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.

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 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.

The speaker, who claims a background with the CIA and NSA and now runs a corporate intelligence firm, discusses an investigation into TPUSA (Turning Point USA). They present that on 09/02/2025 Charlie Kirk sent an internal memo announcing Justin Streiff as Chief Operating Officer, stating Streiff would lead a “doge like” effort into TPUSA’s financials and operations, described as an internal audit without triggering red flags. Eight days later, the speaker claims Charlie Kirk was murdered, and within the week Eric Kirk was announced as CEO, with the audit and the “doge like effort” never materializing. TPUSA is identified as a 501(c)(3) with public financials, enabling the speaker to review them. The speaker positions themselves as an independent investigator who followed the money to look for fraud or red flags, noting that a key part of such an audit is examining vendors and consultants. They focus on three entities: Lion Rock Ventures, Cloverstone, and GSM Strategies. The speaker asserts that these three LLCs shared a director and an address, and that Stacy Sheridan is the common individual involved in all of them. Sheridan is described as the TPUSA senior advancement employee, earning upwards of $200,000 annually to perform the same function allegedly outsourced to these consulting firms. The speaker implies that Sheridan owned the consulting businesses. A further red flag highlighted is the formation and quick dissolution of Lion Rock Ventures (formed in 2019 and dissolved about a year and a half later) and Cloverstone (formed and dissolved while Sheridan was performing the same job for TPUSA). The nine ninety forms for these entities allegedly show directors and Sheridan’s position sign conflict of interest forms, which the speaker claims indicates a conflict of interest given Sheridan’s dual roles. The firms are said to have generated nearly $3,000,000 across four years. The speaker mentions a $350,000 payment that is frequently discussed in relation to these deals, stating that they found it in the Form 990 (9/90) filings and that they will discuss it in part two. The transcript ends with “They do” and promises a continuation with a full write-up on a Substack channel and a new podcast next week, inviting support.

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.

