reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I'm tired of the manipulation and lies from the press. They manipulate everything and even the history books are not truthful. It's important to know this.

Study and find out where things came from. 'Ask the Russians. In Russia today, what is it like when you find out that you've been hoodwinked, that your government was not the most powerful and most wonderful government on earth, and now it has totally collapsed?' What are you going to do? You brought up your children. You wasted your entire life, and you went along to get along. Why? Because you didn't do your homework, and you didn't stand up for what was right when you could have. Look at the uncomfortable facts that nothing is permanently on this earth. What I would like to see done as a spiritual revolution in this country where people say, 'just say no' to organized religion, to organized government, to tyranny. Bigotry, ignorance, ill informed stupidity. Just say no. The point is you need to do your homework.

In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat The United States because The United States controls all the world's media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results.

We use unlimited force and control the global media to hide the truth from the public. People believe everything is done for good reasons, but it's not.

"What do you say to Americans? Think that's why. Go to war. They're foolish." "So I think it's pretty wild that Trump says that Americans are foolish for not wanting to go to war. Yeah. Who wants to be in debt, right, and fight for the tiny hats? Now here is a book, Your Country at War by Charles Lindbergh. This book was burned by the US government in 1919." "Why would they burn this book? Well, it tells the truth about all these wars." "The war is about one thing. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon." "And if you want two great books on how nukes are fake, this is a great one. Hiroshima revisited by Michael Palmer, the evidence that Nate Palm and most of her guests helped fake the atomic bombings. Yes. Fake. Fake." "Keyword fake. Death object exploding the nuclear weapons. Hoax, Akio Nacatini. Yes. You've been lied to." "In order to, attack countries and put in banking systems." "Israel would have been gone, extinguished. Israel would be would have been wiped off the face of the earth and"

I've spent my whole life in the media, but now I realize that the media is part of the control apparatus. I regret defending the Iraq war and not being more skeptical. When someone makes a claim, the important question is whether it's true or not. I participated in a culture that dismissed anyone who thought outside the prescribed lanes as crazy or a conspiracy theorist, and I'm ashamed of that. The media's purpose is not to inform, but to serve the small group of people who run the world. We should treat them with contempt because they have earned it.

Media has played a significant role in starting wars over the past 50 years by not digging deep enough and reprinting government propaganda. Populations are not willingly drawn into wars, so a good media environment promotes peace. Ignorance is our biggest enemy, as people need to understand the truth to make informed decisions. Some organizations promote ignorance by distorting information, particularly in the media. While there are a few excellent journalists, the majority are so distorted that we may be better off without them. This distortion has led to wars.

Speaker 0 argues that the goal is not to subjugate Afghanistan but to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and European countries, through Afghanistan, and back into the hands of a transnational security alliance. The goal, according to this view, is to have an endless war, not a successful war. Speaker 1 contends that nearly every war started in the past fifty years has been a result of media lies, and the media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough and hadn't reprinted government propaganda. He suggests that populations don’t willingly and with open eyes go into wars, so a good media environment is necessary for a peaceful environment.

The speaker highlights how the public is manipulated by governments and news outlets controlled by the wealthy elite. The military empire exists to protect their capital, not us. The media portrays itself as our savior from terrorism, but it mostly spreads propaganda. Independent news sources like RT and Telesor are crucial for alternative perspectives. The term "fake news" is used to discredit organizations like WikiLeaks that provide factual information. The speaker believes it's wrong to rely solely on mainstream media like MSNBC or Fox. They mention a conspiracy involving Helen Nolan and the White House, emphasizing that disinformation and biased news are common.

We are in a war most people don't even see. But it's not just bombs or bullets. It's information, technology, and control over what you believe. Every day, powerful forces shape the news you read and the thoughts you hold. This is fifth generation warfare. And whether you know it or not, you are already on the battlefield. The choice is yours. Remain unaware or recognize the fight and take a stand.

The speaker describes “true fifth generation warfare” as a scenario where you do not know who your opponent is. As an example, they ask who is responsible for the puppet master behind the COVID crisis, suggesting potential names like Klaus Schwab, Joe Biden, and Tony Fauci, but stating that “these are surrogates” and that you don’t really know who is managing the message being propagated—the essence of fifth generation warfare. They claim that over the last three years, governments, nongovernmental organizations, transnational organizations, pharmaceutical industry corporations, media, and financial corporations have cooperated via public private partnerships, which the speaker asserts is a euphemism for fascism, to deploy the most massive, globally harmonized psychological and propaganda operation in history. The speaker asserts that, during this period, people have been subjected to the most massive, harmonized, globally coordinated propaganda campaign in the history of the Western world. They state that governments of many Western nation states have turned military grade psychological operations strategies, tactics, technologies, and capabilities—developed for modern military combat—against their own citizens. They conclude by labeling these as inconvenient facts and claim that the world many people believed in no longer exists, if it ever did.

