Post

https://x.com/Ansgar_3/status/1989334753942925633

More from @Ansgar_3

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Oct 21

Imagine a big bully who doesn’t hit you but whispers mean lies to your friends so they stop playing with you.

That’s 5GW! The book says:

• The Bad Guys Aren’t Who You Think: It’s not your neighbors or people from other countries who disagree with you. They’re just confused like you. The real enemies are “shadowy governments” (sneaky leaders who hide), big companies like social media giants, and “globalists” (people who want one big boss controlling everything, like erasing country lines and taking away parents’ rights to decide for their kids). They use fake stories to make everyone hate each other, so they can make stricter rules and boss us around more.

• How the War Works: It’s all about “narratives” (fancy word for stories). They spread confusing info on TV, phones, and the web to make you worried or angry. If people fight, the bad guys use that as an excuse to take more control, like adding more “police” to watch everyone.

• What We Can Do: Don’t punch or yell, that’s what the bullies want! Instead, learn the truth (like reading this book), share it with everyone (even kids you don’t like), shake hands, and team up like a huge superhero squad.

The book quotes a smart guy named Malcolm X who says “fight for truth and fairness for all people, no matter who. “

And a general named McChrystal says “it takes a network (group) to beat a network” like making a big friend chain to stop the bullies.

• The Big Warning: If we lose, we’ll all be like puppets under one rich king who tells us what to do. But if we get smart and work together worldwide, we can win back our freedom. The book isn’t telling you to do anything bad, it’s just teaching so you make good choices based on facts, not feelings.

The whole thing is like a wake-up call: “Hey, war isn’t just boom-boom anymore. It’s mind games, and everyone’s in it!”

Real-Life Examples Happening Right Now (in 2025)

This stuff isn’t just in books, it’s happening today! Here are some easy examples, like schoolyard tricks but on a huge scale. I’ll show pictures to make it clearer.

1. Fake Videos (Deepfakes) Tricking People: Bad guys use computer magic to make videos where famous people say things they never said. For example, in 2025 elections around the world, like in the US or India, deepfakes show leaders “admitting” bad stuff to make voters mad or vote wrong. It’s like someone editing a video of your teacher saying “No recess forever!” when she didn’t.

Look at this picture, it shows how deepfakes are used in scams and to mess with votes.

Social Media Lies Spreading Hate:

On apps like X (Twitter) or Facebook, countries like Russia or China post fake news to make people in other places argue. Right now in 2025, during the Ukraine war, Russia spreads stories saying “Ukraine is bad” with made-up pictures to make Europeans stop helping.

It’s like a kid posting “Your friend stole my toy!” online to get everyone against them, even if it’s a lie.

The Israeli vs Hamas is being weaponized big time on social media: Similarly, in the Israel-Hamas fight right now in 2025, both sides (and outsiders) spread tons of fake stuff on social media to make the other look super mean and get the world to pick sides.

For example, there are false stories about bombings (like claiming a hospital was hit by the wrong side when it was a rocket gone wrong), fake videos of “starving people” while markets show food, or made-up claims about aid being stolen or schools being used as hideouts.

It’s like two groups yelling “They started it!” with phony pictures to make everyone hate the other team more, causing big arguments online and even hate against Jews or Muslims.

Groups like Hamas or Israel supporters use this to trick people into supporting them, and it’s led to surges in mean posts and wrong info during ceasefires.

Here’s a fun (but serious) poster showing how social media can be like old-time propaganda.

(This is also happening with Groups, if someone doesn’t agree with propaganda they push but we will touch on this a bit later 😉)

Read 19 tweets

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Oct 10

Ya”ll ready for the thread that got my OG account attacked, and suspended by Q “Anons”

🚨EXPOSE: QANON WAS A PSYOP - AND IT WAS USED TO TARGET TRUMP & FLYNN, NOT DEFEND THEM. 🚨

What follows is a deeply-researched breakdown that every patriot, journalist, and digital soldier should see. You have been lied to.

Donald J. Trump didn’t create QAnon, didn’t even back it outright-just nodded along like, yeah, cool fans.

But the whole cult ( Bernie Bro’s ) draped itself in his flags, his chants, his crowd.

Made people think it was legit White House intel.

First sucker punch: Thinking Q rode for Trump. Nah-it was built to gut him, herd his base like sheep with lies, guilt-trips, and mind-games.

