reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Ronald Lauder, the Estee Lauder heir who convinced Trump to pursue Greenland in 2017, is increasingly moving from talk to action. Through a Delaware-registered company called Greenland Development Partners, Lauder has quietly purchased stakes in Greenlandic companies. The broader claim is that this is economic infiltration disguised as investment, with Lauder’s business partners in Greenland described as some of the country’s most influential people with close ties to Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt. Greenland Development Partners is portrayed as an opaque Delaware investment consortium. Delaware is described as “the Shell company's capital of America, where you can hide ownership structures and avoid scrutiny.” Danish newspaper Politikens Investigation is cited as labeling Laura (Lauder) as a key participant in the consortium, which has bought stakes in two Greenlandic firms, including Greenland Water Bank. Greenland Water Bank is owned by Svein Hardenbair and Sverdrupijn. Hardenbair is a former civil servant adviser to Greenland’s prime minister until recently and was also the director of Greenland’s national energy company. Jan Beboj Johansson is highlighted as particularly interesting. He is a former minister in several Greenlandic governments and chairs the governing Ziomoot party in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital. Ziomoot is one of the four parties in Greenland’s current coalition government. The crucial point is that Johansson’s wife is Vivian Motzfeldt, the foreign minister of Greenland, who handles foreign relations, including relations with the United States. The alleged linkage is that Ronald Lauder, described as Trump’s friend and advisor on Greenland, is now in business with Johansson’s wife’s husband, i.e., the Greenland Foreign Minister’s husband. The narrative asserts this is not merely investment but influence at the highest level. Greenland Water Bank may appear small and harmless. Its 2024 accounts show minimum staffing costs of about $5,500 and a modest financial loss. The company bottles water from the Lingmar Spring in Krakataswak on Disko Island, selling locally under the brand Emilik. Up to 2024, ownership was shared between Hardenbair and Beboj Johansson, before part of their shares were sold to Lauder’s investor group. Hardenbair explains to Pulchikung (Poltikken/Politiken) that the investment is not primarily about the money, but about gaining better access to the luxury market where their water should be a natural part. They believed the water was among the best in the world. The stated expectation is that Lauder’s involvement would grant access to the American luxury market for Greenland Water Bank’s premium water. The question raised is what Lauder receives in return: a pressure point and a foothold into Greenland’s top elite, enabling direct business relationships with politically connected Greenlanders. The narrative suggests funds could flow to Sven and Jorn (Johansson) through Greenland Water Bank as salaries, bonuses, or in Forms such as business trips, luxury offices, boats, or cars, all paid by investments from Lauder. The scale of Lauder’s wealth is mentioned as $5,000,000,000 USD, with Lauder reportedly able to mobilize $10,000,000 for ventures. The central controversy remains the connection to Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt, who previously served on Greenland Water Bank’s board. Her husband’s involvement via Johansson’s alliance with Lauder is presented as a potential conflict of interest, given Lauder’s influence on Greenland’s political and economic landscape.

Speaker 0 claims to have been in a meeting at a well-known estate owned by an African president. They were asked to be part of a new agenda for 2020 but declined. Speaker 1 agrees that it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Speaker 0 mentions that some members of the shadow government are not in America, including Bill Gates, who has been involved behind the scenes with his finances and the WHO. Speaker 0 addresses a personal message to Bill Gates and questions the impact of his supposed work in Africa.

The speaker claims that since 1885, the Rothschilds sought to start a world war because the Zionist International Congress of Basel called for three world wars, with the end goal that, after the third world war, they would control the entire world. According to the speaker, a billion Christians are fighting a war to the death against a billion Muslims, which will leave Israel in charge of the world, a prediction said to come from the sixth International Zionist Congress in Basel in 1896. The speaker asserts that after the Zionist Congress in 1896, World War I, World War II, and World War III occurred. At the end of World War I, the Rothschilds organized a number of groups, one of which was the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. The speaker says this is called Shadow House, described as the think tank of all of Europe today. Although its headquarters are in London, the speaker claims the real headquarters are in Brussels, which is the headquarters of the Lambert family, part of the Rothschild family, and that Brussels has been running the world.