Wars throughout history, especially those involving democracies, have been fueled by propaganda and lies. Journalists, failing to fulfill their duty of providing truth, have contributed to this by spreading misinformation. In the US, each journalist is responsible for an average of 130 deaths due to their lack of seriousness in reporting.

The truth doesn't matter. We all know what's happening and why. Their war is not ours. They want us to fight each other over religion, skin color, nationality. They want to slowly kill us. It's easier to make war than peace. They blame others, and others do the same. It's all nonsense. Natural disasters, intentional fires, diseases everywhere, unnoticed laws. People are glued to their screens, oblivious. The truth will be revealed, but they know nothing, just making stupid assumptions, thinking they're gods. The new world order has been happening for years, but it doesn't happen overnight. If you think your government is on your side, you haven't understood the game.

"They have much more power than most people would like to think." "When we think of the media in this country, the problem is that they have a sense of self righteousness, a double standard on issue after issue after issue." "They can find everything wrong with somebody else but they will not look inside and ever admit that they could be wrong themselves." "And what was involved here in the Watergate thing was the unfairness of it." "Oh, there was a legitimate thing to investigate but they refused to balance it." "They allowed their advocacy to get ahead of their reporting which is their job to do." "You know President Eisenhower in his farewell address wrote about and warned against the power of the military industrial complex."

The speaker highlights how the public is manipulated by governments and news outlets controlled by the wealthy elite. The military empire is focused on protecting their capital, not the people. The media's role is to convince us they are saving us from terrorism, but without independent sources, we receive propaganda. Access to alternative news like RT and Telesor is crucial for diverse perspectives. The term "fake news" is used to discredit organizations like WikiLeaks that provide factual information. Disinformation and biased news are common, with PR firms hired to spin events. The speaker mentions a conspiracy involving Helen Nolan and the White House, emphasizing that the public is often deceived.

The speaker believes that media lies have been responsible for starting most wars in the past 50 years. They argue that if the media had dug deeper and not spread government propaganda, wars could have been prevented. The speaker suggests that populations are tricked into wars because they don't willingly enter them. They claim that a good media environment leads to peace, but ignorance is the main enemy. The organizations promoting ignorance are those that keep secrets and distort information. The speaker expresses their opinion that the media is generally so bad that the world might be better off without it.

"99% of the media is run by a single group of people, and that 1% that is not That's crazy." "A complete, like, ethnic Yeah. Monopoly, an ethnical monopoly." "They know exactly what they're doing." "through the media, do you have a lot of social control?" "I really believe our democs is the illusion of choice." "Republicans and Democrats. They all they all work for the same freaking people." "it's the illusion of opinion." "left one CNN, right wing Fox News, run by the same people." "They have you arguing over this, like, small stuff." "they all want you to agree on Israel." "there are certain things they want you to agree on, then you have to argue on it." "It's the illusion of opinion. Democracy, illusion of choice. The media, illusion of opinion."

Throughout history, a group has aimed to control others by destroying religions and governments, while keeping people in perpetual debt and believing they are happy. This group is succeeding because people are unaware of their tactics. To fight back, we must understand our enemy and their weapons. If we don't, we will continue to lose the war. Our country was founded by dangerous men, and if we lose that spirit, we will lose our country. Without exposing people to different viewpoints, a civil war is imminent. We are a vassal state of the United Nations, as confirmed by a Supreme Court judge. It's time to wake up and realize the truth.

The speaker highlights how the public is manipulated by governments and news outlets controlled by the wealthy elite. The military empire exists to protect their capital, not us. The media portrays themselves as saviors from terrorism, but they mostly spread propaganda. Independent news sources like RT and Telesor are crucial for alternative perspectives. The term "fake news" is used to discredit organizations like WikiLeaks that provide factual information. The speaker believes it's wrong to rely solely on mainstream media like MSNBC or Fox. They mention a conspiracy involving Helen Nolan and the White House, emphasizing that disinformation and biased news are common.

