reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speakers discuss a line of questioning about Peter Thiel and its potential influence on others. Speaker 0 recalls asking about Peter Thiel, after which the other person responded by turning the focus back on the questioner and claimed that the questioner was funded by Peter Thiel. According to Speaker 0, this response caused the other person to “crash out,” implying a sudden interruption or withdrawal from the discussion. Speaker 1 reiterates that the person “crashed out” as a result of the inquiry into Thiel. The conversation then broadens to consider whether the broader group being discussed is funded by Peter Thiel. Speaker 1 asserts that “they a 100% are funded by Peter Thiel,” referring to a collection of individuals including Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate. The phrasing suggests a belief that these figures are financially supported by Thiel, and Speaker 0 confirms acknowledging this trend by asking for a clarification of the funding. The two speakers describe the group as being in a “little” or tightly connected circle, implying a coordinated or aligned faction. Speaker 1 strengthens the claim by labeling the group as “the Avengers, the Peter Thiel Avengers,” portraying them as a premeditated or organized cohort with a shared agenda. The use of the term “Avengers” conveys the sense of a unified front or mission among the members, and Speaker 0 repeats the idea of a shared agenda, reinforcing the perception of a concerted effort. The discussion culminates in Speaker 1’s assertion about the motivation behind their alleged funding: the claim is that the objective is to exert “mind control of young men.” This line frames Thiel’s alleged influence as intentional and targeted, casting the funding as a strategy to shape the beliefs or behavior of a specific demographic group. Overall, the exchange centers on the hypothesis that Peter Thiel funds certain controversial public figures, leading to a perception of coordination and a deliberate influence campaign aimed at young men. The dialogue emphasizes the immediacy of televised or public confrontations when questions about funding arise and portrays the involved individuals as part of a tightly connected, ideologically aligned group.

The speaker explains they paid $15,000 to go and interview Clavicular for a thirty-minute session. The purpose was to ask about Clavicular’s funding, his business, and rumors about him and Peter Thiel, because those rumors are everywhere. However, the moment the interviewer brought up Peter Thiel and Palantir, Clavicular panicked, flipped it on the interviewer, and claimed that the interviewer was the one funded by Peter Thiel. Clavicular stated that his team did research on the interviewer and that there were blockchain ties from Thiel-funded parties to the interviewer’s wallet, which, according to him, there’s zero proof of because it never happened. He claimed he literally couldn't show one single receipt that the interviewer is Peter Thiel funded or Peter Thiel backed, and he said, “I'll wait.” The interviewer asks for clarification: “So let me get this straight. You charge $15,000 for thirty minutes, and then you can't handle a single question. Like, source, I just made it up.” The interviewer adds, “And then you're calling me a scammer, but literally what you just did is scamming. Like, nobody told me to do this. I went solo. I came alone.” The interviewer explains that the only reason for asking about Thiel was because everybody was saying that Peter Thiel is the one that got clavicular released from jail and dropped all of the charges. The interviewer concludes, “So, yeah, I just got fraud maxed, but it's pretty pretty clear that clavicular is funded by Peter Thiel.”

My For You page is filled with presidential campaign content and discussions about AI. Recently, I received a paid promotion offer to create a TikTok video supporting the Democratic side. The email mentioned sending an NDA to get started. Many people form their views based on what influencers say, but it's important to remember that they might be compensated for their opinions.

