Post

DataRepublican (small r)

May 2, 2025 • 16 tweets • 6 min read • Read on X

Scrolly

🧵THREAD: GEORGE SOROS, THE MASTERMIND

Today's systems of NGOs isn't accidental - it was laid out in a vision 30 years ago by none other than George Soros.

I joined @MikeBenzCyber on a livestream last night, where he was kind enough to walk us through the basics.

As my bio says, I am just a tool builder. I am not a historian or academic. The information in this thread is common knowledge for many. It wasn't for me.

I want to walk you through an essay which Mike pointed me to- a chilling essay written in 1993 by George Soros, "Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO"

The essay lays out a new mission for NATO after the cold war. NATO would no longer be a defensive alliance against Russia - that is obsolete. Instead, it would proactively go out and shape other countries into "open societies." "[𝑵𝑨𝑻𝑶'𝒔 𝒏𝒆𝒘] 𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔."

Soros re-defined peace and security not as absence of war, but in terms of how many countries are "open societies."

“𝑷𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚... 𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒐𝒏 𝒂 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒚.”

In other words, NATO's new mission: if a country doesn't adopt Western-style capitalism and liberalism, NATO should step in... politically, economically, and eventually, militarily.

🧠 What is an "Open Society?"

The term was coined by philosopher Karl Popper and expanded in this 1993 essay. Soros, of course, would go on to build a coalition of NGOs and interfere in the US Elections under his "Open Society Foundation" banner.

Here are the elements of an "Open Society" in theory:
🔹Democracy
🔹Free markets
🔹Civil rights
🔹Minority protections
🔹Transparency
🔹A "global" rules-based order

In practice, Open Society means something very different. Let's go through the essay.

👉 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆: 𝗮 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗼𝗿𝗼𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝘂𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁.

Soros Quote:
"𝑶𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒚 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏... 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒂𝒄𝒕 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈. 𝑪𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒂𝒍."

Translation:
You're an open society if you accept our interpretation of pluralism and Western values. Otherwise, we'll label you "closed," even if your people elect their leaders or protect cultural traditions. And this gives us pretext to justify military actions on you.

👉 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀.

Soros quote:
“𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝒏𝒆𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄, 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒆𝒕-𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅, 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔.”

Translation: We pour aid into countries that remake themselves in Soros' image. And no amount of money is too much to accomplish that- because, again, we have redefined "peace" to mean "as many countries follow the Open Society model as possible."

And if aid fails, then military intervention is next.

Take a moment to think about this.

What do you think this means for anyone who is opposed to foreign aid?

They are agents of "closed societies."
They are a threat to national security.
Ergo...
They are a threat to democracy.

Sound familiar?

👉𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆'𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀.

Soros quote:
“[Combatting closed societies] 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒅𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎 𝒊𝒏 𝒂 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒅𝒆𝒔 𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒃𝒆𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒓.”

This point is perhaps the most ironic one. A "Democracy" according to George Soros is not decided by its own citizens. Instead, NATO's new mission is to impose their own ideology on others and build countries which agree with Soros.

👉 𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆.

Soros quote:
“𝑶𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒊𝒏 𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆.”

Translation - if bribing a country with endless amount of foreign aid doesn't work to transform them from inside out, then NATO will intervene. And that's exactly what NATO did with Bosnia in 1994.

👉 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀.

Soros:
“𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒊𝒇 𝑵𝑨𝑻𝑶 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍, 𝒊𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒑𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔.”

Translation: NATO's new job is not to defend member states, but to expand its presence eastward and actively shape the internal politics of neighboring states, especially the post-Soviet bloc.

👉 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗚𝗢𝘀 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲.

This isn't a theoretical essay. Washington implemented the playbook.

🗓️ 1994: Partnership for Peace launched
🗓️ 1999: NATO admits Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic
🗓️ 2004: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria join
🗓️ 2008–2022: Ukraine, Georgia seek NATO pathway
🗓️ 2023: Finland joins NATO, Sweden follows

Why did everyone go along with this model? Simple. Enormous amounts of money was involved. Here's a list who benefited:

🧑‍💼 NGO Networks (Open Society Foundations, USAID, NED)
→ More influence, more contracts, more justification for expansion

🏛️ Bureaucrats & Diplomats
→ Career advancement via “democracy-building” missions

💰 International Donors & Foundations
→ Steer reforms through grant-making power

💳 IMF & World Bank
→ Lend to reforming nations in exchange for austerity + influence

