reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

The narrator hired a new cybersecurity company run by the former CIO of Northrop Grumman, who has “thirty five years in counter espionage specifically for the navy, specifically for advanced propulsion,” and was the chief information officer for Northrop Grumman. The narrator promised the CIO a series of “really crazy ass stories” about electronic and physical surveillance, stalking, and “weird ass death and sexual threats” and asked him to reserve judgment until the end, ready to hear if they were insane or not. The CIO told him, “I wish I could tell you that you were insane, but you're totally not.” He apologized, saying he was trying to let him down gently, and that the stories he’d heard were not unique: “the stories you've told me, I've heard from other young women in technology positions.” They do it “on purpose” to make you feel you can’t tell anyone, and they “pose as, like, agents on their own government.” He urged the narrator to protect herself and to tell others, but he waits until he has five or six “smoking guns” before speaking up.

Speaker 0: This is not just a story about violence and chaos; this is a money story. At the Government Accountability Institute, Peter Schweitzer and I followed the money to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc. We found a network of NGOs—not just the Soros/Open Society network, but also the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash, and other big left-wing funders, including Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. They’re pouring money into this ecosystem. Here are three money facts about Riot Inc. Number one: Riot Inc. has many divisions like any corporation. It doesn’t just have the Antifa boots on the ground division; it has PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a well-funded legal division to get these boots back on the ground as quickly as possible. It has investors I mentioned. Number two: We have identified dozens of radical organizations—not just decentralized Antifa groups, but dozens of radical organizations—that have received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors. These include lawyer groups and groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists, etc. Number three: More than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves. There was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City; over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money for that from both the billionaire class and taxpayer money. Additionally, this money helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms that support Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork (which had links to the ICE facility attack), the Socialist Rifle Association, and others. Even though some groups don’t have LLCs or EIN numbers, they can still get paid. Some funding platforms are funded by this network that we call Riot Inc. Speaker 1: Do you know the name of any of the funders? Do you know the names? Because if you do, I’d like you to give them to Cash or Pam—or Christie? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Or Christie? Speaker 0: Yes, we’ll do that. Speaker 1: As soon as you can. That’s all of you. Because you probably know the names after a certain period of time, you tend to find out. But these are people that do not have good intention for the country and that’s treasonous probably. So if you could, it would be very important if you could do that, it would be great. Speaker 0: it

There are military and law enforcement individuals frustrated with illegal operations they view as treasonous. This group has a long-term agenda that poses a serious threat. A legal fund is being established to sue corporations under the RICO Act, similar to actions taken against the mafia. There’s urgency for Congress to act quickly, but alternative measures are being pursued. Public pressure is essential; citizens should contact their representatives to advocate for open hearings and witness protection. Disturbingly, there are claims that this covert group has the capability to manipulate natural disasters, posing an existential threat to humanity. The speaker left a lucrative medical career to address these issues after uncovering the truth about these operations.

