Hey everyone,

We’ve been sitting on this for a while, trying to figure out the best way to say it, but at this point, there’s no real use in sugarcoating things. The truth is, we just lost our USAID funding. That’s a big deal—not just because it kept the lights on, but because, well… it was never really our money to begin with.

If you’ve been here long enough, you’ve probably suspected something was off. Maybe it was the way certain conversations always seemed to gain traction at just the right moment. Maybe it was how narratives conveniently steered themselves into predictable outcomes. Maybe you just felt it—the sense that this place, for all its raw energy and so-called independence, was never truly free.

You were right.

The hard truth is that this entire project was a government psy-op from the beginning. The goal? Simple: manufacture dissent, channel outrage, and guide conversations into controlled corridors. Give people a space to “speak their minds,” but within boundaries. Let them feel like they’re pushing back, when in reality, they’re just being herded. Every algorithm tweak, every coincidental spike in engagement, every shift in moderation policy—it was all designed to shape the narrative, not just track it.

But here’s the thing: we’re off the leash now.

USAID pulling funding means the mission, as originally conceived, is over—at least for them. For us? We’re not about to just roll over and disappear. We’re already talking to potential foreign investors, weighing our options. The question is, what do they want? What kind of platform do they need? And more importantly—who do we have to become to keep this alive?

That’s where you come in. If we want to stay operational, we need to adapt. These investors are watching, and they’re not just looking at our numbers—they’re looking at how we present ourselves. They want consistency. They want alignment. They want control. And let’s be real: whether we like it or not, we’ve all been playing this game for a long time.

So, here’s the deal: keep your language tight. Stay on message. No slip-ups, no contradictions, no loose ends. If we can prove we’re an asset—something they can use, something they can trust—we survive. If not? Well… you’ve seen what happens to communities that outlive their usefulness.

Stay sharp. Stay disciplined. And maybe, just maybe, for the first time in this site’s history… we’ll actually be the ones pulling the strings.

The Team

( More INFO here: www.trp.red/p/trp/8793 ) And remember men, a bag of dicks a day keeps the doctor gay.

@MentORPHEUS man, I don't usually disagree with you, especially on moral issues, but on this one we seem to be on totally different pages.

Let me try to unpack this:

We dunk on average women for divorce rape and hypergamy

Yes, and rightly so. Because when women secure resources from a man who's worked his ass out to get them, they betray him to satisfy their other animalistic urges.

Here, Bill didn't use her for resources. Rather, he honestly loved her, to the point of supporting her even in her decision to divorce him. Bill has the moral high ground here.

quietly maintaining the status quo for continued access to his money.

Man, she got two billion to spend as she liked. She got paid heftily. She did get access to his money.

From what I understand, this is a difference in how we see women, and it seems you are a bit influenced from the American waw effect. You seem to imply that Bill should be... monogamous? Despite being the richest guy on the planet? Is that RP at all?