Don’t go off the cliff 🤦🏻‍♂️

Setting the stage: Q was not what it seemed.

Contrary to mainstream belief, Donald J. Trump did not create QAnon, nor did he directly endorse it.

At most, he acknowledged its popularity, sometimes playfully, other times ambiguously-but never claimed ownership or origin.

Yet the movement wrapped itself in his imagery, his slogans, and his base-giving millions the false impression that Q had official backing.

That assumption was the first trap.

The second trap? Believing Q was created for Trump.

Our research indicates it was designed to destroy him-or at minimum, to control and corral his movement through disinformation, psychological framing, and guilt-by-association.

Listen to how @RepRaskin weaponized QAnon Against @nicksortor rather than answer his very important questions.

The architects-General Paul Vallely and psywar veterans. Let’s talk about General Paul Vallely.

In nineteen eighty, Vallely co-authored a paper called ‘From PSYOP to MindWar’ with then-Major Michael Aquino, a specialist in psychological operations. (QAnons don’t want you paying attention to this ask Gen. Vallely is the only one to give Credence to Q 😬)

This document didn’t just advocate for propaganda. It called for total psychological dominance over populations, through all media, symbols, beliefs, and behavioral cues.

Now fast-forward to the Obama era-Vallely was a key advisor in shaping narratives.

Coincidence? Hardly. Vallely pushed ‘MindWar’ tactics: win without firing a shot, by controlling perceptions.

QAnon? Textbook application. Drops on 4chan, cryptic codes, anonymous source-classic psyop playbook.

Listen to Alex Jone who tried to warn you, Qanon called him MOSSAD agent. 🤣

Read 6 tweets

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Sep 28

Investigation into the Open Society Foundations’ Role in Global Migration and United States Immigration Policy Influence

🚨It would be easier to ask what George Soros does not have his money/influence in🚨

The Open Society Foundations (OSF), established and funded by George Soros, represent a vast network of philanthropic influence that extends across borders, impacting migration patterns and immigration policies worldwide. This report examines OSF’s embedded role in facilitating migration from origin countries through humanitarian and advocacy programs, while simultaneously supporting legal and policy efforts within the United States to enable the long-term stay of immigrants. Drawing on documented grants and organizational ties, the analysis reveals a pattern of indirect support that, while ostensibly focused on human rights and equity, contributes to increased migration flows into the US and influences domestic policy to favor permissive immigration frameworks.
OSF’s global expenditures exceed $23 billion, with significant portions directed toward international NGOs that operate in both origin and destination countries. These organizations provide aid along migration routes, legal education on US asylum processes, and advocacy against local deterrents in countries like Mexico and Central America. In the US, OSF funds litigation, lobbying, and policy research that challenge deportation, expand asylum protections, and promote integration, often intersecting with federal programs for Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC). This dual approach—pushing from abroad and pulling from within—creates a coordinated ecosystem that amplifies migration pressures on the US border.

Key findings include:

• OSF’s grants to international NGOs in origin countries create “pull factors” by offering support during journeys, indirectly encouraging migration toward the US.

• In the US, OSF-backed advocacy influences policy through lawsuits and lobbying, benefiting NGOs that receive billions in federal funding for UAC processing and resettlement.

• Soros’s influence is deeply embedded, with OSF serving as a hub connecting global and domestic efforts, often in partnership with USAID and other entities that recycle US taxpayer dollars into these networks.
This report recommends immediate congressional oversight, including audits of OSF’s tax-exempt status, investigations into potential violations of lobbying laws, and reforms to federal funding mechanisms for migration-related NGOs to ensure transparency and alignment with national security interests.

The Open Society Foundations, funded primarily by George Soros with over $32 billion in contributions, operate as a global philanthropic entity dedicated to promoting open societies, human rights, and democratic reforms. While OSF’s mission is framed as advancing equity and justice, its funding patterns reveal a systematic approach to influencing migration and immigration policies. This influence spans from origin countries, where grants support programs that aid migrants en route to the US, to domestic advocacy that seeks to reform US laws for easier entry and prolonged stays.
OSF’s role is not limited to direct grants but extends through a web of international NGOs that receive funding for humanitarian aid, legal support, and policy lobbying. These organizations, many with headquarters in the US or Europe but operations worldwide, form a network that indirectly facilitates migration by addressing push factors abroad (e.g., poverty, violence) and advocating for pull factors in the US (e.g., expanded asylum, reduced deportations). This report details OSF’s embedded influence, listing all relevant organizations, their international connections, and how their work ties into US policy.
The analysis highlights how OSF’s grants, often routed through fiscal sponsors or partnerships with USAID, create a cycle of influence that benefits from US taxpayer dollars while shaping immigration outcomes. Although OSF maintains that its activities are lawful and humanitarian, the pattern raises concerns about organized efforts to alter US sovereignty through philanthropy.

