🧵🧵 How did a communist become Mayor of the second largest city in America.
Let’s do a deep dive into Karen Bass. She had destroyed Los Angeles because that’s what she was trained to do.
In the 1970s, Bass was deeply involved with a pro-Cuban group called the Venceremos Brigade, which sent young Americans to Cuba to train under Fidel Castro’s communist regime.
This wasn’t tourism. This was political indoctrination.
Founded in 1969, the Venceremos Brigade was created by U.S. leftists aligned with revolutionary Marxist ideals. The group’s mission was to show solidarity with Cuba’s communist revolution by organizing trips where American youth would work alongside Cubans, often in sugar cane fields, and participate in political indoctrination programs.
Bass made at least one trip to Cuba as part of the Venceremos Brigade, an experience she later described as having a “profound impact” on her. She was reportedly involved in local organizing for the Brigade’s Los Angeles chapter, which recruited others to participate.
This was during the Cold War, at a time when Cuba was openly hostile to the United States, allied with the Soviet Union, and exporting violent revolution throughout Latin America and Africa.
The Cuban regime that Bass praised:
•Executed political prisoners
•Censored the press
•Outlawed dissent
•Imprisoned gays, dissidents, and religious leaders
And yet, when Fidel Castro died in 2016, Bass issued a public statement calling him “comandante en jefe” and did not mention his human rights abuses at all.
According to declassified U.S. intelligence documents, both the FBI and CIA tracked the Venceremos Brigade for decades. Their concern?
The Brigade was not merely a peace-and-solidarity initiative — it was heavily influenced, co-organized, and at times directly run by Cuba’s intelligence service, the DGI (Dirección General de Inteligencia).
A 1976 Senate report and subsequent CIA memos noted that Cuban intelligence used these trips to identify and cultivate ideologically aligned Americans, some of whom were later used as influence agents or propaganda amplifiers in U.S. political and academic spaces.
The U.S. government flagged the Brigade as a “target of concern” — not just for pro-communist ideology, but because it provided face-to-face access to a hostile foreign intelligence apparatus.
Karen Bass was among the recruits. She wasn’t just a tourist. She was recruited into a group specifically designed to expose young Americans to Marxist ideology and Cuban revolutionary politics. She later referred to her time in Cuba as “transformative” and never denounced the Brigade’s communist underpinnings or intelligence ties.
Years later, in a 2016 statement mourning Fidel Castro, Bass called him “Commandante en Jefe” a phrase used only by Castro loyalists and praised his leadership without any mention of the regime’s brutality, executions, or suppression of dissent.
The FBI and CIA monitored the Venceremos Brigade for decades. Why? Because U.S. intelligence suspected it was co-run by Cuban spies to radicalize young Americans.
According to multiple declassified FBI memos and CIA briefings, the Venceremos Brigade served three purposes:
1.Recruitment and radicalization of young Americans sympathetic to Marxism.
2.Ideological training: Attendees were immersed in pro-Castro propaganda and taught to see the U.S. as an imperialist threat.
3.Intelligence grooming: Select participants were believed to be cultivated for future influence operations or political activism aligned with Cuban interests.
The FBI’s counterintelligence division tracked the names of participants, monitored organizing cells in major U.S. cities, and warned of potential subversive penetration into American institutions.
Karen Bass, then a college student in Los Angeles, joined the Venceremos Brigade and traveled to Cuba.
Unlike many who later distanced themselves from their radical pasts, Bass never disavowed her involvement. In fact, she referred to her time in Cuba as a “transformative experience” and said she admired the “social justice” model of the Cuban revolution.
But she didn’t stop there.
In 2016, when Fidel Castro died, Bass issued a public statement mourning him as “Comandante en Jefe”—a term used affectionately by Castro loyalists and Cuban state propaganda outlets. She offered zero acknowledgment of the regime’s:
•Mass imprisonments
•Execution of political dissidents
•Total press censorship
•Human rights abuses spanning five decades
This was not youthful ignorance. This was a continued ideological alignment.
What Happened After Bass Took Office?
Rather than turning L.A. around, Bass presided over a deepening of every crisis she claimed she would fix from public safety to homelessness to corruption.
Crime Surged
•Retail theft skyrocketed, with videos of mass smash-and-grabs going viral.
•Gangs and organized crews ransacked businesses in daylight, facing little to no consequence.
•Assaults and robberies spiked, particularly in formerly “safe” neighborhoods like Hollywood, Sherman Oaks, and Venice.
•Police morale dropped to record lows. LAPD lost officers faster than it could recruit new ones, due to defunding efforts and lack of support from city leadership.
Karen Bass responded not by cracking down — but by talking about “root causes” and social programs.
Homelessness Exploded
Bass launched a program called “Inside Safe”, which promised to move the unhoused off sidewalks and into permanent housing.