Today in The Netherlands, outside the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, a landmark case brings senior government officials, major media figures, pharmaceutical leadership, and global policy actors together as defendants in a single COVID response case. Among those ordered to appear are Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, the former Dutch prime minister, senior Dutch health ministers, leading figures from the Dutch media, and Bill Gates. This makes the case extraordinary. On March 9, an important step is happening at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. This hearing is not the main trial. The main trial is proceeding, and Bill Gates, if not appearing in person, must have representation and offer a defense. Today’s hearing concerns a procedural question: should the court allow an appeal against an earlier decision that blocked a request for preliminary evidence? In simple terms, the claimants ask the court for permission to present and examine expert evidence early before the trial, to have experts testify, documents examined, and key scientific and legal claims tested through cross examination. The lower court refused that request. The Amsterdam Court Of Appeal is being asked to decide whether that refusal should itself be reviewed. This hinges on the right to have evidence examined in public. If the appeal is allowed, expert testimony and scrutiny of the evidence could proceed; if refused, the claimants must continue without that preliminary examination. The reason for this hearing traces to the main lawsuit, begun in July 2023. Seven Dutch citizens filed a civil case in a district court, claiming they were misled about the nature of the COVID threat and about the safety and necessity of COVID vaccines. They argue that government officials, public health authorities, pharmaceutical executives, and major media figures promoted a narrative that induced fear and compliance based on unscientific claims of a novel pathogen called COVID nineteen. They claim these representations caused them to take vaccines and to suffer psychological and physical harm. The claimants describe a tort claim: the defendants breached a duty of care owed to the public by providing false or misleading information that resulted in damage. They seek two things: a declaration that the defendants acted unlawfully and compensation for the harm. Before the trial proceeds, the claimants asked for the evidence behind those claims to be examined in court, hence the provisional evidence request and today’s appeal. Central to the request are expert witnesses from multiple disciplines addressing scientific, legal, psychological, and institutional dimensions. The experts include Catherine Watt (legal researcher in public health law), Sasha Latipova (pharmaceutical regulatory processes), Doctor Joseph Sansone (psychologist studying crisis messaging and behavioral compliance), Catherine Austin Fitz (financial analyst on institutional power structures and global policy networks), and Doctor Mike Yeadon (English pharmacologist, former Pfizer VP). Yeadon has argued that the safety narrative surrounding the vaccines is challenged, claiming inadequate testing and concerns about toxicity. The point of a court is that such claims should be tested under cross examination, not dismissed without scrutiny. Allowing this appeal would enable the evidence to be heard and tested in public, with broader implications beyond the Netherlands, potentially influencing accountability, transparency, and public trust in other jurisdictions. What happens here may influence debates about open scrutiny of evidence in courts elsewhere. The speaker closes with a personal note, recalling six years spent fighting misinformation and supporting the truth be told campaign for COVID jabbed, injured, and bereaved, and underscoring that this case concerns justice in action, public scrutiny, and accountability for powerful institutions.