Speaker 0 begins by questioning the veracity of a claim regarding Peter Thiel’s involvement or endorsement, asking explicitly, “Is it fake news that Peter Thiel backs you?” Speaker 1 responds concisely, “That is fake news,” and collapses the claim as false. The exchange then shifts into a tension-filled moment, with Speaker 0 expressing skepticism: “I don’t believe you.” The doubt is anchored in perceived connections or ties, as Speaker 0 asserts there are “too many ties,” implying a network of associations that could influence perception or credibility. The discussion moves to a specific anecdote or clip in which Speaker 0 refers to a claim about Peter Thiel inviting Speaker 1 to “his own version of a Diddy party.” Speaker 1 addresses this directly by recounting their understanding of the invitation. They state that they were told about it “in San Diego,” but they did not end up showing up for the event. In other words, Speaker 1 is saying they received information about such an invitation, but they never attended. Speaker 0 presses further, seeking clarity on whether being contacted by “that type of person”—implying Peter Thiel or his circle—was legitimate or credible. Speaker 1 clarifies the nature of the invitation as “not direct,” clarifying that the contact was “through a mutual.” This description suggests a mediated or indirect approach to the invitation rather than a direct personal invitation from Thiel themselves. In attempting to interpret the sequence, Speaker 1 adds a brief reflection on the claim by noting that they had “claimed that I worked for Peter Thiel or something,” which they then retract or contextualize as not accurate. The conversation touches on underlying associations without presenting a definitive endorsement or formal role. Speaker 1 reiterates that the connection was not direct and emphasizes the indirect path of communication, implying that any asserted alignment with Thiel’s circle was mediated rather than a straightforward, explicit affiliation. Towards the end of the exchange, Speaker 1 attempts to summarize or contextualize the matter by mentioning “there's something to do with, like, the fashion,” indicating a contextual or thematic element related to fashion that may be part of the broader conversation or perceived associations, though no further specifics are provided. The dialogue centers on contested claims about backing, the reliability of social connections, and a debated invitation that was discussed in San Diego, ultimately noting an absence of direct contact or attendance.

Speaker 0: When I first met Tim Ballard, he was in this wild legal fight, and Glenn Beck helped him build Underground Railroad. They were best friends. Whenever Sam or Tim needed to break a story about child trafficking, Glenn Beck was “his fucking dude.” Then Tim was considering running for Senate or Congress, and with the momentum from Sound of Freedom, he seemed like a shoo-in, and he was set to upset some politician. After those attacks began, Glenn Beck “threw him under the bus,” and Tim told me, “I can’t believe that Glenn would fucking do that to me.” That exact video I showed him—Tim’s friend pledging allegiance to Israel, “he’s bought and paid for,” “not your friend,” “controlled by our intelligence agencies,” “Israel’s bitch.” Tim watched that one video and said, “holy fuck.” Speaker 1: Ryan, you might know this—the child ring Tim Ballard busted up in South America, depicted in Sound of Freedom, was Israeli-run. It was run by Israelis. The head of that ring escaped to Portugal, where a judge basically let him go, and nobody knows where that guy ended up. That’s the real story of Sound of Freedom: an Israeli-run sex-trafficking ring. You’re not told that. Do research and find out about it. That’s who was running the ring. So there’s a lot of interconnection—it's always them, man. It always comes back to them. It seems to always come back to them. It’s like 6,000,000 to one odds. Speaker 0: Every single time. Every single time. It’s strange how that happens. But you wanna wrap it up, Sam? Speaker 1: Yeah. Let’s wrap it up. Listen, everybody. Twitter is not a free speech platform. It is not an open, super highway of information. It is a military application. It is a propaganda operation. It is highly bodied, highly artificial, highly synthetic and manipulated. I’m not saying don’t use it; I use it every day. We absolutely must use it as best we can, but I need everybody to be aware that not everything is as it seems on this platform. You cannot take this platform at face value. Many of the big accounts you see mainstream through your feed aren’t to be taken at face value. They’re running campaigns, being paid, boosted, the algorithm manipulated, with bots and unauthentic accounts. You must be aware of the battlefield you’re engaging on. And I’m not saying you should leave. On the contrary, I want you here, battling. But it’s not what it seems. There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors, shadows, espionage, and spy games on this platform, and you need to be savvy. Don’t develop mistrust of everybody, but develop a wary eye. Look at people’s Twitter profiles, scroll through their feeds, see who they’re retweeting, who they’re boosting, who they’re following, who their networks are, who’s using the same message.