🏢 Private Equity & Multinationals
→ Buy up privatized industries on the cheap (telecoms, oil, infrastructure)

🏛️ Western-Aligned Politicians
→ Receive aid, praise, and protection... even if they’re corrupt or undemocratic

👑 Post-Communist Oligarchs
→ Enrich themselves through Western-advised privatization

📰 Journalists & Activists
→ Funded by Western grants, shielded from local accountability

🧑‍🏫 Professors & Think Tanks
→ Get fellowships, scholarships, media access for pushing "open" values

📱 Big Tech
→ Enter new markets post-liberalization (data access, censorship tools, ad revenue)

🗞️ Mainstream Media
→ Shape narratives, control legitimacy labels: “reformer” vs “strongman”

And if you dare to cut off that money spigot... in other words, if you practice any kind of populist principles or try and assert agency for your own nation:

You are an enemy of democracy.

Because George Soros said so.

/Thread end 🧵

Source:
georgesoros.com/1993/11/01/tow…

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1918336349930991709

I keep messing up this thread. Here is the continuation:

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1918336349930991709

FINAL NOTE:
Don't confuse George Soros's model of NATO promoting "open societies" with being anti-communist.

Soros didn't oppose the Soviet Union because it was communist.

He opposed it because it was nationalist. It resisted foreign influence and maintained centralized control over its own ideology and borders.

His vision of an "open society" blends left-wing radicalism (identity politics, anti-tradition, anti-sovereignty) with globalist structures (NGOs, Western institutions, and transnational finance).

The more you read his writings, the clearer it becomes that "Open Society" is a circular label for regimes that accept Soros-style politics.

Anyone who resists this framework is cast as an enemy of "democracy." And if you're MAGA, that means you.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

More from @DataRepublican

DataRepublican (small r)

@DataRepublican

Apr 23

🧵 THREAD: You've heard the phrase "OUR DEMOCRACY" a million times. But what exactly is "OUR DEMOCRACY"? 🤔

When they say "democracy," they don't mean a republic. They don't mean consent of the governed. They don't mean your right to choose your own leaders.

They mean a system where "institutions" - NGOs, multilaterals, the permanent bureaucracy - advance a set of values they consider settled: equality, social justice, cosmopolitanism, global governance. These values aren't proposals to be voted on. They're treated as moral prerequisites that must be true *before* your vote counts.

Despite what they say, they aren't for checks and balances. Checks and balances limit what government can do to you. This limits what you can do to *them*. The brakes are on accountability, not power. The institutions that set the boundaries of acceptable policy have put themselves beyond the reach of the electorate, and they call that arrangement "democracy."

Trump has been an existential threat to this system since the moment he said "drain the swamp" ... because the swamp IS the system. When he threatened those institutions, he didn't threaten the republic. He threatened their immunity from it.

And they said so. On camera. At their own events. In their own words.

As always, patience as I pull together the thread.👇

Robert Kagan:
"I would say there is an argument for saying give me some smoke filled rooms... they weeded out the Donald Trumps of this world."

Backroom deals instead of primaries. Because primaries are how you got Trump... and the old gatekeepers would have stopped him.

Think Kagan's an outlier? Here's Brookings senior fellow William Galston at the National Endowment for Democracy's (NED) most prestigious annual lecture.

He explains that "liberal democracy" requires "some abridgement of majoritarianism."

Translation: democracy means limiting what the majority can do.

Read 14 tweets

DataRepublican (small r)

@DataRepublican

Apr 22

🧵🚨 THREAD: How the Charlottesville rally and SPLC birthed an entire billion-dollar-plus "democracy" ecosystem 🚨

11 federal counts. Wire fraud. Money laundering conspiracy. But here's what the SPLC headlines are missing:

• The indictment describes a paid informant in the leadership chat that PLANNED Unite the Right
• That informant "helped coordinate transportation" to the rally... at SPLC's direction
• There is ONE publicly identified organizer whose documented role was transportation coordinator
• His Discord posts about running over protesters were made 26 DAYS before Heather Heyer was killed by a car
• The indictment says postings were made "under the supervision of the SPLC"
• Charlottesville then became the founding event for a billion-dollar political machine
• SPLC installed itself as that machine's definitional gatekeeper

I report. You draw your own conclusions.

As always, patience as I pull together the thread. 👇

It is NOT confirmed fact that Chesny, who appeared to be encouraging running over protesters, was SPLC's informant.

