UNDEREDUCATION ON NGOS: The Infamous Zoom Calls Are a Great Example

For years, I’ve tracked domestic NGOs and affinity groups—organizations like Momentum, Rise Up, Code Pink, and Sunrise Movement—which many believe to be subversive entities deserving of legal action. But the reality is more complicated. The participants in these groups genuinely believe in their causes, whether climate activism, racial justice, or economic reform. Take, for example, the Third Act climate activists who blockade banks. Their actions may be disruptive, but they are pawns, not masterminds. The true story isn’t about the protestors but the people who sanction, fund and manipulate these movements from behind the scenes.

Many so-called investigative journalists—like Millie Weaver and others—fall into the same trap and mislead many for clicks and fame: they focus on the visible, not the architects. They see groups like Sunrise Movement, Momentum, or Code Pink and assume these are the master orchestrators directing the chaos. But that’s precisely the distraction these networks rely on.

These groups function like chum in the water, designed to lure in amateur journalists and keep their attention focused on front-line activists rather than the hidden infrastructure funding and guiding them. It’s not that these reporters lack investigative ability—they lack the historical and structural understanding of what NGOs are.

One needs to go beyond surface-level activism and media headlines to grasp NGOs' function truly. It requires deep reading into their origins, how they were structured in the 1940s as intelligence assets, and how intelligence communities worldwide have weaponized them to control movements, shape narratives, and advance strategic objectives without direct state intervention.

If you're focusing on street-level activists, you're chasing shadows. The real power players don’t march, chant, or wave signs—they write the checks and draft the policies. That’s precisely why DHS pressured Twitter (now X) to silence any discussion of the "Sunrise Movement."

Why? Because these groups aren’t grassroots at all—they’re bankrolled by YOUR tax dollars, funneled through government grants, NGOs, and a web of "philanthropic" foundations. And that’s just the beginning. The last thing they want is public scrutiny exposing how these so-called activist groups are nothing more than state-funded political weapons masquerading as civil movements.

The Bureaucratic Shield: Legitimizing Subversion

It’s critical to recognize that federal and state employees actively participate in these groups—but their role isn’t just as protestors. Instead, they legitimize these activities by ensuring they remain protected under First Amendment rights, framing acts of disruption, civil disobedience, and lobbying as constitutionally valid expressions of free speech. Their presence lends institutional credibility to what would otherwise be seen as radical activism.

This bureaucratic involvement creates a firewall between these groups and law enforcement. It ensures they are viewed as organic grassroots movements instead of being investigated for coordinated subversion, financial crimes, or foreign influence. This illusion of innocence is deliberate, allowing these NGOs to operate freely while their true benefactors remain hidden.

The Money Trail: Who’s Pulling the Strings?

Over the years, I’ve conducted my independent investigations, often alongside others, and one thing became clear: people kept getting lost in the weeds.

• Who's running the training courses?

• Who’s organizing the events?

• Who’s managing the logistics?

These are distractions. The real question is: Who’s funding it? Because when you follow the money, you find who’s pulling the strings. Funding networks don’t just support these groups—they manufacture and direct them.

Penetrating the System: The Power of Naming the Invisible

This is how you get to the bottom of things. This is why we gained access when infiltrating Save the Children in Guatemala in 2023. We uncovered their operations—not by going after the front-facing NGO, but by identifying the unknown, unnamed power players backing them. I used the name of the unknown to enter the premises.

Once you name the invisible and identify the true architects of these networks, you understand that NGOs aren’t rogue operations—they are tools engineered and financed to serve broader, more insidious agendas.

It’s never about the cause—it’s about control.

Who are the real players? Behind every NGO operating on this scale lies a web of unseen actors. These include bureaucrats approving key grants, diplomats strategically overlooking breaches, intelligence assets leveraging NGOs for covert activities, and foreign entities funding them to advance agendas that conflict with U.S. interests.

The unelected bureaucratic class that protects these entities plays a pivotal role. These career individuals—shielded from public accountability—operate within the seemingly innocuous realms of policy approval, foreign relations, and institutional oversight. Unlike elected officials, they wield significant influence without subjecting themselves to the public vote.

The danger lies in the system’s permanence. Presidents may come and go, but the machinery behind these influence operations doesn’t change. It adapts, evolves, and stays hidden in plain sight.