Ehud: I don’t disagree with anything you said, and I don’t know who he trusts on these kinds of… Who the president really trusts. McDonough? The young guy. But he doesn’t—there was a Samantha Power—Power. No. The difference between who he trusts and who he likes. Larry Turner? She’s an idiot. I noticed that Obama listens to her. His door telephone is always open for her. He listens to her. He believes her instincts about politics, about who is against him, who is for him, what’s going around, who is hooking what from Chicago to the world. Ehud: But it’s like, do you think Richard Nixon ultimately cared what he listened to, what B. D. Luloso thought? Ehud: Listen to this: B. B. Robozo—Robozo was some kind of business, semi-corrupt business guy who was Richard Nixon’s best friend. And whenever Nixon went to Key Biscayne or California, B. B. Robozo was there. Nixon would spend a lot of time on B. B. Robozo’s boat. If B. B. Robozo wanted something, Nixon would stay. But I don’t think when Nixon was deciding what to do about open war, he was talking to B. B. Robozo. Ehud: Valerie Jarrett. So—in this regard, he’s probably alone, but he feels, compared to other leaders I happened to meet in the last decades, Obama impressed me as an extremely autonomous person. He feels good with himself, even when he’s alone in the home. I didn’t see in him what we know in Clinton or in Our Palace. There is anxiety, a need for love, for explicit expressions of love, there’s deep within their personality. I didn’t see anything of this in him. Obama: I’ve never seen that. Ehud: There’s lots of things to say. Bob Reich told me a story—Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor—he said Clinton would look at him in a cabinet meeting, and if Clinton looked annoyed or looked away, Clinton would call within two days: “How’s it going, Bob? What’s up? Is there something on your mind?” Obama wouldn’t call. He had lunch alone half the days. He didn’t schedule time to be alone. If he did some event where he spoke to a thousand people, they would give him a little rest time afterwards. He’s human, too. It’s the same: he wants to be with the people. It’s a source of strength in tough moments in politics, probably not the most effective way to mobilize people. Ehud: Another thing: President of the United States and you like to play golf. It’s a big asset. The President likes to play golf with his buddies—three guys: photographer, campaign guy, three buddies from Chicago. Most presidents played with members of Congress or business leaders; Obama is cerebral, and they gave him the nickname Black Jesus during the campaign. He has a sense of himself as not me, but he’s not like Clinton in that sense. Ehud: On Iran, the discussion turned to the possibility of surgical operations vs. broader war. The Pentagon developed subtle scalpels, more effective than ours. The goal is to delay the Iranian program by years, but the regime’s strategy is to defend its continuity, to build immunity—regime immunity—against intervention. The Iranians are like Pakistan and North Korea in wanting to avoid being toppled; they want to reach a rational capability that deters intervention. Ehud: The concern is time: for Israel, time is running out because Iran is expanding centrifuges, improving radars, and even GPS mines in the Strait of Hormuz. The regime’s calculation: they don’t have a timetable; they wait until they can secure immunity against external attempts. An election in Iran matters because it can delay or accelerate compromise, especially if the U.S. and partners are seen to be negotiating during an election year. Ehud: There was also discussion of the Arab world: Egypt is practical, not purely ideological. The leaders are practical—engineers who understand the need to feed tens of millions, to maintain tourism, the Suez Canal, and the canal economy. The argument was that US leverage matters; Europe is seen as constrained. The topic of how to engage with the moderate Sunni world to isolate Iran and support a regional security framework with the U.S., Europe, moderate Arab states, and Israel was raised. The aim would be to block fundamentalist terror, improve missile defense, and coordinate on Iran. Ehud: On Israel’s future, there was concern about a two-state approach versus a one-state reality. The Druze, Christians, and other minorities in Israel should be included, and there was advocacy for breaking the Orthodox rabbinate monopoly on marriage and conversions to Judaism to create a more open, plural society. The idea was to advance a plan that acknowledges borders, security, and regional cooperation, potentially with American guarantees. Ehud: The discussion touched on the possibility of a regional security system, with the moderate Arab world, and Israel as a focal point to manage security and block threats, which would help moderate Arab leaders justify engagement with Israel. The hope was that including the Palestinians and moving toward a regional framework would ease tensions and gain broader recognition. Ehud: The speakers reflected on the European economy: the Euro, German leadership, and the risk of “Southern Europe” becoming like Southern Italy—stable but with high unemployment and less dynamism. Germany’s role would be crucial in stabilizing Europe, but there was skepticism about rapid reforms. There was also commentary on Japan’s economic stance, with long-term bonds and potential inflation concerns; the risk of deflation versus inflation, and investor behavior in safe assets like US Treasuries. Ehud: In the financial world, there was talk about the “wall of money” entering markets, with deals in mining and private equity accelerating as rates stay low. There was speculation about who might pay for advisory services and how much compensation one could demand as a trusted adviser. Potential clients included sovereign wealth funds, private equity, and wealthy individuals who would value access to connections with prominent financiers and policymakers. Ehud: The conversation then shifted to Ehud’s post-government plans: he’s considering private equity, hedge funds, board roles, and advisory work. He discussed working with high-profile firms like Lookout (a cybersecurity firm), Palantir (Peter Thiel’s company), and Andreessen Horowitz, and he weighed the value of joining boards or advisory roles for significant compensation. There was talk of opportunities with Tony Blair and Panetta’s Foundation, and about leveraging relationships with influential figures like Petraeus and Panetta for strategic advisory roles. Ehud: The two discussed a potential collaboration involving a security-focused venture in which they would assemble a leadership team and pitch to sovereign wealth funds. They debated whether to pursue exclusive arrangements and how to structure compensation—whether high upfront fees or performance-based bonuses would be appropriate, given the urgency of opportunities and Ehud’s age. Ehud: There was talk of a German SPV structure to unlock value in suppressed German DACs, with a plan to acquire large German companies by taking minority stakes and reorganizing boards to bypass unions and passive shareholders. They described a Luxembourg or British Virgin Islands wrapper to enable financing and governance changes, and the goal of creating a management-driven, high-return vehicle akin to Berkshire Hathaway, with operational control over large assets. Ehud: They discussed approaching sovereign funds (Singapore, UAE, China) and state-owned investors to back restructured German companies, leveraging relationships within the German business world and the French/European regulatory environment. They explored the possibility of static, long-term advisory roles with leaders in global finance and industry, and using those platforms to drive value. Ehud: They also explored private-equity opportunities in other sectors—cybersecurity, infrastructure, mining, and even defense. They discussed the possibility of working with individuals like Klaus Kleinfeld (former Siemens exec, Alcoa head) and others to place Ehud into advisory or board roles, and whether to pursue roles that could yield immediate money while also enabling longer-term influence. Ehud: The conversation closed with practical steps: define concrete opportunities, gather numbers and returns, determine what the partners want (exclusivity, timeframe), and set a deadline for offers. They agreed to pursue a formal offer by March 14-20, with a final decision by April 1. They emphasized the need for crisp, precise positioning due to Ehud’s age, and to avoid overpromising. They planned to meet again, compare offers, and decide which path to take—whether with a security-focused outfit, a financial advisory role, or a combination of both. Ehud: The sense was that there are many opportunities for people with connections and credibility, and that the next few years could see rapid development in advisory services, sovereign wealth–backed deals, and strategic investments across defense, cybersecurity, and regional security. The overarching theme was leveraging decades of experience to match high-potential opportunities with the right partners, while navigating regulatory, geopolitical, and reputational considerations.