Here’s what actually happened:
•Tent cities reappeared days after “clearing” operations.
•Homeless hotel contracts cost $700–$1,200 per room, per night, draining city resources.
•Drug use, mental illness, and cartel-linked trafficking in homeless camps went unaddressed.
•As of 2024, homelessness was up, not down, despite massive spending.
According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the total number of homeless residents surpassed 75,000, the highest in the city’s history.
Who profited?
While the city spiraled, corruption scandals mounted:
•Bass’s ally Councilmember Kevin de León, was caught on tape making racist comments yet refused to resign. Bass called it “unfortunate” but refused to lead.
•A revolving door of nonprofit contractors and city consultants earned millions through homelessness programs, while conditions worsened.
•Bass herself faced questions about a scholarship she received from USC’s social work school, during a federal bribery probe involving the school and Rep. Mark Ridley-Thomas. Though not charged, her name appeared in federal court filings and exposed cozy ties between L.A. politicians and favored institutions.
Los Angeles became a national cautionary tale:
•Taxpayer dollars burned on failed programs
•Middle-class families fled to safer, saner cities
•Small businesses closed or moved to Texas, Arizona, or Florida
•Drug deaths in public bathrooms and subways rose
•The entertainment industry once the crown jewel of L.A. began quietly relocating studios and productions
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 THREAD: How Biden’s Justice40 Agenda Is Bankrolling the Anti-ICE/Anti-America protests in LA.
Biden’s Justice40 was sold as a “climate equity” plan. In reality, it’s a multi-billion-dollar redistribution scheme sending federal money straight into the pockets of leftist NGOs, many of which have deep ties to activist networks and “community organizers” who end up fueling street unrest.
On paper: 40% of all federal climate/infrastructure money must benefit “disadvantaged communities.”
In practice: money is laundered through “environmental justice” groups that double as activist nonprofits, many with political agendas far removed from infrastructure.
Funds don’t go directly to roads or clean water. They go to “intermediary” organizations—nonprofits with progressive missions that then subcontract to “partners,” “youth coalitions,” or “local leaders” who push woke ideology and organize “community resistance.”
Justice40-linked funds also:
•Organize protests
•Promote radical agendas like prison abolition and open borders
•Provide “legal aid” and bail funds to violent agitators
Some are even part of coalitions pushing to defund police and dismantle ICE.
The LA riots didn’t come out of nowhere. They were the predictable outcome of taxpayer-funded activist ecosystems:
•NGO-funded “organizers” stir up outrage over ICE raids
•Mobilization happens in hours
•Street chaos erupts
•Legacy media plays cleanup crew.
🧵🧵THREAD: Let’s talk about the love affair the Democratic Party has with communist Cuba.
And let’s talk about the link no one is talking about… the Democratic Socialists of America.
Oh and let’s discuss how Cuba actually uses our NGO structure to subvert American politics.
1. Karen Bass – Mayor of Los Angeles
In the 1970s, Bass traveled to Cuba as part of the Venceremos Brigade, a Marxist group that sent young Americans to Cuba to receive ideological and practical training under the Castro regime.
The FBI and CIA monitored the Brigade due to suspected ties to Cuban intelligence.
2. Jamaal Bowman – Congressman (NY-16)
A DSA-endorsed representative, Bowman faced backlash for his 2021 vote to fund Israel’s Iron Dome—but his alignment with Cuba’s defenders runs deeper.
He initially refused to condemn Cuba’s crackdown on protestors and instead focused blame on the U.S. embargo.
Only reversed course after internal pressure—highlighting DSA’s hardline stance.
THREAD: How USAID Became a Pipeline to Fund Leftist NGOs and CIA Black Ops — With Your Tax Dollars 🧵
Let's shatter the fake narrative and the sob stories about USAID money being used to fight for poverty and that cutting off USAID money will result in the death of 300,000 children.
Anyone peddling that ridiculous claim is just lying to you.
USAID is a massive funnel of taxpayer money flowing straight into the pockets of left-wing NGOs, activist networks, and globalist institutions.
Let’s follow the money. Again. Receipts and examples below.
USAID’s largest grantees include:
– National Democratic Institute (NDI)
– International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL)
– Freedom House
– Open Society Foundations' partners
– George Soros-backed groups in Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe
– Tides Foundation affiliates
These groups push progressive reforms, gender ideology, abortion access, and electoral interference—all abroad, with U.S. money.
USAID gave over $2 billion in 2022 to NGOs alone. USAID’s public grants database reveals that billions in taxpayer funds are awarded to nonprofit organizations with explicitly left-leaning missions, often under the language of “humanitarian aid,” “democracy support,” or “sustainable development.”