Het interview met Gidi Marcushauer werd nationaal nieuws nadat hij in een eerder interview (met een journalist van Legd Laser) geweldsoproepen deed tegen Palestijnse asielzoekers. Volgens Bo had Marcushauer eerder zelden kritisch doorgevraagd gekregen, waardoor volgens de maker onderwerpen uit zijn verleden niet eerder aan bod kwamen, zoals waarom hij bij een arrestatie een vuurwapen bij zich had. De video gaat volgens de makers op drie vragen in: wat Marcushauer met een vuurwapen bij zich droeg “bij de rij”, waarom hij geen vicepremier mocht worden, en voor welke geheimzinnige stichtingen hij eerder actief was. In een gesprek met Marcushauer vraagt de journalist naar zijn uitspraak-over-beveiligingsachtergrond en probeert door te vragen; Marcushauer neemt herhaaldelijk een time-out en wil vragen niet beantwoorden. Er wordt aangehaald dat Marcushauer in 2024 geen vicepremier mocht worden op basis van onderzoek van de AIVD. Tegelijk wordt gesteld dat er in 2010 al onderzoek liep naar vermoedelijke contacten met een buitenlandse mogendheid, en dat Marcushauer zich toen terugtrok als PVV-kandidaat-kamerlid. Een commissielid zegt dat de details over de banden met buitenlandse inlichtingendiensten hem niet bekend zijn, en dat er daarover binnen de commissie niet wordt uitgeweid. Volgens de transcript is Marcushauer in 2008 aangehouden in Amsterdam omdat hij een vuurwapen bij zich droeg. Hij zou een vuurwapenvergunning hebben gehad en bestuurslid zijn bij een Joodse schietclub. Tijdens die periode hield hij zich volgens vrij Nederland bezig met beveiligingsactiviteiten voor stichting bij leven en welzijn (BLUE), die volgens het stuk vooral Joodse instellingen en evenementen beveiligt en volgens vrij Nederland “discreet” is binnen de Joodse gemeenschap. Verder wordt beschreven dat een tweede stichting, Briet Abraham (Bijd Abraham), nauwelijks online informatie heeft, behalve Kamer van Koophandel/IND-gegevens. De transcript stelt dat BLUE en Briet Abraham vanaf 2010 hetzelfde bezoekadres deelden en dat bestuurders en gevolmachtigden overeenkwamen. Ook lijken hun activiteiten op beveiliging/bewaking. Alleen Briet Abraham staat volgens de IND als erkend referent voor arbeid en kennismigranten, wat volgens het stuk inhoudt dat de stichting toestemming kan aanvragen voor verblijfsvergunningen voor arbeid/kennismigranten. Marcushauer zou volgens het transcript tot 2008 bestuurslid zijn geweest bij beide stichtingen, en zich binnen twee weken hebben uitgeschreven na zijn vuurwapen-arrestatie. De makers stellen vragen over wat Briet Abraham precies doet en of Marcushauer kennismigranten naar Nederland heeft gehaald; Marcushauer wil de vragen niet beantwoorden of zegt dat er aannames worden gemaakt. Daarna komt de beveiligingspraktijk van BLUE aan bod. Uit een Woo-verzoek zou blijken dat BLUE-beveiligers geen regulier uniform hoeven te dragen, wat volgens activisten het lastig zou maken om onderscheid te maken tussen beveiligers en bijvoorbeeld undercover politie. Leden zouden volgens het stuk trainingen in Israël volgen, vaak van oud-militairen. In 2016 zou Marcushauer opnieuw een rol vervullen bij BLUE, als lid van de raad van gedelegeerden, terwijl hij in de Eerste Kamer portefeuillehouder justitie is. De transcript koppelt dit aan vragen die hij daar stelt over samenwerking met landen zoals Israël. Er wordt ook een bredere netwerkroute geschetst via Paul Stoppelman en schietvereniging Macabi. De transcript stelt dat Stoppelman actief blijft in de beveiligingswereld, dat hij wordt genoemd in een oud artikel over Israëlische vrijwilligers, en dat Stoppelman vervolgens volgens de makers ex-IDF-soldaat Gabrio inschakelde om eind 2024 een delegatie van Israëliërs te beveiligen tijdens een delegatie door Nederland. Gabrio wordt op 14 november gearresteerd op Schiphol; er worden doorgeladen pistolen en ook een ER-vijftien thuis gevonden. In een gesprek zegt Gabrio dat hij op basis van spanning en omstandigheden meerdere vuurwapens meenam en dat hij de informatie zelfstandig zou hebben. De transcript stelt daarnaast dat Macabi onderdeel is van een uitgebreider netwerk met banden richting Israëlische politiek, en noemt een ontmoeting van Macabi-voorzitter David Bezemer met Israëlische minister van defensie en president Hertzog. Ook wordt vermeld dat Macabi en BLUE gezamenlijke zelfverdedigingscursussen organiseren, waarbij onduidelijk blijft door wie die precies worden gegeven. David Bezemer verklaart in het stuk dat Stoppelman al lang bestuurslid is en dat hij na publicaties contact heeft opgenomen voor opheldering; Bezemer zegt geen idee te hebben van contacten met Israëlische veiligheidsdiensten en dat vragen aan Stoppelman gesteld moeten worden. Tot slot stellen de makers dat het onderzoek al lang loopt en dat er geen enkel concreet strafbaar feit is vastgesteld, maar dat er volgens hen veel vragen en opmerkelijke banden zijn. Er wordt aangehaald dat Marcushauer binnen de Nederlandse Joodse gemeenschap bekendstaat als radicaal en dat zijn geweldsuiten over Palestijnse vluchtelingen passen in een breder patroon, inclusief een uitgelekte e-mail over Israël-kritische Joden. De transcript zegt dat dit verhaal relevant wordt doordat Marcushauer bijna vicepremier werd, eerder als risico werd gezien door de AIVD, en volgens de makers een sleutelrol speelt in een minderheidskabinet.

Speaker 0 asks for clarification on what Murat means by “sharp companies” and which specific companies he’s referring to. Speaker 1, who identifies himself as Lajos Horvath, replies that he recalls a chain: Flatiron Holdings behind a Shell Company, and that this Shell Company was behind another Shell Company. Speaker 0 presses for more specifics about which Shell Company is being discussed. Speaker 1 explains that he doesn’t have the papers in front of him but remembers that there are “good people looking into” the matter and that this has been ongoing for a while.