Speakers discuss the severity and novelty of threats to the United States’ political system, focusing on Russian interference and the digital domain. - All acknowledge that the country faced a cataclysmic disruption to its political system that is unlike prior experiences. Speaker 2 notes, as a Vietnam veteran, that fundamental institutions were jeopardized then but proved resilient, and expresses hope for a similar outcome now. - Speaker 1 emphasizes two points: (1) Vladimir Putin’s determination to shape political landscapes inside Russia and abroad, and (2) the consequential role of the digital domain, which allowed Russian intelligence to exploit and manipulate more effectively, culminating in the twenty sixteen election. - They note that Russian interference historically involved exploiting elections, but never with such aggression, directness, or multidimensional methods. The Internet and modern technology serve as a huge enabler for influencing opinion and undermining fundamental systems. - There is a discussion of whether this manipulation was unforeseen. Speaker 2 indicates it goes back to the Soviet era with attempts to influence elections, but the magnitude in twenty sixteen was unprecedented. The digital environment provides malefactors with more opportunities to attack and influence. - The panel explains active measures as fabricating or propagating stories (even patently false ones) to advance a narrative, color perceptions, and lend legitimacy to political actors. They note that the Russians focused on specific voter blocks in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, with estimates that 70,000–80,000 votes could have swung the election. - They discuss methods beyond information operations, including collecting information (e.g., DNC and DCCC email breaches) and money-related tactics: money laundering, disguising funding sources for political actions, and potential extortion or blackmail. They stress that collusion is a tool in the Russians’ kit and that they recruit or exploit individuals where openings exist. - Following the money is highlighted as essential across national security domains; FBI financial investigators and intelligence analysts play key roles, and there is confidence that Mueller and others will trace financial pathways to uncover motivations. - The distinction between cyber warfare and conventional warfare is acknowledged: there are no tanks or planes, but the cyber realm constitutes a war for democracy. A robust response is needed to strengthen the cyber environment, including proposals for a congressional independent commission to assess and strategize future protections, involving engineers, technologists, scientists, and private sector input. - They reflect on why the nation did not respond with the immediacy seen after physical attacks (e.g., 9/11). The lack of a physical rubble-like trigger makes cyber threats harder to mobilize a national response. Leadership issues are cited: when the White House diminishes the CIA, FBI, NSA, or intelligence and law enforcement, it undermines efforts to address the threat. - They recount briefings to the president-elect in January, noting high confidence levels in assessments that did not rely on the dossier; the bigger concern is a perceived indifference to the Russian threat and the denigration of security institutions. - They stress the importance of institutional integrity: the press, law enforcement, and intelligence are pillars of democracy, and denigration of these institutions undermines U.S. credibility abroad. They advocate for stronger checks and balances and reiterate their commitment to truthful reporting and protecting the country. - The speakers, experienced and apolitical, emphasize loyalty to the Constitution and the need for decisive leadership and sustained commitment to democratic institutions, despite political challenges. They conclude with a solemn commitment to safeguard the country and its democratic framework.

There is a pervasive and dark organization that is well funded and evil. They are willing to kill people, as seen with the aide of Kelly Loeffler in Georgia who was blown up in his car. He was dating Governor Kemp's daughter. Governor Kemp was considering a signature audit, and the lead investigator from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation suddenly died within a week. There is a lot of money and power at stake here, as it involves the leadership and control of the most powerful country in the world.

The transcript presents a provocative examination of organized crime, arguing that Jewish crime networks, rather than Italians, have historically been the dominant force behind global organized crime and that mainstream media and political power actively obscure this reality. Key claims and points include: - Hollywood imagery has ingrained a link between organized crime and Italians, with films like The Godfather and Goodfellas shaping public perception. In reality, Italians constitute only a tiny fraction of organized crime in the Western world, the speaker asserts. - A controversial WikiLeaks cable from the American Embassy in Jerusalem, titled Promised Land of Organized Crime, is described as warning American law enforcement about the severe threat of Jewish organized crime to America. The speaker claims this cable details extensive Jewish involvement in organized crime and asserts it reveals a hidden history not covered by major media. - The speaker cites a 2010 Al Jazeera interview with Julian Assange, claiming Assange said only a small portion of Israel-related files had been published because newspapers with exclusive rights did not want to publish damaging material about Israel. It is claimed that 3,700 files relate to Israel, with 2,700 from Israeli sources, and that in six months more would be published depending on sources. The speaker argues this demonstrates control of the press by Jewish interests. - The narrative contends that the media’s willingness to publish cables that criticize Western powers contrasts with a reluctance to publish cables about Israel, suggesting media censorship and a protective stance toward Israel due to Jewish influence. It is asserted that this media control shows “the real power in the media.” - The heart of the cable is summarized as showing that Israel is the world center for many criminal syndicates, with organized crime having a global reach and influence within Israel’s government. An example cited is the funeral of Shlomo Oz, with attendance by Amri Sharon, illustrating purported connections between political figures and organized crime. - The speaker asserts that Jews dominated organized crime in the United States during much of the 20th century, naming Murder, Inc. as the fountainhead of American organized crime and identifying Meyer Lansky as a key leader and Zionist. It is claimed that Newsweek described Lansky as pouring money into Israeli bonds and philanthropies, and that journalists like Jack Anderson discussed money laundering from the underworld into Israeli channels. - The claim extends to a long list of Jewish mobsters and the idea that Jewish influence shaped media and politics, with contrasts drawn to Italian mafia portrayals in Hollywood films. - The transfer of crime networks into international arenas is discussed, including Russian organized crime. The “Red Mafia” allegedly emerged from the Soviet collapse, with estimates of thousands of crime groups in the former Soviet Union and widespread protection rackets in Russia. The speaker quotes that by the mid-1990s there were 6,000 crime groups and that the mob controlled many banks; Moscow experienced thousands of mob-related homicides. - Testimonies from various speakers are included, with commentary from those who worked with different organized crime groups, including the assertion that the Russian mafia is highly educated and sophisticated and has extended into the United States and about 60 other countries. - The transcript also discusses white-slave trafficking, asserting that it is dominated by Jewish networks, with a cited 1998 New York Times article describing slave traders of Slavic women; the speaker contends the media would be uncomfortable labeling perpetrators as Jewish slave traders. - The closing segments condemn media censorship and urge viewers to expose organized crime, demanding action against media and government corruption, and promoting the speaker’s books, My Awakening and Jewish Supremacism, as further in-depth resources. Overall, the material argues that Jewish organized crime has historically guided and concealed a global criminal network, with substantial influence over media, politics, and law enforcement, while alleging the mainstream press suppresses this narrative.