OSF’s Global Migration Funding in Origin Countries
OSF allocates millions annually to programs in origin countries, particularly in Latin America and Mexico, that provide aid along migration routes. This funding, while presented as humanitarian, includes legal education on US asylum processes, support for migrant caravans, and advocacy against local deterrents, creating incentives for northward movement. OSF’s grants often flow through international NGOs with operations in both origin regions and the US, forming a seamless chain that indirectly pushes migration toward American borders.

• International Rescue Committee (IRC): OSF provides grants to IRC for global refugee support, including programs in Mexico and Central America where IRC operates aid stations offering food, water, medical care, and legal advice on US asylum claims. IRC’s international connections include headquarters in New York (US) and offices in over 40 countries, including Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These efforts tie into US policy by preparing migrants for border processing, with IRC advocating for US reforms from abroad.

• Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS): OSF funds HIAS for refugee advocacy in origin countries like Mexico, where HIAS provides legal education on US immigration laws and support for migrants en route. HIAS has international connections with offices in the US (New York headquarters), Europe, and Latin America, collaborating with UN agencies. This aid indirectly facilitates entry by equipping migrants with knowledge of US asylum pathways, while HIAS lobbies for US policy changes from its global network.

• Catholic Charities International: OSF grants support Catholic Charities’ humanitarian programs in Mexico and Central America, including aid for migrants traveling north, such as shelters and legal orientation on US rights. Catholic Charities has international connections through its US-based headquarters and affiliates in over 200 countries, partnering with Vatican networks. These efforts influence US policy by advocating for family reunification and reduced border restrictions, creating a pull toward the US.

• Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières - MSF): OSF funds MSF for medical aid in migration hotspots like the Darién Gap (between Colombia and Panama) and Mexico, where MSF provides care to US-bound migrants. MSF’s international connections include headquarters in Geneva (Switzerland) and operations in 70+ countries, with US offices advocating for policy changes. This support indirectly encourages migration by mitigating journey risks, while MSF lobbies US policymakers for humane border policies.

• Amnesty International: OSF grants to Amnesty for anti-racism and human rights advocacy in Latin America include reports on violence pushing migration toward the US. Amnesty has international connections with headquarters in London (UK) and sections in over 150 countries, including the US. Their work influences US policy through lobbying for asylum expansions, tying origin-country aid to US immigration reforms.

• Human Rights Watch (HRW): OSF provides funding for HRW’s monitoring of abuses in origin countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua, which include recommendations for US asylum protections. HRW’s international connections include headquarters in New York (US) and offices worldwide. This advocacy indirectly facilitates migration by highlighting conditions that qualify for US refugee status, while HRW lobbies Congress for policy changes.

Read 15 tweets

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Sep 26

This isn’t about who reported first, it’s about collaboration.

When we combine independent research on George Soros’s networks with @ryanmauro CRC report (Sep 2025) on OSF funding $80M+ to pro-terror groups, we uncover a fuller picture of what’s being weaponized against us: dark money fueling extremism, division, cultural manipulation, and narrative control. capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/Re…

Let’s collaborate for truth. @ryanmauro for insights, plus @glennbeck @bennyjohnson @nicksortor @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @TheJusticeDept @FBI @StateDept
time for investigations into these networks!

CRC report: OSF’s $83M+ grants (2016-2023) to 53 groups linked to terrorism/extremism, e.g., Category 1 ($23.275M for domestic violence like riots/sabotage), Category 2 ($50.571M for Oct 7 endorsements/PFLP ties). Emphasizes opacity (censored grants) and calls for IRS revocations/sanctions.

Below I’m gonna show what I have found via my research over the past 2 years combining close to 2 almost million and possibly more!

Taxpayer subsidies enabling OSF’s agenda. OSF’s tax-exempt status means $11-13B in foregone revenue (37% rate on $32B+ contributions), indirectly funding extremism. Broader connection: This subsidizes not just CRC’s terror grants but cultural infiltration, amplifying division through unaccountable billions.

