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.

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 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 raises the question about a surveillance tool called Right, which expires next week and would let the FBI monitor potential terrorists overseas. They ask about the importance of having these tools to protect the country from such threats and how to communicate their value to Congress, especially given a skeptical Congress regarding renewing those powers. Speaker 1 responds by recalling that Pfizer was used against them by a “dirty cop,” referring to Comey and his remnants and claiming it was used illegally. They say those people should be prosecuted, describing Comey as a “terrible” and “sick” person and calling him a “dirty cop.” Despite these accusations, Speaker 1 acknowledges that military needs the tool and that there is a division over its use. They claim that the tool has been used for national security and mention that it would be necessary for the military, with General Raisin Kane cited as an example. They point to perceived successes in Venezuela and ongoing actions with Iran, asserting that Iran is “decimated” and that a lot of information was obtained through using Pfizer. They argue that the job could have been accomplished regardless, but that using Pfizer made the job safer and easier. Speaker 1 states they are willing to give up their own security for the military, framing national safety as the highest cause. They emphasize that, despite personal adverse experiences with the tool, the military’s needs and national safety take precedence, and they express a readiness to relinquish their security to support the military’s mission.

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.

In the dialogue, Speaker 0 discusses long-standing claims that information has been independently discovered, suppressed, and now appears unlikely to be suppressed this time. The speaker asserts that the person being spoken about is apparently in the clear and that various agencies are aware of them due to multiple protective and threatening interactions with different agency affiliations. The core message is that if the person had not yet been approached by a US government agent telling them to stop, they would be allowed to continue; in other words, agents are waiting and watching, with some implying that suppression may not occur this time. The speaker describes a sense that “SSP motherfuckers” are anxiously awaiting publication, wondering if Amy will publish soon because they have been influencing the situation for a long time. There is a perception that multiple parties on one side are asking why she isn’t stopping, recalling that they had warned her three years earlier that they would kill her if she continued. The speaker conveys two opposing, ongoing scenarios in their life: one where people urge them to proceed (“do it”), asserting they are the one who should publish; and another where multiple people warn that others will kill them if they do publish. Overall, the transcript portrays a tense, dual awareness of external pressure and threats related to publishing, with conflicting external signals from various actors about whether to proceed or face lethal consequences.

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 states that “Hindus don’t have that. Jews don’t have that.” He then interjects, “Oh, they do,” indicating a shift from the initial denial to an admission that the referenced claim does apply to Hindus and Jews as well. He continues with the assertion that “So they’re talking about We already control the world. We don’t have to have a plan.” This sequence presents a progression from a claim about others not having a certain capability or situation to an explicit assertion that those groups do have it, followed by a provocative declaration about control. The speaker emphasizes a sense of omnipotence or prevailing influence by repeating, “We already control the world. We don’t have to have a plan.” This repetition reinforces the claimed extent of control and the perceived necessity (or lack thereof) for planning, framing the situation as self-evident to the speaker. Toward the end, the speaker adds a meta-comment directed at Yael, saying, “Come on. You you know that’s gonna get clipped, Yael.” This line acknowledges that the remarks are likely to be captured or highlighted in some clipped form, signaling awareness of recording or editorial selction, and addressing Yael directly in recognizing the controversial or provocative nature of the claim. In summary, Speaker 0 presents a provocative sequence: first denying, then conceding that Hindus and Jews “do” have the referenced attribute or capability; then asserting that “We already control the world” and that “We don’t have to have a plan,” underscoring a perceived total influence. The remark closes with an acknowledgment to Yael that the statement is likely to be clipped, signaling concern about how the comments will be presented or shared.

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.

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 asserts that they employ deception, including outright lies, misinformation, and disinformation—the intentional use of information to sway the audience.

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.