- Speaker 0 asks if the interviewee ever received a payment from Nag. Speaker 1 confirms: one payment from mag Nag for July, two weeks, and it was under contract work. It was based on fulfilling articles, specifically items in the SOW, including articles and hosting with other NAG creators’ spaces and promoting the general NAG brand. - Speaker 0 asks if the interviewee had a NAG badge. Speaker 1 confirms yes, they had a badge from the time until their SOW was severed. - Speaker 0 asks who has the authority to add or remove badges on the app. Speaker 1 says no, they did not have that authority; implies someone else (and mentions “my son”) has that ability. - Speaker 0 asks who removed Mays’s badge. Speaker 1 responds that it was probably “my son.” - After losing the badge, Speaker 1 describes feelings about the organization of NAG and whether it was mutual or comfortable, noting that there might have been a lot of anger directed at them due to political views. They mention not being necessarily pro-Israel and acknowledging that others were getting hate as well, which they think contributed to the decision to pull out of political discussions. - Speaker 0 asks if the removal was purely conjecture or if there was an implication. Speaker 1 explains what was said: between now and the launch of his product, he needs to stay away from political volatility within the app; if the interviewee wanted to continue participating in political discussions, he would take the badge and end the contract (SOW). If not, the SOW would end, and the badge would be removed, with the interviewee being given a choice. - Speaker 1 mentions discovering that many friends were kicked out because they made him co-host, and then says they will swap someone out, indicating a transition or replacement.

He moved to Texas, and it became harder to track him because he stopped using his own name and instead used the name of his personal money manager, Jared Burchall. Accession LLC is described as one of Elon Musk’s main LLCs, acting as his family office that organizes his money, with Musk’s name not appearing on the document. The other speaker described this as a “crazy story” from The New York Times about Elon Musk’s sprawling multi-company shell network in Texas, noting they had reported on it in November of the prior year. They said they thought the owner of a Texas property in Austin would have to pay taxes, so they checked the Texas Comptroller’s website for Riverbottoms Ranch LLC. They reported that the name Jared Burchall appeared as president. They said Burchall runs Accession LLC, described as Elon Musk’s family office, and that he manages Musk’s personal fortune and handles paperwork when Musk does not want his name directly on something. The speaker also connected the reporting to a separate question about Neuralink building a 112,000 square foot clean room manufacturing space despite having only two implanted patients at the time. That concern led them to check LinkedIn hiring and find job postings for OR nurses and neurosurgical PAs, described as roles for actual operating rooms rather than preclinical or animal research work. They said that, for a Texas facility not showing up on any clinical trial site, it appeared to be “a farm” where such work was occurring. They concluded by saying the experience reflects how people doing independent work can feel others hedging against them or speculating because they lack institutional backing. They noted that seeing The New York Times report on it in February, after their own November reporting, reminded them that work can be done independently as well. They said they hoped their reporting helped The New York Times and compared their contribution to building blocks that come together to reveal the full picture.