Not in CRC’s: OSF’s youth indoctrination via $258M to LGBTQ+ causes (2020), $36M trans-specific (2023), $50M youth pledge (2023)—infiltrating subcultures like furry/anime to “normalize confusion.” Connects to CRC’s Astraea ($5.182M, Oct 7 endorsement) by showing how “human rights” grants radicalize youth into extremism pipelines.

Deeper link: OSF to Astraea ($5.5M awarded 2024) for trans/queer activism intersecting Antifa (“Trantifa”) armed collectives. CRC focuses on Astraea’s terror endorsements; adding youth targeting reveals weaponized grooming, blending cultural warfare with CRC’s violence enablement.

OSF’s $47.2M to Tides for LGBTQ+ since 1997, plus $10.1M+$7.4M (2009-2014). Tides as fiscal sponsor shields extremism (CRC notes this opacity); broader: Enables untraceable flows to radical trans convenings, connecting CRC’s sabotage training to generational radicalization.

Terrorism ties expand: CRC’s $2.3M to Al-Haq (PFLP front, sanctioned 2025), $18M to M4BL (Oct 7 glorification). Not in CRC: Pre-2016 trans grants ($2.7M 2007-2010, $3.19M 2011-2013) show long-term patterns—OSF building ideological foundations for CRC’s “resistance” rhetoric justifying violence.

Not in CRC: OSF funding ISD for “countering extremism” but shaping narratives (partnerships with ADL/McCain Institute). Broader: Weaponizes disinfo tools to censor opposition, extending CRC’s media glorification (e.g., Al-Jazeera $105K) to info warfare suppressing terror critiques.

Deeper: OSF alongside Gates/Omidyar/Hewlett in ISD ($1.33M State Dept overlap 2022)—narrative control justifies CRC’s funded blockades/sabotage as “activism,” connecting domestic unrest to global anti-Western campaigns.

Read 6 tweets

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Sep 22

🚨ABOLISH THE IRS 🚨

Report on the Funding and Amplification of Youth Indoctrination Through Fiscal Sponsorships: Origins, IRS Interpretations, and Connections to Activism in Oregon and Antifa

This report examines the mechanisms through which fiscal sponsorships, enabled by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpretations of tax laws, have facilitated the flow of funds to organizations and initiatives promoting ideologies related to LGBTQ+, transgender, and furry communities. These funds, often channeled through foundations like the Tides Foundation and Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by George Soros, as well as government grants, have amplified activism that critics argue constitutes indoctrination of American youth. The report traces the origins of these communities, highlights their non-organic growth through targeted funding, and details intersections with Antifa in hubs like Portland, Oregon. Key findings include:
• The IRS’s Revenue Ruling 68-489 (1968) created fiscal sponsorship without congressional approval, allowing tax-deductible donations to support advocacy that skirts political activity restrictions.
• Major funding from OSF (over $2.7 million to trans-specific work between 2007-2010) and Tides (over $707,500 to trans groups in the same period) has scaled youth programs, protests, and education initiatives perceived as ideological indoctrination.
• Government grants from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have supported LGBTQ+ and trans youth programs, raising concerns about federal endorsement of controversial curricula in schools.
• The furry fandom, with strong LGBTQ+ and trans overlaps (furries are 7x more likely to identify as trans), originated organically in the 1970s but has been amplified through funded activism, intersecting with Antifa in progressive hubs.
• Portland, Oregon, serves as a case study, where Antifa’s history of militant anti-fascism (dating to the 1980s) blends with funded LGBTQ+ activism, leading to protests and events that influence youth.
Recommendations include congressional oversight to reform IRS rulings, audits of fiscal sponsors, and restrictions on federal funding for programs promoting gender ideology in youth settings. This report underscores that such developments have occurred without direct voter consent, potentially weaponizing social issues in the political climate.

