bush family adjacent Houston CIA oil Mafia ring and during the Cold War that we wanted to make sure that the educational materials for For that were taught in schools around the world tilted towards pro-US rather than pro-communist You know education and at the time the there was a threat perceived that communist and Marxist groups were infiltrating the schools And so in order to make sure that the teachers unions were successful in winning sort of pro-US pro-capitalist teaching materials We needed to capacity build our teachers unions in order to make sure that the teaching materials and the policy and the personnel Around major teaching umbrella groups were pro-US pro-capitalist etc now the National Education Association We got a million again. This is directly from CIA at the time That's the biggest teachers union umbrella group in the entire country The AFL CIO is the biggest union group in the country These are Harvard University is the most prestigious university with the largest endowment in the entire country You are not instrumentalizing small private charter planes like like southern air transport and doing this You are fundamentally changing the relationship that everyday Americans have with the most salient and visible institutions in their own society when you run covert action this way and But because they are the biggest they have the most reach they have the most contacts They have the most pull so there's a natural temptation to do this But what it ends up doing is creating this Giant schizophrenia in the American in the American mind where people sense something is off about Harvard Something is off about the the unions which are not representing the interests of the rank and file There's this mysterious leadership class that seems to make you know drive around in million dollar sports cars and nobody knows what they do but This is because you've you because covert action is supposed to be Initially it was supposed to sort of be a weapon of last resort if there is no other way to No, that went out the window right away. It did it did But this was the idea was that we would create this capacity Even if we didn't need to use it in case a regime really went south but what it ended up becoming was Just totally commonplace and now whether it's our tech companies or our teachers unions or our random university x. I mean it's all the way down to to you know the most From the major you can't find a major university who's not wrapped up in this whether it's Harvard or MIT or Stanford all the way down to Florida International University where Alex Acosta was the dean of the law school Which is now hosting the same way that Columbia has Mike Pompeo and Victoria Newland and Hillary Clinton Florida International University, which was you had law school was run by Alex Acosta the Epstein prosecutor They now host Juan Guaidó who's who's teaching there Marina Karena Machado runs the democracy think that this we have blended are above-ward institutions With this covert action apparatus and now you can't even reform the institutions without stepping on a CI rattlesnake All right, hold on one second. Let's back that up. I don't disagree with that point especially at the highest level institutions When you look across all colleges, which I think we can all agree have a lot of problems right now That's a whole other rabbit hole a guy like Acosta Not the best guy to bring in obviously just because of what we've seen painted on his resume vis-a-vis of this whole Epstein thing that said Big name Draw for the university He then naturally is going to bring in a few other people that also maybe has some stains on the resume that you mentioned You don't want to have in there nonetheless if that's like four names right there at a place that has 350 legit professors on making up numbers right here, but if it's something like that I would say those things can be a little bit more accidental collateral damage with poor oversight because Universities are trying to get people as opposed to like primary school and high school and stuff like that in universities They are really trying to get people who have instead of taking a career just as a teacher who have also accomplished many things in the world themselves only to come back to kind of teach those experiences. So they're going to naturally, therefore, just like any other company, hiring people, gonna run into some hires where, you know, ooh, hindsight 2020, we shouldn't have made that one. That's fair to say, across a lot of these places as opposed to where that is a way higher percentage of the time it would seem like when you look at like a Harvard, a Columbia, Yale and stuff like that. - Yeah, I can totally see that. And again, FIU, Florida International University's well-positioned for that sort of thing because they're in Miami. I used to live right next to it pretty much. It's, you know, that you have all these exchange students, you have all these touch points with the whole Operation Mongoose, you know, region. And so it's a natural place to synergize that type of work. The issue is is what happens, I don't know that I have a problem. If it's genuinely a US interest, you know, with the pre-2016 work in theory, you know, this you can make a colorable defense of it. But what happened in 2016 is all of these same networks began weaponized against the person and the movement that democrat, democratically elected the US government. They went from weaponizing this against foreign communism to domestic populism. They argued that just like communism is a threat to democracy because, you know, it inverts all the civil liberties and freedoms and economic, you know, liberalization that is possible under American capitalism. They argued that populism was a threat to democracy. And so they used these same networks, look at what these institutions are doing now. Look at what the National Education Association is doing now. They're, they're, if you just go to X and you just look at, they, you know, they just passed a whole web of resolutions that they would resist Trump on every front that they would not cooperate, you know, with, with his, you know, ICE policy on legal immigration and the like. You look at what AFL CIO is doing now. They're sponsoring riots. The AFL CIO had a secret agreement with the Chamber of Commerce to shut down DC of Trump on the election in 2020. The AFL CIO makes more money in government grants than they do in members dues. They get like 72 million in grants from the federal government. They only get like 68 million or so from, from dues. They are funded more by taxpayers than they are by their own, you know, revenue stream, you know, from, so what happens when you have a government that the people democratically vote for, yeah, and you'll see like, you know, there's a whole, there's, there's dozens of these. You have a problem where our biggest institutions are dependent on this government money to keep going. And, but we have