The speaker presents a critical, conspiratorial view of Joe Rogan’s podcast and the broader ecosystem around Rogan, arguing that Rogan’s success is driven by corporate and cultural agendas rather than organic content. The core claim is that Rogan functions as a pivotal asset for information-age influence, with a web of sponsors, investors, and associated figures who push a planned “brave new world” through technology, medicine, and media. Key sponsors, connections, and networks are highlighted: - Cash App is noted as a major sponsor, with the presenter looping in a broader network that includes Jack Dorsey; but the presentation also emphasizes lesser-known sponsors and their influence. - 23andMe is described as a significant sponsor. The presenter identifies 23andMe as co-founded and owned by Ann Wajarski and notes her family connections to Susan Wajarski (CEO of YouTube) and Sergey Brin (Google cofounder), connecting the company to a larger tech and governance milieu. The claim is that Rogan promoted 23andMe for health-risk data, implying a broader agenda behind the database. - Esther Dyson is singled out as a 23andMe board member who is involved in private aviation, commercial space startups, healthcare, and genetics. Dyson is described as a founder of Space Angels Networks and an investor in XCOR, Constellation Services, Zero Icon Aircraft, Space Adventures, and Mars One. Mars One is labeled a scam, used as part of a broader pattern of commercial and privatized space funding within Rogan’s circle. - The broader claim is that commercial privatization of space is a recurring motif in Rogan’s network, serving as a funnel for money to support other movements and agendas, including information-age assets like Rogan. Elon Musk is discussed as a de facto sponsor, though not listed as an official sponsor. The speaker recounts a clip where a participant says, “I just got a Tesla,” interpreting it as a sign that Elon Musk is subsidizing Rogan’s content. The Musk-Rogan connection is tied to the Neuralink brain-implant agenda and the broader promotion of brain-computer interfaces. A 2019 Rogan podcast clip is cited where mind-reading, read-thought, and universal language concepts are discussed as inevitabilities, with the claim that Rogan promoted Neuralink long before Musk’s public push. The speaker argues Rogan’s discussions around mind-reading and brain-computer interfaces constitute an agenda to normalize these technologies. Third-wave/information-age themes are emphasized as part of a long-running agenda: - The speaker connects Rogan’s content to Alvin Toffler’s Third Wave, information overload, and the idea that the “future shock” of rapid change has been anticipated since 1980. The term “information overload” is linked to a broader “problem-reaction-solution” framework, aimed at enabling a “brave new world.” - The “bigger plan” is discussed through the lens of the “centrist unifying movement” and a narrative where technology, plant-based medicines, and new solutions to big pharma are framed as miraculous, but also as forms of social control. On the Onnit/Aubrey Marcus axis: - Onnit is presented as another layer of this network, with Aubrey Marcus described as founder and CEO of Onnit, and the brand as a hub for connections to Rogan and other Rosetta-stone players. Onnit’s leadership is associated with Pentagon and DARPA ties, and with Jan Irvin’s framing as an agent connected to the Soros network. - The speaker describes allegations of sexual coercion and other controversies around Aubrey Marcus and, more broadly, accuses a “shell-company” network (Aubrey Marcus’s father Michael Marcus; multiple name changes; alleged oil ventures) of enabling scams and profits in ways that intersect with the Rogan network. - The Brain-Force/Alpha Brain marketing and other Rogan-endorsed supplements are discussed as part of Rogan’s monetized ecosystem, including alleged parallels between Brain Force and Alpha Brain. MAPS, Hefner Institute, and the psychedelic-medication axis: - MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) is described as Rockefeller-funded and linked to the Hefner Institute; the speaker accuses MAPS of promoting psychedelics under the cover of medical benefits, while being connected to George Soros, the Pratzker family, and Steve Wozniak’s Esselin associations. - The promotion of psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, MDMA) is presented as a strategic tool used by corporate interests to reframe social norms and to push regulatory changes, with the implication that Rogan gave platform to MAPS-related talking points after Rogan started working with MAPS affiliates. The Esselin Institute and related mind-war concepts: - The Esselin Institute (Big Sur) is described as a key locus for the development of thought-architecture, social engineering, and mind-war concepts. Founders Michael Murphy and Dick Pierce are cited, with links to Aldous Huxley, Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, Terrence McKenna, Rick Doblin, and Robert Anton Wilson as figures associated with the institute. - The presenter argues that Esselin served as a Troika-like hub bridging the Soviet influence with Western technologists, including alleged track-two diplomacy and exchanges between Soviet cosmonauts and American scientists, which supposedly seeded “mind war” and information-warfare concepts later manifested in contemporary media and technology ecosystems. - The claim is that many Rogan-circle figures, including Joe Rogan, Tim Berners, and Bruce Damer, share a lineage of influence traced back to Esselin’s “mind-war” research and its intersection with Pentagon and intelligence communities. The presenter closes by asserting that Rogan’s operations, including production via Jamie (Rogan’s producer), are part of a broader intelligence-cum-corporate project. The podcast is framed as an operation rather than purely organic content, with a wide network of actors—tech billionaires, investment groups, secret intelligence connections, and think tanks—working in concert to push a centralized agenda: a Brave New World with centralized control, a universal basic income, mass privatization of medicine and space, and a new social order steered by a set of interconnected elites. The overall aim of the presentation is to reveal and emphasize these interlocking sponsorships, corporate ties, and ideological threads as the backbone of Rogan’s influence, arguing that what appears as spontaneity on Rogan’s platform is, in fact, orchestrated through a network of corporate, political, and intelligence-connected actors and ideas.