The speaker says they “followed the money” to what they call the “protest industrial complex,” “Riot Inc.,” and identified a network of NGOs funding the ecosystem. They state the funding extends beyond the Soros/Open Society network to other funding networks, including the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, and “Foreign Cash,” along with “big, left wing” funders, including non-citizens. The speaker names Mr. Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland as an example of such funders. The speaker presents three “money facts” about Riot Inc. First, they describe Riot Inc. as having divisions similar to a corporation: not only an “Antifa boots on the ground” division, but also PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a “very well funded legal division” to “get these boots on the ground back on the streets as quickly as possible,” alongside the investors previously mentioned. Second, they claim they identified “dozens of radical organizations” that received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors, including “lawyer groups” that advocate for calling “good honest Americans fascists.” Third, they claim that more than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to “these very groups themselves.” They cite an Atlanta event called “Stop Cop City,” saying more than 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism and that these groups received money from both “the billionaire class” and “taxpayer money” for that. The speaker also claims that this money helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms used by groups such as “Antifa,” the “John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork” (linked by the speaker to an attack on an ice facility), and the “Socialist Rifle Association.” They add that groups without LLCs or EIN numbers can still be paid through these crowdfunding platforms. The speaker closes by saying they will keep “following the money” and thanks the audience for leadership.

The speaker highlights some interesting findings about new members of the World Economic Forum. They mention Najib Mikati, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Javad Zarif, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran, and Hassan Rouhani, the President of Iran, as new members. Additionally, they mention Bibi, Bennett, Lapid, and El Bak as new members. The speaker suggests that this indicates a New World Order, which they believe is being openly revealed.

In a transcript excerpt, a high-level government official is referred to in relation to child exploitation. A witness recounts that she sometimes told clients she was 11 because they wouldn’t engage with her; they all knew she was 13. It is noted that clubs in Rotterdam are visited by dozens of clients per week, and children are sent on escorts, with the client paying about 650 guilders per boy for such an escort. A separate dialogue touches on weekend offerings, questioning what is new or available, and mentions that two Germans were expected but were redirected to someone else. There is a remark about the scene being a mess, and references to individuals named Ricardo and to a separate story about him that week. Further, the dialogue references Omar, Maaike, and Draille, asking if those have ever been had by the listener, implying prior involvement. The man heard asking for children is identified as an official who holds a high position in the government; his name appears in the state almanac for the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The speaker argues that Vanguard is controlled by the richest families on Earth. By examining their history, these families have consistently occupied the top of the power pyramid, with some tracing their influence back to well before the industrial revolution. The speaker indicates that these families’ histories are extensive and important, and promises to explain more about them in a follow-up video the speaker is currently working on. The speaker points out that many of these powerful families belong to royal bloodlines and asserts that they are the founders of several global systems: the banking system, the United Nations, and various industries around the world. According to the speaker, these families never lost their power over time. To account for their continued influence in a world with a growing population, the speaker claims that these families hid behind investment companies such as Vanguard. The assertion is that Vanguard’s largest shareholders are private funds and nonprofit organizations connected to these same families. In summary, the speaker presents a narrative in which a small set of historically powerful, often royal-lineage families maintain enduring control by leveraging investment vehicles like Vanguard, with ownership concentrated in private funds and nonprofit entities tied to those families. The implication is that this arrangement allows these families to remain hidden while exerting broad influence over major financial institutions, global governance structures, and key industries. The speaker also signals that more detailed exploration of these families will be provided in a forthcoming follow-up video.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a cluster of geopolitical moves and predictions: - The United States has recently made more than 40 basing agreement agreements up in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. This is described as “under the radar,” with emphasis on time spent recently up north. - They mention spending about a month with Catherine Austin Fitz in the Netherlands looking at the same issue. - A warning to watch the Baltic and the Arctic is issued; Speaker 1 says a trusted private contact urged watching the Baltic and the Arctic, and notes that “No one's talking about it,” but “I think it's absolutely coming.” - They refer to the Baltic connection after leaving Denmark, noting Nord Stream was blown up and leads to the Baltic Sea. The claim is that to “close off that area,” one would take out Denmark via the Danish Straits, and Denmark’s deep involvement in Panama through Maersk is highlighted (Maersk is described as deeply entwined in global logistics; a claim that “Maersk owns a country basically” in comparison to Panama’s influence). - Potential targets are discussed: Hamburg (the biggest port in Germany), Rotterdam (the Netherlands, largest in Europe), and Antwerp (second largest in Europe). They traveled and spent significant time in Rotterdam and Hamburg, with Hamburg specifically noted as the biggest port in Germany and Rotterdam as the biggest in Europe, followed by Antwerp. - The narrative asserts these locations could be targeted as part of efforts to create a global famine, with at least some constraint around Panama. - The speakers state that the big power structures in Panama are “Zionist and Chinese. Full stop.” - They recount a CPAC event in Argentina (November or December 2025) where Viva Argentina, Viva Estado Unidos, and Viva Israel were invoked, with speakers including Ben Shapiro. They claim the Chinese and the Zionists are confronting each other in Argentina, noting the Argentine president’s surname MeleKovsky (not Mele) and Netanyahu’s surname Melekovsky, suggesting a shared lineage; they claim Melekovsky from Argentina, also known as Mele, visited Israel. - A claim that Artyn is probably going to attack the Malvinas is stated, followed by the phrase “Kissing the ring.” - Speaker 1 adds a summary: the predictions include the Baltics, the Arctic, Argentina, the Strait of Malacca, and cautions, “Don’t be surprised if all of these things come to pass.”