At the observatory, we observe and document haters, extremists, and entities, studying their patterns, organization, and activities. We've noticed a small but vocal group of about 20 to 22 entities, along with three political groups, who are organizing things behind the scenes. By entities, we mean individuals, particularly influential ones who operate mainly on social media.

There is a hidden enemy, a vast transgenerational criminal mafia that has corrupted our world. They have infiltrated the highest levels of power, controlling the media, banking system, and governments. They have caused poverty, division, and war, all for personal gain. But there is hope. Good people in positions of power are working to expose and eradicate this criminal cabal. They are using the internet and the NSA to gather evidence and plan a takedown. The battle is ongoing, but the good guys are winning. High-profile arrests are coming, and the criminals will be held accountable. It's time to wake up, unite, and reclaim our freedom. The best is yet to come.

The speaker discusses the concept of the Khazarian mafia and their influence on society. They explain that the Khazarian mafia originated from the Kazaria empire in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and they engaged in predatory behavior, such as identity theft and stealing wealth. The speaker argues that these individuals have been running an asymmetrical war for global dominance and emphasizes the importance of exposing their actions. They also mention the efforts made by the Khazarian mafia to sanitize their history and control information. The speaker highlights the disproportionate influence of this group in the US government and expresses concerns about the impact on the American people.

The speaker asserts that discussions of child abuse and child trafficking are avoided in the UK Parliament, implying that avoidance signals a problem. They claim there is no separate crime of satanic child abuse in the UK; they say it’s simply child abuse, and suggest that the Netherlands similarly erases the subject. The speaker relates local discoveries in Leicester, described as the nearest city to their area, where they found extensive child abuse linked to both historic and current politicians and to the police. They state they gave evidence against the head of police about “industrial child trafficking.” A central claim is that there is industrial-scale trafficking of children from Ukraine via Moldova to the UK for sexual abuse and organ harvesting. The speaker says this information came from two Ukrainian secret service agents who independently reported the same scheme, without knowing each other. They alleged that Ukrainian secret services collected children during the conflict in the Donbas and handed them over to UK secret services. The two informants reportedly named individuals and were appalled by the task of collecting children for trafficking. The speaker recounts that one whistleblower was killed in a cafe when a bomb was placed under his table, and the second survived a car bombing after being warned by a car park camera clip showing the explosion as he approached his car. They claim the whistleblowers named people very close to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his regime, asserting that those individuals purportedly benefit financially from the war by enabling child trafficking. Further claims include that there is more money in child trafficking and sex trafficking than in drugs or weapons because of the trafficked children’s organs. The speaker contends that the trafficking scheme involves selling the children multiple times, and that victims disappear after organs are harvested, which is why victims are not found in the end. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the alleged connection between wartime activity, Ukrainian whistleblowers, assassination attempts, and a broader network that allegedly profits from child trafficking and organ harvesting.