- The conversation opens with concerns about AGI, ASI, and a potential future in which AI dominates more aspects of life. They describe a trend of sleepwalking into a new reality where AI could be in charge of everything, with mundane jobs disappearing within three years and more intelligent jobs following in the next seven years. Sam Altman’s role is discussed as a symbol of a system rather than a single person, with the idea that people might worry briefly and then move on. - The speakers critique Sam Altman, arguing that Altman represents a brand created by a system rather than an individual, and they examine the California tech ecosystem as a place where hype and money flow through ideation and promises. They contrast OpenAI’s stated mission to “protect the world from artificial intelligence” and “make AI work for humanity” with what they see as self-interested actions focused on users and competition. - They reflect on social media and the algorithmic feed. They discuss YouTube Shorts as addictive and how they use multiple YouTube accounts to train the algorithm by genre (AI, classic cars, etc.) and by avoiding unwanted content. They note becoming more aware of how the algorithm can influence personal life, relationships, and business, and they express unease about echo chambers and political division that may be amplified by AI. - The dialogue emphasizes that technology is a force with no inherent polity; its impact depends on the intent of the provider and the will of the user. They discuss how social media content is shaped to serve shareholders and founders, the dynamics of attention and profitability, and the risk that the content consumer becomes sleepwalking. They compare dating apps’ incentives to keep people dating indefinitely with the broader incentive structures of social media. - The speakers present damning statistics about resource allocation: trillions spent on the military, with a claim that reallocating 4% of that to end world hunger could achieve that goal, and 10-12% could provide universal healthcare or end extreme poverty. They argue that a system driven by greed and short-term profit undermines the potential benefits of AI. - They discuss OpenAI and the broader AI landscape, noting OpenAI’s open-source LLMs were not widely adopted, and arguing many promises are outcomes of advertising and market competition rather than genuine humanity-forward outcomes. They contrast DeepMind’s work (Alpha Genome, Alpha Fold, Alpha Tensor) and Google’s broader mission to real science with OpenAI’s focus on user growth and market position. - The conversation turns to geopolitics and economics, with a focus on the U.S. vs. China in the AI race. They argue China will likely win the AI race due to a different, more expansive, infrastructure-driven approach, including large-scale AI infrastructure for supply chains and a strategy of “death by a thousand cuts” in trade and technology dominance. They discuss other players like Europe, Korea, Japan, and the UAE, noting Europe’s regulatory approach and China’s ability to democratize access to powerful AI (e.g., DeepSea-like models) more broadly. - They explore the implications of AI for military power and warfare. They describe the AI arms race in language models, autonomous weapons, and chip manufacturing, noting that advances enable cheaper, more capable weapons and the potential for a global shift in power. They contrast the cost dynamics of high-tech weapons with cheaper, more accessible AI-enabled drones and warfare tools. - The speakers discuss the concept of democratization of intelligence: a world where individuals and small teams can build significant AI capabilities, potentially disrupting incumbents. They stress the importance of energy and scale in AI competitions, and warn that a post-capitalist or new economic order may emerge as AI displaces labor. They discuss universal basic income (UBI) as a potential social response, along with the risk that those who control credit and money creation—through fractional reserve banking and central banking—could shape a new concentrated power structure. - They propose a forward-looking framework: regulate AI use rather than AI design, address fake deepfakes and workforce displacement, and promote ethical AI development. They emphasize teaching ethics to AI and building ethical AIs, using human values like compassion, respect, and truth-seeking as guiding principles. They discuss the idea of “raising Superman” as a metaphor for aligning AI with well-raised, ethical ends. - The speakers reflect on human nature, arguing that while individuals are capable of great kindness, the system (media, propaganda, endless division) distracts and polarizes society. They argue that to prepare for the next decade, humanity should verify information, reduce gullibility, and leverage AI for truth-seeking while fostering humane behavior. They see a paradox: AI can both threaten and enhance humanity, and the outcome depends on collective choices, governance, and ethical leadership. - In closing, they acknowledge their shared hope for a future of abundant, sustainable progress—Peter Diamandis’ vision of abundance—with a warning that current systemic incentives could cause a painful transition. They express a desire to continue the discussion, pursue ethical AI development, and encourage proactive engagement with governments and communities to steer AI’s evolution toward greater good.

The speaker claims MrBeast is not independent but owned by a web of powerful media owners and investors. They say he’s connected to the same people who own other creators and were once under a group called Scale Lab. At one million subs, the speaker says MrBeast sought more money and became involved with Reed Dusher, described as the CEO of Knight Media, who allegedly facilitated a honey sponsorship and a sponsorship with Aspirian, an entity linked to a money-lending network run by a prominent family. The narrative continues that Knight Media allegedly steered MrBeast toward major deals, including a recent NBA-related arrangement and an Amazon partnership. The speaker claims Alpha Wave Gamma invested $300 million, run by Rick Gerson, who purportedly knows high-profile figures. The closing question asks why MrBeast refused an interview and what the mentioned entities have in common.