Speaker 0: We are proud to have penetrated the cabinet. Speaker 1: A constituent asked about outside interference in our democracy. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, boasted about infiltrating governments worldwide, including over half of Canada's cabinet. Can the member disclose which cabinet ministers support the WEF agenda for transparency? Speaker 2: Sorry for the poor audio and video quality. I'm unsure if the member...

Speaker 0 introduces Desiree as an outspoken whistleblower who has challenged the Davos elite, asserts that old systems are not fit for the twenty-first century, and asks how Desiree helped build the WEF’s great reset. Speaker 1, Desiree, recounts that in 2020 she obtained her dream job as chief sustainability officer at Deutsche Bank. She states that while in that role she witnessed fraud and describes the annual report as a “legal living document” filled with lies. She says that a couple of weeks after she spoke out, she was fired, and shortly after, the annual report was released with “all the lies.” She describes a subsequent “horrific smear campaign” and notes that within two days, U.S. authorities contacted her, including the SEC, the FBI, and the Department of Justice. She mentions that they asked her questions, implying inquiry or investigation directed at her claims. Speaker 0 questions whether Desiree is advancing the view that “they’re controlling the world.” Speaker 1 asserts that the WEF is vast and that its tentacles affect every part of life. She claims that this situation is not stakeholder capitalism but socialism, accusing the WEF of lying to the public. She contends that the Davos agenda involves more than net zero and asserts that it is connected to a “climate crisis” manufactured by a “multi trillion dollar industrial complex.” She reiterates that the Davos agenda is about more than climate goals and frames it as a broad, powerful economic and political enterprise. Speaker 0 asks Desiree whether she ever met Claus Schwab and whether she has anything to say about the encounter. Speaker 1 responds with a brief affirmative, saying “Yes,” to having met Schwab, and adds “Truthfully” when asked for further remarks about the meeting. Summary of key points: - Desiree’s career move to Deutsche Bank in 2020 as chief sustainability officer and her claim of discovering fraud and a lies-filled annual report. - Her claim of being fired and subjected to a smear campaign, followed by inquiries from U.S. authorities (SEC, FBI, DOJ). - The assertion that the WEF’s influence extends across life, characterizing the Davos agenda as socialism rather than stakeholder capitalism, and alleging a manufactured climate crisis tied to a multi-trillion-dollar industrial complex. - The claim that the Davos agenda encompasses more than net zero and entails broader power and influence. - Desiree confirms she met Claus Schwab, with a brief, candid acknowledgment.

- The speaker found their photo name on the World Economic Forum website under the category “Young Global Leaders,” noting that the list includes people from different political parties worldwide and is described as pushing a super globalist agenda with corporate power among the wealthiest. - It is claimed that even president Putin and others were once “young global leaders,” suggesting the WEF and related networks infiltrate cabinets and governance structures. - The idea is presented that the world oligarchic system holds power in Europe, controlling leaders such as the Bundescanseller (German chancellor) or prime ministers, leading to a perception of a global oligarchy. - The speaker states the Global Shapers community was created as a means to shape the common future, implying an organized effort to influence global policy. - There is a claim that attempts are being made to establish a new world order with rules that supersede and undermine national sovereignty and democracy. - It is argued that UN officials and WEF Davos leaders are in effect the same actors, suggesting the UN is indistinguishable from the World Economic Forum in practice. - The claim is made that these elites claim to know what is best for the people, and that billionaires are driving the agenda, with the danger being that they set the world’s rules and pursue a utopian future while silencing the voices and sovereignty of nations. - A sentiment is expressed that the situation is controlled by the same oligarchic ideas and actors, with the response labeled as “Total. 100%.” - Some participants concede debates about a deglobalizing world, but others argue for reglobalization of the world. - It is asserted that the World Economic Forum creates leaders who are then elected by the public, suggesting a pipeline from WEF to political office. - In the United Nations, there is a description of scrutiny for political correctness; those who are not 100% politically correct cannot participate, and influence can be exerted through salary and offers to control individuals. - There is mention of a global rules-based order aimed at combating dangerous extremist views online and minimizing misinformation, framed within shaping a great reset. - The claim is made that nobody will be safe unless everybody is vaccinated, and that there is a need to confront a deep, systemic, and structural restructuring of the world. - The discussion concludes with the expectation that the world will look different after this transition process.