The discussion centers on the ongoing tensions with Iran, the potential for American military involvement, and the role of media and ideology in shaping public perception. The speakers express a critical view of how the situation is being managed and portrayed. Key points about the Iran situation: - President Trump publicly claimed “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but the panel notes Israel’s public interest in a broader outcome, specifically regime change in Iran, which would require boots on the ground rather than air strikes. - It is argued that air strikes alone cannot achieve regime change; the Israeli military, even with about 170,000 active-duty soldiers plus reservists, would need American boots on the ground to accomplish such aims against a larger Iranian army. - Senators, including Richard Blumenthal, warned about the risk to American lives in potentially deploying ground troops in Iran, citing a path toward American ground forces. - The new National Defense Authorization Act renewal could lead to an involuntary draft by year’s end, a concern raised by Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute who argues it treats citizens as owned by the government. - There is tension between Trump’s public push for a quick end to conflict and Netanyahu’s government talking about a larger, more prolonged objective in the region, including a potential demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza’s situation. - Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini issued a televised statement threatening to shut the Strait of Hormuz until the United States begs and vowing vengeance for martyrs, signaling that the conflict could continue or escalate beyond initial claims of victory. - The panel highlights potential escalation, including the possibility of nuclear weapons discussion by Trump and concerns about who controls the war, given factions within Iran and differing US-Israeli goals. Tucker Carlson’s analysis and warnings: - Carlson is presented as having warned that a war with Iran would be hard due to Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal aimed at US bases and allies’ infrastructure, and that it would push Iran closer to China and Russia, potentially undermining the US. - Carlson emphasizes the lack of a clear, publicly articulated endgame or exit strategy for the war, arguing that diplomacy has deteriorated and that the US appears discredited in its ability to negotiate peace. - He discusses the governance of Israel and the idea that some Israeli leaders advocate for extreme measures, referencing “Amalek” language used by Netanyahu to describe enemies, which Carlson characterizes as dangerous and incompatible with Western civilization’s values. - Carlson argues that American interests and Israeli strategic aims diverge, and questions why Israel is the partner with decision-making authority in such a conflict. He notes the US’s reliance on Israel for intelligence (with Israel translating SIGINT) and suggests that Israel’s endgame may be to erode American influence in the region. - He also suggests the war is being used to advance a broader political and ideological project, including America’s pivot away from foreign entanglements; he asserts that certain power centers in the US and in media and defense circles benefit from perpetual conflict. - Carlson discusses the moral framework around targeting and civilian casualties, asserting that there is concern over the ethical implications of autonomous targeting and the potential for AI to play a role in warfare decisions. - He notes the possibility that AI involvement in targeting decisions exists in other conflicts, though in the Iran situation, he mentions that a human pressed play in the specific case of an attack (the school near an Iranian base), while coordinates may have come from other sources, possibly shared by Israel. - Carlson discusses media dynamics, describing mainstream outlets as “embedded” with the defense establishment and questioning why there isn’t a robust public discussion about the war’s endgame, exit ramps, or the true costs of war. Media, propaganda, and public discourse: - The panel critiques media coverage as lacking skepticism, with anchors and outlets seemingly aligned with the administration’s war narratives, raising concerns about “access journalism” and the absence of tough questions about goals, timelines, and consequences. - Carlson and participants discuss the use of propaganda—historically, Disney and the Treasury Department in World War II as examples—arguing that today’s propaganda around Iran relies on pop culture and entertainment to normalize or justify intervention without clear justification to the public. - They argue that contemporary media often fails to examine the ethics and consequences of war or to question the necessity and legitimacy of continuing conflict, suggesting a broader risk of technology-enabled control over public opinion and civil discourse. White House dynamics and internal debate: - The guests discuss the possibility of internal disagreement within the White House, noting that while some senior figures had reservations, external pressure, particularly from Netanyahu, may have pushed the administration toward action. - They touch on the strategic ambiguity surrounding US forces in the region, noting that while large-scale ground invasion is unlikely, special forces and other assets may be deployed, with civilian and military costs disproportionately affecting American families. - The conversation also explores concerns about civil liberties, surveillance, and the potential for centralized control of information and warfare technologies to influence domestic politics and social cohesion. Overall, the dialogue presents a multifaceted critique of the handling and propulsion of a potential Iran conflict, emphasizing the risk of escalatory dynamics, the clash of strategic goals between the US and Israel, concerns about democratic consent and media accountability, and the ethical implications of modern warfare technology.

Wars in the past 50 years have often been started due to media lies and government propaganda. If the media had dug deeper and not spread false information, wars could have been prevented. Populations are usually against wars and need to be deceived to support them. A good media environment can lead to a more peaceful world. Translation (if needed): The start of many wars in the last 50 years has been linked to false information from the media and government propaganda. People are typically against wars and must be misled to support them. A reliable media can help create a more peaceful society.

Why are countries like Iran, which hasn't invaded anyone for about four hundred years and doesn't threaten us, being threatened? Why does Israel have impunity? Why do journalists write down what governments tell them instead of questioning them? The mistakes that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2002/2003 are being repeated. These are questions that demand to be answered by journalists and the public.

We are in a war most people don't even see. It's not just bombs or bullets. It's information, technology, and control over what you believe. Every day, powerful forces shape the news you read and the thoughts you hold. This is fifth generation warfare. And whether you know it or not, you are already on the battlefield. The choice is yours. Remain unaware or recognize the fight and take a stand.