But the indictment (paragraph 11a) describes informant F-37, and it matches Chesny:

• Member of the online leadership chat that planned Unite the Right
• Attended Charlottesville (at SPLC's direction)
• Made racist postings (under SPLC's supervision)
• Helped coordinate transportation for attendees

Now here's why this matters beyond the fraud charges.

Charlottesville became the single most consequential founding event in modern American political infrastructure. Every one of these organizations says... in their own words.... that they exist or were transformed because of August 12, 2017.

👇

Read 12 tweets

DataRepublican (small r)

@DataRepublican

Apr 21

🧵 THREAD: The true reason Pete Hegseth is being targeted is because he's standing between President Trump and a coup

@PeteHegseth named the institutions... CFR, Brookings, the general class... in 37 seconds in a video by @Liz_Wheeler . Within 72 hours of his nomination, a color revolution planning document cited him as an insider threat.

They didn't go after him because of drinking. They didn't go after him because of women. They went after him because every color revolution manual ever written says the same thing: you cannot topple a government unless the security forces defect. And a loyal Secretary of Defense is the one person who makes sure they don't.

I have the receipts. Their own documents. Their own training sessions. Their own words on camera.

As always, patience as I pull together the thread. 👇

@PeteHegseth @Liz_Wheeler This is not my theory. This is theirs.

Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan — the two most cited scholars in the color revolution field — studied 323 regime change campaigns. Their finding:

Security force defections make campaigns FORTY-SIX TIMES more likely to succeed.

@PeteHegseth @Liz_Wheeler So what did co-author Maria Stephan do next?

She became Chief Organizer of the Horizons Project. And on July 16, 2025, she trained New Kings participants on video.

"Security forces refused to obey orders to repress protesters."

Read 19 tweets

DataRepublican (small r)

@DataRepublican

Apr 16

🚨🧵 THREAD: Braver Angels says they're bipartisan and just bringing people together. Their own leadership coordinates with an anti-Trump political infrastructure network.🚨

This thread is not about BA's members. Many are sincere, and I thank @wilksopinion and @JohnRWoodJr for communicating with me.

This is about the infrastructure steering them: IMIP.

On August 18, 2025, Harry Boyte, a former Democratic Socialists of America board member, YES, that DSA announced Maury Giles' new role as Braver Angels CEO on video and their shift in strategy from depolarization to civic action:

"David has put together a featured plenary at the National Conference on Citizenship... which will be a launch of a new stage for Braver Angels that some of us have been working on for a while."

IMIP is the Inter-Movement Impact Project. It coordinates BA's strategic direction. Its own May 2025 document quotes David Brooks approvingly:

"Short term: Stop Trump. Foil his efforts. Pile on the lawsuits."

Braver Angels' members are bipartisan. Their leadership is adjacent to anti-Trump infrastructure. This thread has all the receipts.

As always, patience as I pull together the thread.👇

@wilksopinion @JohnRWoodJr IMIP's own document from May 5, 2025 quotes David Brooks and calls for a nationwide civic uprising:

"Short term: Stop Trump. Foil his efforts. Pile on the lawsuits. Turn some of his followers against him."

Then: "IMIP has been working to help answer [this] since late 2017."

@wilksopinion @JohnRWoodJr Walt Roberts runs IMIP. June 30, 2025:

"We've adopted Rachel Kleinfeld's strategy number four as our thing... a broad-based, multi-stranded, pro-democracy movement."

Flood the country with NGOs (including Braver Angels) is strategy #4. What are the other four strategies?

Read 22 tweets

DataRepublican (small r)

@DataRepublican

Apr 15

Hello Mr. Woods, (1/4)

I appreciate you engaging, sincerely. You're one of the few people in this space who actually responded, and your tone was decent. So I want to return the courtesy... and this is my first multi-part Hello.

You wrote: "Is any organized effort that involves people working from across the aisle necessarily a conspiracy?"

No. It isn't. And I haven't called it one. I've called it what it is: a funded, coordinated, strategically managed field.

Let me start with you.

You are the National Ambassador of Braver Angels. Braver Angels pulled in $5,651,273 in 2024, up from $958,681 in 2019... mostly from major foundations.

But your public videos repeatedly frame it as a "grassroots" or "national citizens" movement.

These two things cannot both be true. A $5.6 million-per-year operation funded predominantly by major foundations is not a grassroots citizens movement. It is a professionally managed nonprofit. There is nothing wrong with that... unless you describe it as something it isn't.

(2/4)
Now, here's where it gets interesting. And here's where I think you may genuinely not know the full picture.