Claims in the speaker's remarks center on funding and connections. They state that the project is largely funded by USAID money, allegedly authorized by the Biden administration and later affected when Trump took office. The speaker also mentions alleged links to a prominent UK figure involved with intelligence and a spouse in the civil service. Specifically, they describe a man said to be a top officer in MI6 and a wife described as high up in the civil service. The wife is said to have worked in the Foreign Office for five years as the personal assistant to the permanent secretary, the highest-ranking civil servant in that department. The transcript raises questions about these individuals’ exact roles and affiliations based on the presented claims.

The transcript claims the organizers “followed the money” to what they call “Riot Inc.” and its “protest industrial complex,” stating it involves a network of NGOs funded by multiple sources, including the Soros/Open Society network, the Arabella funding network, the Tides funding network, the network of Neville Roy Singham, “Foreign Cash,” and “big left wing funders.” It also says some funders “aren’t citizens of this country,” citing Mr. Hansjorg Veiss of Switzerland. The speaker presents three “money facts” about Riot Inc. First, like any corporation, Riot Inc. is described as having many divisions beyond an “anti… boots on the ground division,” including PR, marketing, and a “very well-funded legal division” intended to get “boots on the ground” back on the streets quickly. The transcript states that Riot Inc. has “investors that I mentioned.” Second, the speaker claims “dozens of radical organizations” have received “more than one hundred million dollars” from Riot Inc. investors. These organizations are described as including “lawyer groups” and groups that advocate labeling “good, honest Americans” as “fascists.” Third, the transcript claims “more than one hundred million dollars in US taxpayer funding” flowed into these funding networks, including “at least four million dollars” to “these very groups themselves.” It cites an Atlanta event called “Stop Cop City,” saying “over sixty rioters were charged with domestic terrorism,” and claims these groups received money for that from both “the billionaire class as well as taxpayer money.” The transcript further claims the money helps fund “de-decentralized crowdfunding platforms,” naming groups and references such as “Antifa,” “the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork” (stated as having links to an attack on an ice facility), and “the Socialist Rifle Association.” It adds that some crowdfunding platforms are funded by the Riot Inc network, and asserts that lacking LLCs or EIN numbers “doesn’t mean they can’t get paid.” The speaker closes by stating they will “keep following the money” and thanking leadership.

The speaker landed in the Netherlands and conducted further research into the Albanian wetland destruction they had been covering. They say the company behind it—linked to seven consecutive days of protests and a criminal investigation—is registered in Amsterdam. The company is named Svernet South Adriatic Development, which they identify as the company behind the Cushner Resort that is bulldozing one of the last wild coastlines in Europe. The speaker claims Svernet South Adriatic Development is owned through a chain of Dutch shell companies managed by a trust office on Stravinsky Lane in Amsterdam. They state that Dutch corporate law allows owners to remain hidden as long as no single person holds more than 25% of the shares, so the real owners stay anonymous. According to the speaker, Balkan Insights has found a network connected to the anonymous ownership, including someone linked to the Italian mafia, a disgraced judge, the family of a convicted forger, and one of Albania’s most powerful oligarchs. The speaker concludes that this is not just an Albanian problem, asserting that Dutch corporate structures are being used to obscure ownership of a project that is under active criminal investigation. The speaker says they are Dutch and live in Albania, and they state the Netherlands needs to know about what they found. They say they will share a link to the Balkan Insights article in their bio.

The speaker discusses their accusation against the Dutch government for hiding Nazis and their involvement in bioweapons development. They mention the creation of the Erasmus Lab for the Arab Spring Wars and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The Dutch Ministry of Health is highlighted as a government cover for these activities. The speaker also mentions connections between Klaus Schwab, the Dutch Minister of Health, and a victim named Juergen de Jamon. They discuss Hugo de Jonge and Kuipers, who signed a global health pact with the World Economic Forum. The speaker suggests that this pact is part of a strategy for the Great Reset and an impingement on European and national sovereignty. They also mention a false narrative about Nazis and reveal the involvement of Gulf Bio and Aramco in bio agent development. The speaker points to the 25th floor and the monkey lab as areas of interest.