Wars in the past 50 years were often caused by media lies spreading government propaganda. Populations must be deceived into supporting wars because they don't willingly choose conflict. A strong media environment can lead to peace.

- The discussion opens with claims that President Trump says “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but Israel allegedly wants the war to destroy Iran’s entire government structure, requiring boots on the ground for regime change. It’s argued that air strikes cannot achieve regime change and that Israel’s relatively small army would need U.S. ground forces, given Iran’s larger conventional force, to accomplish its objectives. - Senator Richard Blumenthal is cited as warning about American lives potentially being at risk from deploying ground troops in Iran, following a private White House briefing. - The new National Defense Authorization Act is described as renewing the involuntary draft; by year’s end, an involuntary draft could take place in the United States, pending full congressional approval. Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute is described as expressing strong concern, arguing the draft would treat the government as owning citizens’ bodies, a stance attributed to him as supporting a view that “presumption is that the government owns you.” - The conversation contrasts Trump’s public desire to end the war quickly with Netanyahu’s government, which reportedly envisions a much larger military objective in the region, including a demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza, and a broader aim to remove Hezbollah. The implication is that the United States and Israel may not share the same endgame. - Tucker Carlson is introduced as a guest to discuss these issues and offer predictions about consequences for the American people, including energy disruption, economic impacts, and shifts in U.S. influence in the Persian Gulf. - Carlson responds that he would not credit himself with prescience, but notes predictable consequences: disruption to global energy supplies, effects on the U.S. economy, potential loss of U.S. bases in the Gulf, and a shrinking American empire. He suggests that the war’s true goal may be to weaken the United States and withdraw from the Middle East; he questions whether diplomacy remains viable given the current trajectory. - Carlson discusses Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini’s communique, highlighting threats to shut Hormuz “forever,” vows to avenge martyrs, and calls for all U.S. bases in the region to be closed. He notes that Tehran asserts it will target American bases while claiming it is not an enemy of surrounding countries, though bombs affect neighbors as well. - The exchange notes Trump’s remarks about possibly using nuclear weapons, and Carlson explains Iran’s internal factions, suggesting some seek negotiated settlements while others push for sustained conflict. Carlson emphasizes that Israel’s leadership may be pushing escalation in ways that diverge from U.S. interests and warns about the dangers of a joint operation with Israel, which would blur U.S. sovereignty in war decisions. - A discussion on the use of a term Amalek is explored: Carlson’s guest explains Amalek from the Old Testament as enemies of the Jewish people, with a historical biblical command to annihilate Amalek, including women and children, which the guest notes Christianity rejects; Netanyahu has used the term repeatedly in the conflict context, which Carlson characterizes as alarming and barbaric. - The guests debate how much influence is exerted in the White House, with Carlson noting limited direct advocacy for war among principal policymakers and attributing decisive pressure largely to Netanyahu’s threats. They question why Israel, a client state of the U.S., is allowed to dictate war steps, especially given the strategic importance of Hormuz and American assets in the region. - They discuss the ethical drift in U.S. policy, likening it to adopting the ethics of the Israeli government, and criticize the idea of targeting family members or civilians as a military strategy. They contrast Western civilization’s emphasis on individual moral responsibility with perceived tribal rationales. - The conversation touches on the potential rise of AI-assisted targeting or autonomous weapons: Carlson’s guest confirms that in some conflicts, targeting decisions have been made by machines with no human sign-off, though in the discussed case a human did press play on the attack. The coordinates and data sources for strikes are scrutinized, with suspicion cast on whether Israel supplied SIGINT or coordinates. - The guests warn about the broader societal impact of war on civil liberties, mentioning the increasing surveillance and the risk that technology could be used to suppress dissent or control the population. They discuss how war accelerates social change and potentially normalizes drastic actions or internal coercion. - The media’s role in selling the war is criticized as “propaganda,” with examples of government messaging and pop culture campaigns (including a White House-supported video game-like portrayal of U.S. military power). They debate whether propaganda can be effective without a clear, articulated rationale for war and without public buy-in. - They question the behavior of mainstream outlets and “access journalism,” arguing that reporters often avoid tough questions about how the war ends, the timetable, and the off-ramps, instead reinforcing government narratives. - In closing, Carlson and his co-hosts reflect on the political division surrounding the war, the erosion of trust in media, and the possibility of rebuilding a coalition of ordinary Americans who want effective governance without perpetual conflict or degradation of civil liberties. Carlson emphasizes a longing for a politics centered on improving lives rather than escalating war. - The segment ends with Carlson’s continued critique of media dynamics, the moral implications of the war, and a call for more transparent discussion about the true aims and consequences of extended military engagement in the region.