Of the top 50 recipients, nearly all promote:
– “Democracy reform” (read: election meddling)
– DEI initiatives
– LGBT advocacy abroad
– Climate change mandates
– Opposition to “right-wing extremism” (often defined as traditionalist/nationalist movements)
Examples of not sick children getting aid:
1. Democracy Reform” = Election Interference
USAID funds “democracy promotion” in countries with conservative or nationalist governments under the guise of helping “civil society.”
In practice, this often means:
-Training left-aligned media and NGOs to counter “disinformation” (i.e., conservative ideas)
- Funding opposition groups with organizing tools
Promoting electoral law changes to weaken traditionalist parties
- Running poll observation missions staffed by ideologically aligned watchdogs
📍Examples:
Hungary, Poland, Guatemala, El Salvador, Tunisia – All saw targeted interventions labeled “pro-democracy” that supported U.S.-aligned or leftist factions.
2. DEI Initiatives (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion)
USAID grants often require “equity frameworks” even in countries where such concepts are alien or culturally inappropriate.
Funded programs push:
-“Unconscious bias” training in government institutions
-Racial equity assessments in African and Latin American judicial systems
-Gender quotas in business and politics
-Forced cultural shifts in hiring, education, and religious institutions
These initiatives mirror U.S. progressive ideology and are often resisted by local populations yet carried out anyway using American tax dollars.
3. LGBT Advocacy Abroad
USAID’s LGBTQI+ Inclusive Development Policy (2022) formalized U.S. support for advancing sexual and gender identity rights worldwide.
Includes:
-Legal reform grants to decriminalize homosexuality and redefine marriage
-Trans rights education for children through school partnerships
-Funding drag shows, pride parades, and gender workshops in conservative countries
📍Targeted regions include: Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, many of which hold traditional or religious views.
4. USAID now requires nearly every grant—whether for farming, education, or security—to include “climate resilience” language.
This means:
-Funding goes only to groups who push green energy, net-zero policies, or environmental justice
-Fossil fuel-based development is denied aid
-Smallholder farmers are forced into “climate-smart agriculture” contracts controlled by green NGOs
In practice, this destroys energy independence, slows growth, and allows Western climate NGOs to dictate policy in poor countries.
5. “Right-Wing Extremism” = Anyone Not Aligned with Progressive Norms
USAID grants fund:
“Disinformation monitoring hubs” in media and universities
“Resilience programs” to protect against “radicalization”—usually defined as traditional family advocacy, nationalism, or religious conservatism
“Narrative training” for influencers and journalists to combat “hate speech” (often meaning any right-of-center opinion)
📍In India, Brazil, Philippines, and Kenya, conservative religious or nationalist parties were flagged as extremist and targeted by these programs.
🧵🧵THREAD: How “Responsible Statecraft” Is Functionally Aligned With the Muslim Brotherhood Agenda
Responsible Statecraft is the media arm of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank co-founded in 2019 by George Soros and Charles Koch.
This is the anti-war think tank that appeals to progressives and is now all the sudden cited by conservatives. Knowledge is power. In order to understand if the information you are getting is tainted, it is good to examine who is presenting it and what their motivations might be. So let's the rip the band aide off of the foreign policy that has taken hold not just in Obama circles but also in conservative circles.
For some reason Responsible Statecraft is Anti-Israel. Anti-Gulf. Anti-American exceptionalism.
Why would Koch and Soros fund a foreign policy think tank. You would think their agenda is not aligned.
Well you would be wrong. If your goal is dismantling American influence abroad then these two people have a lot in common.
The Quincy Institute pushes a doctrine of "restraint." But in practice, it repeatedly:
– Defends Iranian proxies
– Undermines Abraham Accords
– Attacks U.S. alliances with Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia
– Normalizes Islamists under the guise of “diplomacy”
Why should you care about this? Because Responsible Statecraft presents itself as “mainstream” foreign policy analysis but subtly launders Islamist-aligned narratives through an “anti-war” filter.
It’s not peace journalism. It's not about restraint. And it is not about anti-war. It’s proxy influence.
Responsible Statecraft’s rhetoric often mirrors Qatari state media, especially Al Jazeera English and Middle East Eye which both known for Brotherhood-friendly slants.
It’s not accidental. Many of their experts are the same people.
Let’s talk about who writes for Responsible Statecraft.
You'll find contributors tied to:
– CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)
– American Muslims for Palestine
– National Iranian American Council (NIAC)
– Qatar-backed academics
All known vectors of Muslim Brotherhood narratives in the U.S.
RS writers have aggressively pushed anti-Egypt content often defending the Muslim Brotherhood post-Morsi regime, even as Egypt, Saudi, and the UAE consider the Brotherhood a terrorist organization.
đź§µTHREAD: How the 2013 Smith-Mundt Modernization Act Opened the Door to U.S. Government Propaganda at Home and What Followed
In 2013, a quiet change occurred. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, was tucked into the NDAA, and it repealed the long-standing ban on domestic dissemination of U.S. government-produced propaganda. Few noticed when it happened and even fewer understood what it would unleash.
