reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses a tactic called the "wrap up smear." This tactic involves smearing someone with false information, then publicizing it and having it reported in the press. By doing so, the smear gains validation and credibility. The speaker emphasizes that this tactic is self-evident and a common strategy.

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

Speaker 0 presents evidence to support the claim that the object in question is a balloon. They express amusement at people who believe otherwise. The speaker commends the work done and declares that it is indeed a balloon. They invite others to start trolling.

Speaker 0 frames the situation as a war, not a battle, and insists we absolutely will win this war: "But this is a a war." "This isn't a battle, and we absolutely will win this war." "It is a war." "It is indeed a war." Acknowledging that "they have won some battles, Jasmine," the speaker says we must "keep our eye on the war" and that "and and everybody needs to pick up a weapon and and get involved" because "this is for the the safety and and lasting of the country." The message ends with a reiteration: "And everybody needs to pick up a weapon."

The speaker states that the "Russian story" would be called a covert influence campaign if they were doing it. The speaker also claims they would be the last to say they've never tried a covert influence campaign.

Speaker 0 asks, “Am I a bad person? … the more you didn’t like it, the more I enjoyed it. I loved how much you hated it. Turn me on. Why am I like that?” and questions why. Speaker 1 recounts: during sex, he put his hand on her throat and strangled her until she lost consciousness, but he continued having sex as she came back around. Speaker 0 declares, “I am one of the most dangerous men on this planet. … I’m the smartest person on this planet,” suggesting he’d rather pin her down to make her do things she didn’t like, or that he could do whatever he wants. Speaker 1 notes, the next day one of the whites of her eyes had turned completely red, explaining that lack of oxygen can cause blood vessels to burst, a common feature in domestic abuse cases. Speaker 0 asks if she’s seriously offended that he strangled her a little, noting she didn’t pass out. Speaker 1 says he kept saying, “I own you. You belong to me,” and threatened to kill her. Speaker 0 responds with a dismissive, “Chill the out. Jesus Christ. I thought you were cool.”

Speaker 0 suggests that someone other than Biden is in control of his actions. They claim that Biden's "masters" are the ones who dictate his decisions.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

Speaker 0 asks for support from the audience, emphasizing that they need absolute and unwavering support, not just financially. They mention the strong spirit and support they have seen in various places across the country. They believe that with this support, they will be unstoppable and can fix the country once they are in power.

The speaker discusses a strategy to manipulate public opinion by creating confusion and mistrust. They mention flooding a country's public square with raw sewage, raising questions, spreading dirt, and promoting conspiracy theories. The goal is to make citizens lose trust in their leaders, the mainstream media, political institutions, and even each other. Once trust is lost, the game is won.

Our job is to control what people think by undermining the messaging.

Speaker 0 asks how people can trust Speaker 1 and if he is part of the cabal. Speaker 1 responds by saying not to trust him, but to trust themselves. He dismisses the idea of controlled opposition and encourages people to do their own research and make their own decisions. He criticizes those who are indecisive and urges them to take action and make a difference. Speaker 1 talks about his sacrifices and the hardships he faces, emphasizing that he doesn't care about votes but wants to save the country. He calls out politicians and accuses them of being part of controlled opposition. He concludes by telling people to stop asking him questions and to take responsibility for their own actions.

Speaker 0 stated that someone "trained me to have to be perfect." Speaker 1 then mentioned "working for Diddy," to which Speaker 0 responded, "Absolutely." Speaker 1 expressed affection for Diddy, calling him a "good friend" and "good guy." Speaker 0 stated that "he expects—" before Speaker 1 interjected, asking, "Is he a good guy?" Speaker 0 responded, "I don't wanna answer that question." Speaker 1 concluded by saying, "I think he's a good guy. I'm a stick up for—"

Speaker 0 claims everyone is born into bondage. Speaker 0 then tells Mr. Harrison that he will help them, whether he wants to or not. Speaker 0 expresses surprise or excitement.

Speaker 0 reassures everyone to relax and trust Lisa, who guarantees their protection regardless of the outcome. There is no need for any worry or panic.

The speaker contends that the European Union does not have the authority to determine international law or dictate how the United States defends its national security. They assert that the United States is actively responding to threats to its security, describing the country as being “under attack from organized criminals in our hemisphere” and stating that the president is taking measures to defend the nation in this operation. The speaker notes a contrast in international reactions: many countries advocate for the United States to supply and deploy nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles to defend Europe, yet those same countries view the United States placing aircraft carriers in the hemisphere near the speaker’s location as problematic. This juxtaposition is highlighted to illustrate perceived inconsistencies in support or criticism from other nations. Overall, the speaker emphasizes that the president’s stated mission is to protect the United States from threats against the United States, and asserts that the current operation aligns with that objective by defending the country.

Speaker 0 claims everyone is born into bondage. Speaker 0 then tells Mr. Harrison that he will help them, whether he wants to or not. Speaker 0 expresses surprise or excitement.