The American people have historically voted for policies emphasizing traditional values, family structures, and educational neutrality. However, over the past several decades, a confluence of interpretive tax rulings, philanthropic funding, and government grants has enabled the amplification of ideologies related to LGBTQ+, transgender, and furry communities. These efforts, often framed as human rights advocacy, have been criticized as indoctrination of youth, introducing concepts of gender fluidity and non-traditional identities into schools, online spaces, and public discourse without broad democratic approval.
This report investigates how fiscal sponsorships—rooted in IRS Revenue Ruling 68-489—have served as a conduit for funds from entities like the Open Society Foundations and Tides Foundation, supporting programs that intersect with Antifa activism. It traces the origins of these communities, their growth through funding, and their role in Oregon as a hub for radical activism. The analysis draws on historical records, funding disclosures, and recent events, including the 2025 designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization by President Trump, to illustrate how these mechanisms have contributed to a polarized political climate.

The IRS’s Role in Enabling Fiscal Sponsorships
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has played a pivotal role in shaping the nonprofit landscape through administrative rulings that interpret existing tax laws, often without direct congressional input or presidential approval. Fiscal sponsorship, a practice allowing emerging projects to operate under the tax-exempt umbrella of established 501(c)(3) organizations, exemplifies this authority. This mechanism has enabled the flow of tax-deductible donations to causes that, while ostensibly charitable, have been used to amplify ideological activism, including programs targeting youth with gender-related education and advocacy.
Origins of Fiscal Sponsorship: Revenue Ruling 68-489
In 1968, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 68-489, which permitted 501(c)(3) organizations to distribute funds to non-exempt entities without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, provided the sponsor retains “discretion and control” over the funds to ensure they are used for charitable purposes. This ruling effectively legalized fiscal sponsorship, allowing projects—many of which lack their own tax-exempt status due to their nascent or advocacy-oriented nature—to receive tax-deductible contributions through a sponsor. The ruling was an interpretation of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires organizations to operate exclusively for charitable purposes, but it expanded flexibility for fund distribution.
Prior to this ruling, nonprofits were more restricted in supporting non-exempt activities. Revenue Ruling 68-489 changed this by ratifying arrangements where sponsors could act as intermediaries, provided they maintain oversight. This was not a product of congressional legislation or executive action; it stemmed from the IRS’s advisory committee recommendations in the 1960s, reflecting administrative discretion rather than voter-approved policy.
Mechanics and Impact on Nonprofits
Fiscal sponsorship operates in several models, such as Model A (comprehensive sponsorship, where the project is fully integrated into the sponsor) and Model C (pre-approved grant relationship, where funds are disbursed with less oversight). Sponsors like the Tides Center charge fees (typically 7-15% of funds) for administrative services, enabling projects to focus on mission without IRS compliance burdens.
The impact has been profound: Fiscal sponsorship has grown the sector, supporting over 10,000 projects annually and facilitating billions in donations. However, it raises transparency issues, as sponsors can aggregate anonymous donations, potentially shielding donors from scrutiny. In the context of youth indoctrination, this has allowed funds to flow to programs promoting gender ideology (e.g., trans-affirming education), often without public accountability. For instance, sponsors retain control but permit advocacy that borders on political activity, such as lobbying for school curricula changes.
Lack of Democratic Oversight
The ruling’s administrative nature means it bypassed Congress and the President, leading to concerns about unchecked influence. While Congress has reformed tax laws (e.g., the 1969 Tax Reform Act added excise taxes on foundations), fiscal sponsorship remains IRS-regulated, allowing significant funds to support divisive causes without voter input. This has enabled the amplification of activism in areas like LGBTQ+ youth programs, contributing to today’s polarized climate.

Read 14 tweets

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Sep 16

In honor of @charliekirk11
Come for me, we are all Charlie Kirk
@POTUS @JDVance @bennyjohnson @nicksortor @RobertKennedyJr @JackPosobiec @AGPamBondi @FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino @EagleEdMartin
The American taxpayer you, me, hardworking families across this great nation, are footing the bill for a radical agenda that’s poisoning our kids’ minds and bodies, all in the name of this twisted “LGBTQ+ (Furry & Anime Fandoms as Standalone Communities fall under LGBTQ+ and arts more on this later) transgender lifestyle.” And it’s happening right under our noses, through a sneaky backdoor called indirect tax subsidies. We’re talking billions of dollars in foregone revenue your tax dollars essentially being siphoned off to prop up these woke foundations and fiscal sponsors that push gender confusion on innocent children.
First off, let’s call it what it is: indoctrination, not education. These elites in foundations like George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Ford Foundation are dumping millions into fiscal sponsors—groups like Tides Foundation, Borealis Philanthropy, and Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice—that then funnel cash to activist networks. We’re talking $258 million poured into LGBTQ+ causes in 2020 alone, with $36 million specifically for transgender stuff in 2023. And guess what? A huge chunk of that is indirectly subsidized by you, the taxpayer, because when billionaires like Soros donate billions to OSF—$32 billion total!—they get massive tax breaks. At a 37% federal rate, that’s easily $11-13 billion in taxes the government doesn’t collect over the years. Ford’s $16 billion endowment? Same deal—hundreds of millions in foregone revenue every year. That’s money that could go to roads, schools, or border security, but instead, it’s enabling this grooming machine.