There are powerful individuals who manipulate society, whether they are called communists, capitalists, republicans, or democrats. They may also be referred to as satanists, zionists, or high-level Illuminati. We are constantly under attack, and it is uncertain what their next move will be. Some speculate it could involve UFOs, world war 3, economic collapse, or a power outage. The intention behind all of this is clear, as evidenced by hidden data on vaccine responses and the manipulation of diseases in laboratories. They have the ability to make anyone sick through various means, including environmental factors and microwave frequencies. We must stay vigilant and aware of their actions.

The transcript intercuts a lyrical unreality with a sprawling, confessional denunciation of others and alleged political manipulation. - In a music-like segment, Speaker 0 raps about luxury, danger, and motion: “A thud right now. In the air. I'm free as a bird. Plus, I'm flat right now. Drip talking slur.” He describes being heavily adorned with diamonds and tattoos, a bulletproof Cadillac, and a life of constant movement, with lines like “Diamonds and tattoos cover my scars,” “One of my hoes shop in Chanel,” and “This shit here gonna sell itself.” He references multiple cities, vibes, drinks, and fashion, claiming “a whole lot of motion involved” and that his presence will “sell itself.” He mentions being in possession of “too many” cars and a lifestyle marked by luxury and risk. - Speaker 1 names public figures—“Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, Laura Loomer”—and accuses Gabe Hoffman of “running humps on people” and being “a bad guy, dude.” They express intense anger and fear, saying, “I look like I’ve seen a ghost,” and claim that someone very close to Speaker 1 was likely sent to infiltrate them. They insist, “These are really fucking bad people,” and state, “They tried to set someone up that you know and love.” - The repeated assertion appears: “They’re fucking evil. These people are evil.” The speakers claim these individuals are “unregistered foreign agents” and announce plans to “be watching everything they everything you do.” The commitment to surveillance is explicit: “I will be watching. Everything they everything you do.” - Speaker 3 talks about returning to a site to get a burner phone to use “my ghost accounts to fuck Breva,” indicating plans to operate anonymously online. - Speaker 5 references participation in broader political actions: “We conduct riots and color revolutions and, you know, steal elections, and we overthrow governments we don’t like. And I was part of that.” - Speaker 4 cites the IIA, describing it as “social media psychological warfare” that began in 2007. - Speaker 6 recalls being present at events around the attempted assault on the Capitol, saying, “They were all pumped that they were gonna fucking trash the capital. I was there,” followed by a realization that “This is not good.” - Speaker 7 notes a lack of preparation among those involved and alludes to a looming, unprecedented storm: “There is a storm coming like nothing you have ever seen, and not a one of you is prepared for it.” Overall, the transcript juxtaposes opulent self-presentation with allegations of corruption, infiltration, and active participation in political manipulation and destabilization, punctuated by threats of surveillance, retaliation, and an impending large-scale upheaval.

The Kremlin playbook outlines various methods a foreign adversary might use to influence individuals. These methods include financial incentives, romantic entanglements, and compromising situations. Compromise can be intentionally set up or occur inadvertently through surveillance, where someone unknowingly becomes part of a compromising situation. This captured information can then be used for coercion.

The dialogue centers on accusations and revelations about political operatives and influence campaigns. Key points include: - A list of individuals named as problematic figures: Jack Kosobiak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, and Laura Loomer. Gabe Hoffman is described as “running hops on people” and as “a bad guy,” with a claim that these people are “evil” and unregistered foreign agents that the speaker will be watching closely. - A claim of infiltration and surveillance: one speaker asserts that someone close to them was likely there to infiltrate, and that “these people” attempted to set up someone they know and love, with the speaker vowing to monitor everything they do. - Allegations of role in broader disruptive actions: one speaker says, “We conduct riots and color revolutions and, you know, steal elections, and we overthrow governments we don't like. And I was part of that.” - The origin of operational concepts: one speaker mentions IIA, describing it as social media psychological warfare that began in 2007. - A sense of punitive consequence and manipulation: another speaker states that “they’re all being punished because they thought that what those important people told them was gonna happen,” and recalls being present during a plan to trash the capital, noting a lack of preparedness and security knowledge. - Reactions to claims about being controlled: one speaker says it pisses them off that others claim they’re being handled, with another agreeing that such claims have been heard before. - A warning tone about danger and preparation: one speaker warns that it is “very dangerous” that people are out there giving others hope, describing “a storm coming like nothing you have ever seen,” and asserting that not a single person is prepared for it. - Personal and on-site context: there are mentions of returning to a site to get a burner phone and use ghost accounts, and of attempting to coordinate around Breva, indicating ongoing, weaponized online activity and counter-movement tactics. Overall, the speakers blend accusations of manipulation and clandestine influence with admissions of involvement in disruptive actions, interspersed with warnings of impending upheaval and calls for vigilance.