Speaker 0 challenges the doctor, asking if they are being forced to put their child on ADHD medicine or risk CPS involvement. Speaker 1 asserts that the medication is recommended for the child and that following the doctor’s instructions is in the child’s best interest. The doctor states they will be forced to call CPS if the guidance isn’t followed and emphasizes doing what’s best for the child, framing it as not a favor but a necessity. Speaker 0 contends the child has not shown ADHD symptoms and asks for a second opinion, to which Speaker 1 responds that they are the doctor. Speaker 0 reiterates that they are being told either to put the child on medication or CPS will be called, calling this forcing. The doctor clarifies that they asked about a second opinion, maintains they are the doctor, and says if the patient doesn’t trust their doctor, they shouldn’t be coming there, which Speaker 0 finds unreasonable. Speaker 1 repeats that they are not threatening, but are trying to do what’s best for the patient and their child, and adds that if you love your child enough you will listen to their words. Speaker 0 pushes back, stating you cannot tell them how to feel about loving their child, and reiterates that the doctor is still the doctor, with Speaker 1 acknowledging the child’s importance but underscoring their medical role.

Speaker 0 asks how people can trust Speaker 1 and if he is part of the cabal. Speaker 1 responds by saying not to trust him, but to trust themselves. He dismisses the idea of controlled opposition and urges people to do their own research and make their own decisions. He criticizes those who claim they don't know what to do and tells them to grow up. Speaker 1 talks about his dedication to fighting for causes and calls out politicians for not addressing important issues. He expresses frustration with people who worry about controlled opposition and accuses them of being lazy and selfish. He ends by telling people to stop asking him questions and to take action themselves.

Speaker 0 expresses their extreme loyalty towards people and how they view any slight disloyalty as a horrifying act. They mention wanting to lose everything to test people's loyalty, and they were surprised to find out that some people they thought would be loyal turned out not to be. Speaker 0 admits that they would have treated certain people and groups differently if they had known their loyalty beforehand. Speaker 1 acknowledges Speaker 0's desire for revenge and confirms that they believe Speaker 0 will act on it given the opportunity. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 jokingly endorsing Speaker 0's desire for loyalty.

The speaker explains that operatives don’t operate by flashing secret IDs or sneaking into buildings; instead, they rely on simple, routine instructions such as telling media figures not to discuss certain topics or to cut out specific content. Referencing Project Mockingbird, the speaker notes that operatives receive basic guidance in the form of talking points or directives. A recruitment scenario is described to illustrate how a Gen Z individual might be recruited. In a public setting, someone approaches the target, praises their podcast, and asks a provocative question: are you a patriot? If the target expresses willingness to consider an offer, the recruiter presents a staged process to secure compliance and loyalty. Stage one involves exposing the target to a comprehensive package of compromising material: the target’s browsing history, webcam captures from all devices, and recordings of “the most compromising shit you could ever possibly imagine.” The recruiter then praises the target’s work on the podcast and offers protection from exposure along with a monetary incentive—$20,000 per month. The target, feeling chosen and in control, agrees to the process. The speaker notes that cognitive dissonance keeps the target from seeing themselves as compromised, framing the arrangement as serving the greater good and protecting Americans. This justification helps the target align their actions with a self-image of doing the right thing. Consequently, the target may be motivated to silence others, omit certain guests, or exclude content from their podcast, under the belief that their actions are for national safety and public welfare. Even if the situation feels off, the individual may still feel they are contributing to the greater good and thus rationalize the behavior as necessary.

A sponsor requested the removal of something, but the speaker responded with strong language, expressing their refusal to be told who to vote for. They also dismiss any accusations of being a bad person for not believing them. The speaker's message is clear: they have no interest in complying with the sponsor's request.

Speaker 0 announces plans to go out tonight and keep it secret, intending to go regardless. They compliment the audience, saying the show is great and very successful. They indicate they will go out tonight with the police and with the military, of course. So we're gonna do a job. The National Guard is great. They've done a fantastic job. Additionally, the speaker acknowledges the plan to join police and the military for an upcoming effort, implying a formal operation. They address the audience directly, offering praise for the show's success. The overall message centers on secrecy about the night out, a commitment to participate in the operation, and explicit praise for security forces.

Speaker 0 asserts that mass injecting more than half the world's population with that drug is the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of humankind, and that this event has happened now. The speaker emphasizes that this assessment is very difficult for many people to accept, especially for those who have received the injection, but contends that we are now living in the aftermath of the incident. The repercussions, the speaker warns, will continue for a very long time. The speaker predicts ongoing harm: people will keep dying, will become extremely ill, and will probably be infertile. They foresee a wide range of enduring effects on individuals for years and years. The speaker emphasizes the lasting nature of these consequences and expresses concern about a prolonged period of health and social impacts resulting from the injection. Additionally, the speaker urges listeners to accept that the event took place. They state that anyone who was involved at any high level with making that happen is not your friend, underscoring a belief that those who contributed to the event should not be trusted or regarded as allies. The message conveys a strong stance about accountability and trust, suggesting a division between those who were involved at high levels and the public.

Speaker 0 asks, 'How many subs to knock them out?' This is described as a good question: 'That's a good question. I don't know.' The speaker clarifies his stance: 'I ain't really sub farming, 50 subs. Knock them out.' The line '50 subs' is echoed again. The overall exchange centers on subscriber milestones and practical outcomes, acknowledging uncertainty while signaling a specific target. The phrasing is concise, conveying intent to 'knock them out' via a stated figure, with the repetition of '50 subs' reinforcing the threshold. This summary preserves the exact quoted phrases while outlining the context and emphasis overall.