conflated them when it became okay as an op to target Trumpism, the same way they targeted communism. By arguing that populism is a threat to democracy, anything that undermines our institutions, you know, you know, weakens American democracy. But then these institutions are serving as the, you know, the, the scope of the CIA rifle, then you have a covert society almost that is, that is totally usurping the democratic will of voters. And then you end up having to destroy our own institutions in order to, you have to destroy our own institutions in order to reform them. And you destroy Harvard University, you destroy our unions, you just, you know, you destroy our healthcare system who gets billions of dollars in USAID. Then you make the argument, well, now China is going to step into the void of that. Harvard is, what do you do if you're Harvard and you have nine billion dollars in grants to, that's a huge proportion of which is to advance some international agenda, whether that's on the energy sphere and, and the green energy transition, whether that's on seizing Eurasia and all the CIA work in Ukraine and Russia. And you've got the Harvard endowment who's made all these liquid investments through their, through their alternative asset funds in Ukraine reconstruction, because Penny Pritzker is simultaneously the head of Ukraine reconstruction and the head of the Harvard corporation. They can't just turn that Titanic without decimating their own business model. And so you, we have a, because this has become so wrapped up in state craft, what happens if the people vote for a different vision of state craft? Either these institutions have to, either that entire CIA state department iceberg has to agree to surrender and all these investments go to zero, because now they're business models dependent on it. Or we have to crush them as the federal government, because you can't subsidize the thing that is destroying your entire operational policy. It's like a gambler that gets way too far into a hand, right? Like maybe, maybe at the, at the tip of the spear here when some of these patterns formed, I'll even go all the way back. At the beginning of CIA and they're like, wait, we're really worried the Russians are going to drop a nuke on us. So they therefore then give that final potential and result of as the reason to say, like, yeah, you know, we'll color outside the lines a little bit. And you keep, it's a super slope. You keep going farther and farther and farther until now the shrub has grown so big that like, you can't cut it down. You got to burn the whole fucking forest down. And that's where it gets weird, because you and I have this conversation last time, even with something like USA, you've said it. And people criticize you for saying this, which is hilarious, you're like, listen, I'm calling out all the horrible shit they did and all the illegal shit they did and all the fucking show company shit they did for CIA. But I'm not saying that every fucking thing they did was bad. But the problem is now people hear all these bad things. And I get it. People out there are like good, burn the whole thing down. And it's like, how do we get that pendulum back to where, you know, as much as we may not like government bureaucracy, the parts of it that are supposed to be organizationally functional have the ability to function. It's a, I mean, shit, if I had the answer to that, you and I wouldn't be sitting here right now. Well, you have to break the halo. This is, this has been my strategy on this, which is, you have to break the angelic halo over the thing that prevents any inquiry into it. You can't motivate Congress to subpoena these guys. You can't motivate lawsuits to break open documents and discovery. You can't motivate, you know, voters to stampede on social media for reform unless they are charged up about the things that it has done wrong because these things are always given a pretty name. Who is against international development? There's a humanitarian assistance. So you do have to give it its, its moment. I mean, this is when I come back to the church committee hearings, I mean, the iconic vision of that was Frank Church holding up a CIA heart attack gun. And we pull that up. We mentioned earlier and it's such an iconic image. You're like, okay, we were told that the CIA is there to protect us and to keep us safe. And this thing is a effectively a dark gun to murder someone, but then fool criminal forensics investigators so that it looks like the CIA didn't kill him. It looks like they died of a heart attack. You see that and you go, oh my God, my cousin died of a heart attack. Well, so you secretly can you have to break the halo on this in order. It doesn't mean every time someone dies of a heart attack, they were killed by the CIA. But what, but what it means is you would not have the handcuffs. You know, CIA wasn't didn't even have assassinations banned until the until the 1970s. There was no, you know, presidential finding requirement for the president to have to approve of covert action before this. And we are right now, we have the patient on the operating table. There is a democratic mandate from the last election. There is a huge domestic groundswell. And then tons of foreign allies who have come out and said, thank God, USAID, you know, you've had out the governments that I think are allied with the Trump administration from El Salvador to Poland to Hungary to even Mexico, the, you know, the, the president Mexico came out and you know, supported the shutdown of USAID. And a bomb did? Yeah, yeah, you can look up shine bomb, her comments on the closure of USAID. And because this thing had had a halo wrapped around it for so long, yes, you publicly support the shutdown of USAID, right? And how much do we say we do there? Because, you know, we're supposed to be helping the people. But everyone knows what it is. At a certain point, if USAID is going to be an independent agency, it has to have its credibility. And there may come a day where the state department rolls out another separate aid agency after putting it through the reforms. But you had 14,000 employees there under USAID. And you just look at something like the the DRG side of USAID. That was the bureau for democracy rights and governance. That was a full shop full scale shop for, for regime change. USAID had an office called OTI, the Office of Transition Initiatives. And you can look up at the New York Times wrote about OTI. If you just type, I think 2014, New York Times Office of Transition Initiatives, that is a USAID full office dedicated to regime change. Thank you guys for checking out this clip. If you haven't already subscribed, please subscribe and hit the like button on this video. It is a huge, huge help. And if you'd like to check out this clip, full podcast episode, that link is in the description below or right here. And finally, you can follow me on Instagram and X by using the links in my description below.