Watch this 👇👇👇

Report on Fiscal Sponsorship Mechanisms and Philanthropic Funding for LGBTQ+ and Transgender Social Justice Initiatives

This report examines the structure and application of fiscal sponsorship as a mechanism for channeling philanthropic funds, with a focus on its role in supporting LGBTQ+ and transgender social justice initiatives. Drawing from investigative threads on funding transparency, it incorporates detailed analyses of organizations, foundations, fiscal sponsors, and grant amounts from 2020-2025. Fiscal sponsorship enables efficient, often anonymous funding flows, but raises questions about accountability in activist networks. Key findings include significant grants from major foundations like the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and Ford Foundation to fiscal sponsors such as Tides Foundation, Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, and Borealis Philanthropy, totaling millions for LGBTQ+ and transgender causes. Overall U.S. foundation funding for LGBTQ+ issues reached $258.1 million in 2020, with transgender-specific funding at $36.4 million in 2023, amid a 19% decline from 2022 to 2023. Recommendations include enhanced IRS oversight of fiscal sponsor reporting to ensure transparency.

Breakdown of Fiscal Sponsorship, NGOs, and Foundations

Fiscal sponsorship, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and foundations represent distinct yet interconnected elements in the nonprofit ecosystem, particularly in facilitating social justice funding. Understanding their differences is essential for evaluating funding flows and potential opacity.

Fiscal Sponsorship

Fiscal sponsorship is a legal arrangement in which an established 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (the sponsor) extends its tax-exempt status to a non-exempt project or group, allowing it to receive tax-deductible donations and grants without independent IRS registration. This model, governed by IRS guidelines, enables quick startup for initiatives while the sponsor handles financial reporting, compliance, and administration, typically charging 5-10% fees. Sponsors oversee funds to ensure alignment with charitable missions but maintain arms-length operational control to limit liability. Anonymity is facilitated through donor-advised funds (DAFs) and pass-through grants, where donors can remain undisclosed on public Form 990 filings. Cryptocurrencies can also be accepted as “property” donations, adding pseudonymity. As of 2025, the Fiscal Sponsor Directory lists 399 sponsors managing over 20,000 projects, with growth since 2000 in social justice sectors. Examples include Tides Center (140+ projects) and Fractured Atlas (4,000+ arts projects). This framework supports grassroots activism but can obscure funding trails, as sponsors are not automatically liable for project actions unless complicit.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
NGOs are broader entities operating independently of government, often as 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofits focused on advocacy, service delivery, or humanitarian efforts. Unlike fiscal sponsorships, NGOs must register with the IRS and file independent Form 990s, providing greater transparency but requiring more administrative resources. In social justice, NGOs like Equality Utah or Transgender Law Center directly implement programs, whereas fiscal sponsors act as intermediaries. NGOs can receive grants from foundations and may themselves serve as fiscal sponsors (e.g., Tides Foundation).

Foundations
Foundations are grantmaking entities, typically private (e.g., Ford Foundation) or donor-advised, that distribute funds to NGOs or fiscal sponsors for charitable purposes. They do not provide fiscal sponsorship themselves but often fund sponsors to amplify impact. Foundations like OSF and Ford emphasize social justice, with OSF awarding billions globally for human rights and Ford committing $2 billion to inequality initiatives. They enable indirect funding, such as OSF’s $10.1 million to Tides Foundation (2009-2014, with ongoing support) or Ford’s $7.2 million to Tides (2023-2026). This layering can anonymize donors while supporting activist networks.

Read 19 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

JeremiahBullfrog3

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @Ansgar_3

JeremiahBullfrog3

JeremiahBullfrog3

JeremiahBullfrog3

JeremiahBullfrog3

JeremiahBullfrog3

JeremiahBullfrog3

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!