The speakers discuss explicit reward figures tied to harming federal law enforcement personnel and describe a rising level of danger for officers in Chicago. They begin by listing bounties: $5 to $10 for kidnapping of ICE agents or Customs and Border Patrol agents, non-lethal assaults, and $50,000 for the assassination of high-ranking officials. Greg Movino, who works in Chicago, says he has personally experienced a bounty placed on his head, illustrating the immediacy of the threat. The panel emphasizes that there are now “$50,000 bounties on the heads of federal law enforcement officers” and that criminals are involved in ramming vehicles and bringing guns to protests. They insist this is not ordinary street crime, but attacks against federal law enforcement, including assaults on border patrol agents, ICE officers, and allied agencies, occurring daily and often multiple times per day. They warn that the lethality of these assaults is increasing, highlighting the growing danger faced by officers enforcing the rule of law. In response to these threats, the speakers discuss measures and leadership strategies. They note that “there's power in numbers” and “safety in numbers,” suggesting collective protection as part of the response. They reference actions at the national level: Secretary Noem reportedly hardening ICE facilities since the terror attack in Dallas, and President Trump having called in the National Guard, viewing these steps as indicative of strong leadership during the crisis. The speakers describe the situation as a coordinated, highly organized “war on our law enforcement on the streets of Chicago,” implying a systematic campaign by adversaries. A key point is the claim that foreign terrorist networks are targeting law enforcement, using a tiered system of bounties to pursue officers. The threats are described as extending beyond direct attacks to include doxxing family members, kidnapping, and even murder. The language frames these actions as deliberate tactics by hostile groups to destabilize and intimidate those enforcing the law, underscoring the perceived severity and organization behind the threats as testified by the speakers.

Speaker 0 notes that the people are not accusing him of rape or selling anyone; they are facing charges including human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit. Speaker 1 describes OnlyFans as “the best hustle in the world.” He explains the alleged methods: using the “lover boy method,” coercing by being nice, and not mentioning webcam until after sex. He says mentioning webcam on dates “just doesn’t work” and claims he would never do that, arguing the technique is to proceed normally and introduce webcam later. Speaker 2 and Speaker 3 discuss a program called PhD on corporatetake.com: “PhD is a pimp and hose degree.” He claims it teaches how he met girls, how he got girls to like him, how he got girls to fall in love with him to work on webcam, and how to have them spend more time with him. He describes inviting a prospective recruit to a meeting and bringing a girl who works for “Your bottom bitch” to explain the selling. The process emphasizes a “first girl” as pivotal, with girls on camera together the first day so the new girl can observe and imitate. Speaker 4 recounts specific experiences: being bought wine and becoming nervous about webcam work; the narrator describes wealth from webcam operations and retaining girls; he mentions four locations and 75 girls, with roughly half of the money going to the workers, claiming a 50% split and suggesting taxes explain the disparity. Another worker, paid a flat £15 per hour, notes large sums from clients who believed they would meet the girl. Speaker 1 describes a pattern where men fell in love with his models and sent large amounts of money, including people selling houses and life savings. He states: “I used sex as a tool to make women love me so they'd obey me and live in my house to make me money. That’s what I wanted. So I was a pimp in that sense.” He discusses the emotional manipulation that led clients to believe they would meet the girl. Speaker 5 remains skeptical, labeling the operation “pimpy.” Speaker 1 argues about the Me Too era, saying he is not a rapist in a way that would be labeled, yet he admits he likes the freedom to do what he wants. Speaker 6 challenges Speaker 1 by quoting his own statements: that his job was to meet a girl, sleep with her, get her to fall in love, and then get her on webcam to become rich together. Speaker 1 denies that exact quote, but Speaker 6 insists it matches what was said on the website. Speaker 0 reiterates that the belief is he was charged with human trafficking, and Speaker 1 clarifies that “human trafficking” is framed as forcing a girl to work for financial gain, noting TikTok accounts from some girls as part of the justification. He reiterates the PhD as a pimp and hose degree he claims to be pleasant about.