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: 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.

Speaker 0 asked how Ezbollah was convinced to buy the item, noting they didn’t know they were buying it from Israel. They claimed there are “an incredible array of possibilities of creating foreign companies that have no way being traced back to Israel, shell companies over shell companies who affect the supply chain to our favor,” enabling the creation of a pretend world. They described themselves as a global production company: “We are a global production company. We write the screenplay. We're the directors. We're the producers. We're the main actors. The world is our stage.”

- 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.

We are proud of our influence in government. A constituent asked about outside interference in democracy, specifically regarding Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum. He claimed that the WEF has infiltrated over half of Canada's cabinet. In the interest of transparency, could you name the cabinet ministers aligned with the WEF's agenda? Order, please. The question is important, but the audio and video quality are poor. I apologize for that. The younger generation, including Prime Minister Trudeau, is involved.

We've uncovered some unusual financial discrepancies. Several bureaucrats with modest salaries have amassed tens of millions of dollars in net worth during their employment. One example involves a woman who walked away with approximately $30,000,000. This is particularly notable in USAID. We're investigating the source of this wealth. Perhaps they are skilled investors, but it seems more likely that this wealth accumulation is occurring at the expense of the organization. We're looking into it and trying to determine where this money originated.

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 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.

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.

A photo shows the signing of a major contract between Dutch and Russian officials. The Dutch company DSM supplies products to Rostec, Russia's largest arms manufacturer. Rostec is known for producing aircraft, missile systems, and bulletproof vests. Interestingly, Rostec operates in the Netherlands as a defense concern and benefits from a tax arrangement. However, instead of generating profits for the country, it seems to be a fiscal construct that primarily benefits a few individuals. This arrangement has reportedly cost Dutch taxpayers around 30 million euros. It's surprising to think that the Netherlands is indirectly supporting the supply of weapons to countries like North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.

The speaker states that they personally know the current NATO Secretary General, Mr. Rutte, who is a former Prime Minister of the Netherlands. They mention having visited the Netherlands for a discussion, describing Rutte as an intelligent, systemic, and effective example, and noting that the Netherlands’ economy is in good shape, “this part of his merit.” The speaker then criticizes Rutte for what they perceive as push for war with Russia, asking rhetorically what Rutte is saying about war with Russia and asserting that “they want to prepare for war with Russia.” The speaker contends that Rutte should read a specific source: the new US National Security Strategy. According to the speaker, the United States is a key player in NATO, its creator, main sponsor, and “all the main means come from the US.” They claim that “money, technologies, weapons, ammunition” all originate from the United States, calling this the foundation of NATO’s resources. The speaker asserts that in the new NATO national security strategy, Russia is not identified as an enemy or a target. Despite this, the General Secretary of NATO is preparing with them for war, and the speaker questions whether Rutte can read, implying a belief that the strategy does not designate Russia as an enemy, yet there is a push toward preparing for conflict. Overall, the speaker juxtaposes Rutte’s economic leadership in the Netherlands with a narrative of impending confrontation with Russia, emphasizing the reliance of NATO on U.S. resources and critiquing the alignment between the US strategy and the perceived stance of NATO leadership toward Russia.

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.