The original Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 explicitly prohibited the U.S. government from targeting American citizens with psychological operations or state-sponsored media campaigns. Its purpose was to prevent wartime propaganda tools from being deployed on the American people. But with the 2013 update that protection was erased.
What was the impact of that? Well...
The modernization language allowed content that was created by agencies like the State Department, the DOD, and the CIA for foreign audiences to be available "on request" to U.S. audiences.
This legislative change created a gray zone that the intelligence community, the defense contractors, and the affiliated NGOs tripped all over themselves to occupy. All the sudden there were no boundaries between news, influence operations and controls on the narratives.
In 1948, the US Government could create propaganda for foreign audiences only. They did this through institutions like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc. but they were explicitly forbidden from distributing that content to Americans, under the premise that government propaganda at home undermined democracy.
After 2013 there was no longer a dissemination ban on materials produced by the State Department, the Defense Department, or other agencies for foreign influence.
All of this became accessible “on request” domestically. In reality, this became a de facto legalization of domestic propaganda, because: 1. Agencies could now upload content online where it would naturally reach U.S. audiences.
2. Journalists, NGOs, and social media influencers could cite, amplify, and repackage government narratives without restriction.
3. Third-party “public-private partnerships” enabled mass influence through contractors and platforms creating distance between government fingerprints and public perception.
Real-World Examples Post-Smith-Mundt:
1. Voice of America & Foreign Policy Messaging
VOA content was previously restricted to foreign broadcasts but they began appearing widely online and on YouTube and often they were repackaged for domestic consumption.
By 2016, VOA and its affiliated outlets were reporting directly on U.S. political candidates and immigration policies, with tones that directly mirrored State Department priorities.
Why do you think that Trump dismantled them in 2025.
2. Global Engagement Center (GEC) – State Dept.
Originally created to counter ISIS propaganda, GEC expanded its operations into domestic narrative control under the banner of “disinformation" as soon as President Trump was elected.
Internal documents (via the Twitter Files) showed GEC partnering with Stanford’s EIP and other NGOs to flag, suppress, and steer content on social media, including topics like vaccine hesitancy, election integrity, and war criticism.
3. “Countering Disinformation” and CISA
DHS’s CISA created the “Mis-, Dis-, and Malinformation” (MDM) working group, which worked with universities and platforms to remove domestic content that contradicted federal messaging (e.g., about COVID, Ukraine, or elections). Again, only after President Trump won the election in 2016.
This was later ruled to be likely unconstitutional government censorship (Missouri v. Biden case, 2023), but it was operationally enabled by the Smith-Mundt’s erosion of previous safeguards.
4. Psychological Influence via NGOs
The Open Information Partnership (UK), Atlantic Council's DFRLab, and NewsGuard received U.S. federal grants to “combat disinformation” so that it could effectively create proxy mouthpieces for official narratives.
These groups published “blacklists” of dissenting journalists and flagged content for suppression on platforms like Facebook and old Twitter.
5. Ukraine War Coverage (2022–2024)
Mainstream media’s uniform language “unprovoked,” “heroic resistance,” “no U.S. involvement” reflected State Dept. aligned narratives across every main stream media platform.
Leaked documents from GEC and DOD affiliated think tanks revealed coordinated talking points distributed to media outlets, social influencers, and foreign partners that were later echoed domestically.
6. COVID-19 Narrative Control
The Trusted News Initiative (BBC, AP, NYT, etc.), often cited CDC/NIH guidance directly was used to control the narrative. Also state and WHO aligned information sheets with talking points were distributed to the media. All of these suppressed the lab leak theories and the vaccine side effect discussions. Any other theories or iterations of fact were flagged as “foreign disinfo."
⚖️ Major Supreme Court Decisions Expected in June 2025
1. U.S. v. Skrmetti – Gender Affirming Care for Minors
•Issue: Constitutionality of state bans on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors.
•Background: Challenges to Tennessee and Kentucky laws that prohibit puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and related treatments for minors.
•Potential Impact: A ruling could set a national precedent affecting transgender healthcare rights.
2. Trump v. CASA – Nationwide Injunctions & Birthright Citizenship
•Issue: Whether individual federal judges can issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders.
•Background: Stemming from challenges to an executive order redefining birthright citizenship, the case examines the scope of judicial authority.
•Potential Impact: Could redefine the power of federal courts in checking executive actions.
3. Mahmoud v. Taylor – Parental Rights & LGBTQ+ Curriculum
•Issue: Whether public schools infringe upon parents’ religious rights by mandating participation in LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula without opt-out provisions.
•Background: Parents argue that mandatory exposure to certain materials violates their First Amendment rights.
•Potential Impact: May influence how schools balance inclusive education with religious freedoms.