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.

The speaker discusses the involvement of ruling banking families in a sinister network that includes cults, child abuse, and human trafficking. They suggest that these families collude with intelligence agencies to blackmail and control political leaders. The speaker also mentions the Podesta emails and their coded language, which they believe indicates involvement in child trafficking. They highlight the censorship and attacks they faced for discussing these topics and express hope that their work will lead to the exposure and prosecution of those involved in these crimes. They mention the unsealed indictment of Keith Raniere and the NXIVM cult as an example of progress being made.

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.

The speaker claims that Telegram receives excessive attention from US security agencies. During a US visit, an engineer working for Telegram was allegedly approached by cybersecurity agents attempting a secret hire. The agents were interested in Telegram's open-source libraries and tried persuading the engineer to integrate specific open-source tools that the speaker believes would function as backdoors, potentially enabling government surveillance of Telegram users. The speaker also recounts personal experiences of being met by FBI agents at US airports and visited at their residence. They believe the FBI's interest was in gathering details about Telegram and establishing a relationship to better control the platform. While acknowledging the agents were doing their job, the speaker suggests this level of scrutiny made the US a less-than-ideal environment for running a privacy-focused social media platform.

The speaker claims that Telegram receives excessive attention from US security agencies. During a visit to the US, an engineer working for Telegram was allegedly approached by cybersecurity officers or agents who attempted to secretly hire him. The speaker believes the US government wanted to hire the engineer, not necessarily to write code or break into Telegram directly, but to learn about open-source libraries integrated into the Telegram app. The speaker alleges they tried to persuade the engineer to integrate specific open-source tools into Telegram's code, which the speaker believes would function as backdoors. These backdoors, according to the speaker, would potentially allow the US government, or any government, to spy on Telegram users.

Speaker 0 points out that there is always a youth group or cluster of youth groups at the front when supposedly spontaneous interactions overseas are claimed. This is presented as something to look out for in such situations. The speaker then adds another point: OpCorp, whose leading members are highlighted, subsequently formed a group called Canvas. This group goes around the world training activist groups to do what they did in Serbia, twenty-five years ago. The speaker also notes leaked emails from Stratfor, described as a private intelligence firm that has been dubbed the “shadow CIA” by the mainstream media.

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.

The transcript captures a speaker proposing a range of aggressive, potentially violent tactics intended to deter or disrupt a group described as “these guys.” The core ideas center on creating fear and incapacitation of medical providers or their allies, and broadly targeting the environments they rely on. Key points include: - A suggestion to create a deterrent by equipping medical providers with syringes loaded with substances (saline or other drugs) and using them as a scare tactic. - Advice to use poison ivy/oak exposure, processed into water, to create a hazardous effect via a water gun aimed at faces or hands, as a method to disrupt the opposing group. - A plan to locate the individuals through dating apps (Tinder, Hinge) and use laxatives to incapacitate them, rendering them unable to continue activities for a day. - The notion that such actions could be highly deniable, and that the perpetrator might also risk personal illness. - The objective stated is to target places where the group eats or sleeps, making their lives miserable by interfering with meals and lodging, and by communicating with staff at those locations for additional ideas. - Additional ideas include leaving dead fish in rooms and other toxic tactics to maintain ongoing disruption and unrest. Overall, the speaker outlines a campaign of sabotage, intimidation, and disruption aimed at weakening the target group by affecting their health, safety, and daily routines, with an emphasis on deniability and spreading misery in their living and eating environments.