Speaker 0 questions Meneer Markushauer about why he could not become vice premier, implying it would have happened if it were up to Geert Wilders. The questions prompt whether he should ask Wilders about the matter and suggest that not everything passed the AIVD security check. The line of questioning then shifts to which foreign intelligence service Markushauer actually works for, asking him to declare whether he works for any foreign security service and specifically referencing the Turk. The questions continue to press: what foreign affiliation does he have, if any, and whether he has ties to a foreign intelligence agency. The speaker mentions the Stichting bij Leven en Welzijn and asks about firearms, suggesting this is a recurring topic in related groups. There is an insinuation that Denk might nominate a member of parliament who works for the Turkish security service, and the speaker urges Markushauer to answer plainly if there is nothing to hide. The conversation also notes that ANP (the news agency) wants an answer from Markushauer, signaling media interest in his affiliations and security clearance. The overall point is to probe Markushauer’s possible connections to foreign intelligence services, questions about his eligibility for high office based on security checks, and to obtain a clear admission or denial regarding any such affiliations, with an emphasis on transparency given political risk and media attention. The exchange presents a sequence of provocative questions intended to challenge Markushauer on loyalties, security vetting, and potential foreign influence, while underscoring public and media demand for clarification.

Mark Rutte, the former prime minister, has been appointed as the secretary general of NATO. The speaker claims Rutte ruined the country by flooding it with immigrants, destroying the economy, and targeting farmers. The speaker alleges Rutte bought his position in NATO by spending billions of taxpayer euros on Ukraine and constantly hugging Zelensky. According to the speaker, Rutte, not even in office for one day, stated that Ukraine should be part of NATO and that its path to membership is irreversible. The speaker believes Rutte is determined to drag everyone into World War 3 and is a threat to society and the world.

One participant observes that the matter is sophisticated and implies a coordinated effort beyond a single email, noting that it involves a multi-hundred-million-dollar transaction processed through complex steps and asking how the money can be traced. The other participant explains what is known: the NSA identified senior Ukrainian government officials who were having the conversation and reportedly have some of their emails. The intercepts do not name USAID workers directly; they only mention that they are “working for USAID in Kev.” Because of that, tracing who was in contact with those officials about a clean energy grant during a war with Russia should be possible by narrowing down who was connected to those USAID-related emails. They indicate progress has been made since the story was published the previous week, suggesting early movement in identifying the involved parties. They describe the NSA intercepts as a summary of intercepts noting that the operation was designed to be so complicated that it would be hard to figure out after the fact, with money laundered multiple times until it was eventually diverted and sent to the DNC and Joe Biden. At the time this was happening, a famous person was leading USAID: Samantha Power, who is described as very close to Obama, Clinton, and Biden. The statement emphasizes that, while this does not imply involvement, it suggests examining USAID from the top down to determine who knew what and when. In summary, the discussion frames the situation as a highly sophisticated, large-scale financial operation with a chain of communication involving senior Ukrainian officials and USAID personnel. The NSA’s intercepts point to a deliberate design to obscure the trail, with potential implications involving political figures connected to USAID’s leadership. The speakers highlight ongoing progress in identifying who was in touch with the Ukrainian officials and stress the importance of tracing the funding flow, including hints about laundering patterns and the ultimate destination of funds.

Klaas Klomp from Triletten is doing well at the Financial Stability Board (FSB). He is an important figure in the banking world, along with Klaas Knot. The FSB is part of the International Natuurmonumenten. There is also mention of Claus Pater and Klaas Schaap of Europe. Meneer Swab is involved in the Twin Transitions. The World Economic Forum is also mentioned, with Claus Swab being an important figure. People are unaware of the Cloudstraat at the World Economic Forum. Tomorrow, there will be a discussion on sustainability and digitalization at VNO-NCW. This is significant news, with Clownswap being mentioned as well.

The speaker discusses the so-called Great Reset, insisting it is not a conspiracy theory and noting that it has been referenced by prime minister Trudeau in a United Nations speech. The speaker explains that Pierre Polyev, the federal conservative finance critic, recently raised concerns about this concept and was criticized by some in the media and by liberals for allegedly promoting conspiracy theories. According to the speaker, the Great Reset is the name of Klaus Schwab’s book. Schwab’s thesis, as described, is that governments and societies should “seize the opportunity of the public health and economic crisis to reimagine the world and radically change policies.” The speaker characterizes the proposed changes as a “grab bag of left wing ideas” that would mean less freedom and more government intervention, including policies that would “create massive poverty,” with particular emphasis on energy policy. Klaus Schwab is identified as the president and founder of the World Economic Forum, also known as the Davos Summit. The speaker labels Davos as “the biggest gathering of global hypocrites in history,” describing it as a ski village in Switzerland where, every February, thousands of wealthy individuals, including billionaires, millionaires, global CEOs, and politicians, fly in with private airplanes to spend a week lecturing the world, including working people, about reducing their carbon footprint. The speaker asserts that the Great Reset is advocated by influential people and even alluded to by Trudeau, though the discussion centers on what the reset entails and how it would impact policy, government power, and energy policy.