In the above video clip, you say:

"We are in this moment where the depolarization movement I think is beginning to coalesce. I mean, I think you and I are in a position to sort of feel it. Braver Angels, Millennial Action Project, all of the amazing organizations in New Pluralists, National Conversations Project."

You named New Pluralists by name. So let's talk about what New Pluralists actually is.

In 2017, Mark Gerzon, president of the Mediators Foundation, consultant to the United Nations Development Programme, distinguished fellow at the EastWest Institute, organized a private meeting of major political funders at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund's Pocantico Conference Center. Representatives of both the Koch and Soros networks were in the room. The project was co-launched by Stephen Heintz, President of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Out of that meeting came the New Pluralists.

Today, New Pluralists is a funder collaborative, not a standalone nonprofit. It is fiscally sponsored by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. Templeton, Hewlett, Einhorn, Fetzer, Klarman, Lubetzky, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund are all partners. MacKenzie Scott gave $4 million. The stated goal is $100 million over a decade.

Braver Angels is listed as one of approximately 60 "Field Builders." So is Tim Shriver's Dignity Index. So is Horizons Project. So is David French.

The same foundations that fund the New Pluralists collaborative also fund Braver Angels directly. Templeton gave $1.26 million to Braver Angels. Hewlett gave at least $75,000 plus undisclosed seed funding. They are also governing partners of New Pluralists. The money goes to the funder collaborative AND to the organizations the collaborative funds. It is the same pipeline.

You described this as "a moment where the depolarization movement is beginning to coalesce." New Pluralist's strategic plan describes it as a $100 million coordinated investment in field infrastructure. Both descriptions are accurate. The difference is yours sounds organic. Theirs sounds like what it is.

(3/4)
You wrote: "I do know Tim Shriver. He and I did a Braver Angels podcast together."

Good. Then you know who runs the Dignity Index.

The Dignity Index is operated by Project Unite. Its theoretical framework was developed by Donna Hicks, a Harvard specialist in international conflict resolution. Its framework was designed for mediating foreign wars. Then it was applied to scoring American political speech on a 1-8 contempt-to-dignity scale. In Utah. And it was piloted at UVU, the same campus where Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

One of the official websites to come out of the Biden White House's "United We Stand" summit was dignity[.]us. That URL now points to the Dignity Index.

Braver Angels has a formal partnership with the Dignity Index. You announced it. The pledge: "connect all 124 Braver Angels alliances" with Dignity Index training.

You wrote in your thread: "The Dignity Index, as I understand it, is meant to be a tool for holding all politicians accountable."

With respect... "as I understand it" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The Dignity Index was built on a foreign conflict resolution framework, launched from a White House summit that identified populist movements as domestic threats, and piloted in the same Utah institutional ecosystem that was hosting MWEG conferences for three consecutive years at UVU. None of that requires a conspiracy. All of it is documented. Most of it is on their own websites.

Read 4 tweets

DataRepublican (small r)

@DataRepublican

Apr 14

🧵🚨 THREAD: Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University. Within TWO HOURS, leaders of 7 "bridge-building" organizations assembled on a conference call. Why so fast? Because UVU was THEIR campus. 🚨

This is Maury Giles, incoming CEO of Braver Angels, admitting on camera at the National Conference on Citizenship:

"Within two hours of the assassination, a group of us, all Utahns, we gathered on a call. We'd become friends over the last 5 years through our work in the community. And we also happen to be leaders in seven different national organizations that work in civic renewal."

Two hours. Seven national organizations. But this wasn't a spontaneous reaction to a tragedy. This was a network protecting its home turf. Because UVU wasn't just the place where Kirk was shot. It was the institutional center of the entire bridge-building / Dignity Index apparatus... and had been for years.

And the kicker?

These seven national organizations don't hide their own intent: replicate color revolution tactics in the United States. And, yes, that includes MWEG - Mormon Women for Ethical Government.

I have the receipts... they all admitted this on camera.

As always, patience as I pull together the thread. 👇

MWEG on their own GROW video:

"UVU has sponsored for us for the past three years so that we can have it there on their campus."

UVU SPONSORED their annual conference for three consecutive years. UVU is not a neutral venue in this story. It's a partner.

A speaker on MWEG's own Civics Learning Week video from 2023 admits she got a faculty position at UVU partly BECAUSE she was involved with Braver Angels... the same organization whose incoming CEO organized the two-hour call after Kirk was killed.