Sam: I hope that someday anybody who’s gone over there and touched that wall will never be able to walk out in public without hanging their head in shame ever again. Brian: It’s funny, Sam, because Tim Ballard was going through crazy lawfare. Glenn Beck helped him build underground railroad—they were best friends. When Sam needed or Tim needed to break a story about child trafficking, Glenn Beck was his guy. Then, when Tim was considering running for senate (or congress) and would have momentum after the Sound of Freedom release, attacks started. Glenn Beck threw him under the bus, and Sam shows him a video where Beck pledges allegiance to Israel; he’s bought and paid for, not Tim’s friend, controlled by our intelligence agencies, Israel’s bitch. He watched that video and was shocked. Sam: Brian, you probably know this. Most people don’t know this. The child ring Tim Ballard busted up in South America, the one portrayed in Sound of Freedom, was Israeli-run. It was run by Israelis. The head of that ring escaped to Portugal where a judge let him go, and nobody knows where he ended up. So that’s the real story of Sound of Freedom. It was an Israeli-run sex trafficking ring. You’re not told that. You should go research and find out who was running the ring. So a lot of intro—it’s always them, man. It always comes back to them. Brian: Every single time. Every single time. It’s like 6,000,000 to 1 odds. You know? It’s just strange how that happens. But you wanna wrap it up, Sam? Sam: Yeah. Let’s wrap it up. Listen, everybody. Twitter is not an open, superhighway of information. It is a military application. It is a propaganda operation. It is highly bodied, highly artificial, highly synthetic and manipulated. And I’m not saying don’t use it. I use it every day. We absolutely must use it as best we can. But I need everybody to be aware that not everything is as it seems on this platform. You cannot take this platform at face value. Many of the big accounts that these mainstream accounts you see coming through your feed, you cannot take them at face value. You must be aware that they’re running campaigns. They’re being paid. They’re boosted. The algorithm is being manipulated. There are bots and unauthentic accounts and fake accounts. You must be aware of the battlefield on which you’re engaging. I’m not telling you to go leave. On the contrary, I want you here, battling, but it is not what it seems. There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors and shadows and espionage and spy games on this platform. You really need to be aware of that. You need to get savvy to it. And I don’t want you to develop a mistrust of everybody. I want you to develop a more wary eye of what’s going on. I want you to look at people’s Twitter profiles. Scroll through their feeds and see who they’re retweeting, who they’re boosting, who they’re following, who their little networks are, who’s using the same messaging. Why? Brian: Because— Sam: they...

The conversation centers on email leaks and allegations of hacking connected to a political context. One speaker notes that “one hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails,” suggesting a link between the leaks and his own communications. The group references those emails being public and questions about what might have been coincidental, with lines like “Just get lost into the public. One could say that there might those things might not have been a coincidence” and mentions “those things” that may or may not have been intended to surface. Two days after the initial events, the speaker recounts that “the FBI contacted me, the first thing the agent said to me was, I don’t know if you’re aware, but your email account had might have been hacked.” He confirms awareness of the hacking, stating “I said yes,” and recalls a demand that he change how he is addressed, with references to being told, “From now on, you won’t call me your father,” and “I you will call me your father,” coupled with the assertion “You think you hide shit, don’t you? Just get lost.” The dialogue shifts to broader implications: other campaign officials’ emails were divulged earlier than October 7, and the speakers discuss uncertainty about what exactly had been compromised, noting “there was a document that appeared to come from my account” and realizing “they had the contents of my email account.” The last time one speaker talked to the FBI is mentioned in the context of these disclosures. A separate thread introduces media narratives, with a speaker asking, “Media is telling you the entire story is a hoax or fake news. But what does that even mean?” and stating, “I spent the last month investigating. So what exactly is Pizzagate? And are there any actual facts to support the story?” There is a sense of frustration about interpretation and evidence, captured in the line, “They’re hearing what they wanna hear. They’re not really listening to what I’m telling them.” The transcript ends with a brief aside from another speaker, “What’s that?” indicating confusion or a request for clarification, tied to the ongoing discussion about the emails, hacks, and the Pizzagate inquiry.