The speaker argues that the Ukraine war is a distraction from a major event four days earlier, on 02/20/2022, involving a huge financial scandal in Switzerland connected to Putin’s circle and Swiss banks. The scandal is described as Swiss secrets (Suisse Secret in French), the largest leak from a major Swiss bank, Credit Suisse, revealing details on more than 30,000 clients and over $100,000,000,000. The Suddeutsche Zeitung reported that secret data had been obtained over a year via a secure digital mailbox. The speaker notes the timing as four days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 02/24/2022 and claims this scandal was the trigger for the war. The speaker alleges that “every war gets organized and decided out of Switzerland,” and cites prior videos about the “beast of the Alps” and the Knights Templars. He links Putin, the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, and Zelensky to Switzerland, asserting that important decisions are made there. He claims that on 02/24/2020 there was supposed to be a live broadcast about Credit Suisse and Swiss secrets by the Germans and their Zupeitsche Zeitung and the OCCRP, but the Ukraine war started and the discussion disappeared. The transcript lists a wide array of figures connected to the Swiss secrets list: dictators, aristocrats, drug lords, mafia bosses, and Putin pals. Notable named individuals include Alyaksay Aleksin (Belarusian businessman associated with Lukashenko, sanctioned in 2021), Alexander Lukashenko, Haji Saifula Khan Bangash, a minister of finance, and numerous others described as aristocrats, oligarchs, or corrupt. The list comprises 30,000 people, with names spanning Abdelaziz Bouteflika, King Abdullah of Jordan, Queen Rania, Abdul Khalim Khadom (Syrian official and Assad loyalist), Luis Carlos de Leon (aristocrat), former Ukrainian prime minister Lazarenko, various generals and intelligence officials from Egypt, Pakistan, Armenia, and other regions, as well as figures from South Africa and Rhodesia. The speaker emphasizes that these individuals allegedly channel money through Credit Suisse, and that many are connected to Putin, Lukashenko, and allied regimes. He asserts that many of these people, and their networks, are linked to the Wagner private military company (PMC) and that the list aligns with countries where Wagner has been active. The speaker claims that the Swiss secrets scandal is tied to global money flows and sanctions evasion, noting connections to the Paradise Papers (2017), Pandora Papers, and the Panama Papers, and argues that Swiss markets help pay for Russia’s war via oil, gas, and commodity trading. He asserts that commodities like oil, gas, and wheat are central to the instability and potential financial crisis. The narrator asserts that the money moved to Switzerland by wealthy Russians, to avoid sanctions, enabled the private banking industry and that the war in Ukraine was staged to distract from the scandal and to facilitate wealth transfers to safer locations. The closing stance asserts that Switzerland is the base of all evil, the cross of the Swiss flag symbolizes a door to wealth, and that the media, global elite, and oligarchs use distraction to cover the Swiss secrets scandal and the transfer of wealth while innocent Europeans suffer from the war. The speaker concludes that the war is a distraction and thanks Switzerland for making it possible, implying a broad conspiracy about finance, war, and power.

Speaker 0 explains that transparency has been lacking and that tracking money through organizations is difficult. He says there is now at least a parameter for opacity, and that this parameter must be solidified to understand how money moves internally—through contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and networks of friends and associates. He predicts that over the next five years criminal activity will be uncovered as these money flows are examined more closely. Speaker 1 adds that there is a distinction between the border situation and how funds were dispersed north and south. As NGOs realize their federal funding is drying up, he questions whether there is enough momentum or private-sector money to sustain them, and what will happen to groups that no longer receive taxpayer dollars. Speaker 0 responds that hundreds of NGOs will close, noting that hundreds were created specifically for the mass migration crisis—serving as bus companies or as handlers at the border to assist migrants. He implies these organizations were established to address a surge and suggests their disappearance will follow as government funding wanes. Speaker 2 raises the issue of blanket preemptive pardons and asks if there should be an investigation into how the large influx of people—10 to 15 million—came about, characterizing the situation as not chaotic but well thought through. He asks if a thorough investigation is warranted. Speaker 0 calls for a full-throated investigation, including a presidential committee if needed, targeted at the DOJ under the new FBI director and the Attorney General. He argues there should be a focus on the political appointee class rather than only high-level officials like Mayorkas. He references his book, Overrun, Chapter Four, asserting that the situation was orchestrated and engineered at the political appointee level within the Domestic Policy Council, the DOJ, and all DHS agencies. He identifies people brought in from the NGO world, such as Tyler Moran, Esther Olavaria, Lucas Guten Tag, and Amy Pope, claiming they orchestrated the effort and undermined federal law and statutes that require faithful execution of laws. Speaker 2 adds that hundreds of millions of dollars flowed to the former NGO employers, implying a link between the orchestration and financial rewards. The dialogue ends with a continued assertion of movement toward an expansive influx, described as an invasion, and a call for accountability at the administrative and policy-making levels.