reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A speaker discusses a series of actions taken to manipulate the American public. They mention importing a virus, blaming the president, and causing economic damage. They also talk about stoking a race war, manipulating polls, and using software to control the election. The speaker claims that the whole process of stealing power from the most powerful republic in the world was easy.

- The speaker asks Madam Secretary two questions: (1) Have you ever received an invitation like this from the FBI? (2) Do you plan on attending this meeting? The responses are: No and Yes. - The speaker notes that they’ve worked with the FBI before, citing past instances such as being swatted and white powder mailings in 2024. - They describe the current invitation as highly unusual and express concern, citing the president’s recent rhetoric about nationalizing elections.

The speaker expresses concern about the lack of action from the US government in deterring organizations that are trying to influence elections and obtain coronavirus vaccine information. They criticize the Trump administration for favoring Putin and disregarding the intelligence community. The second speaker explains that the Russian unit responsible for hacking the DNC is different from the one attempting to hack vaccine information. They believe that every country is likely trying to gather vaccine development information, and while there are other concerning actions by the Russians, this particular hack is not a top concern. The conversation ends with gratitude towards the speakers.

- Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility that a friend was murdered and suggest that both victims died suddenly from fast-moving cancer, a method they say the agency uses overseas to eliminate people. Speaker 1 admits he cannot prove this but notes the sudden deaths. - The conversation asserts that the US government has technology to infect people with fast-moving cancer and to perform cognitive and directed-energy warfare. Speaker 0 states the government has the technology to infect with fast-moving cancer and to do so absolutely. - In 1997, Speaker 1 describes a hearing on asymmetric threats where he chaired the research committee and focused on four threats: drones, cyberattacks, electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and cognitive warfare. He asserts that cognitive warfare is now being labeled by some as Havana syndrome and that directed-energy weapons are the underlying technology. - Speaker 2 recounts a recent homeland security hearing about foreign adversaries using direct weapons against US citizens, enabling incapacitation. He emphasizes the chilling nature of the briefing and criticizes current domestic leadership as foolish, corrupt, incompetent, and wicked. - Speaker 3 notes that up to 40% of the Air Force equipment budget in the 1990s was classified, making much of it “black.” He emphasizes that military and security research often precedes civilian medical science, and that servicemen were used in experiments without fully informed consent, referencing NK Ultra-era disclosures of thousands of service members used as subjects. - Speaker 4 discusses MKUltra, describing a Canadian experiment involving psychic driving with massive LSD doses, eye-tracking, and memory loss, funded by MKUltra and affecting civilians. He mentions Project Midnight Climax, where Johns were observed in brothels while subjected to LSD, and notes similar experiments by the British Royal Air Force and Army. The results of Midnight Climax are unknown, with no published after-action reports. - Speaker 3 adds that Secretary of Energy O’Leary stated under Clinton that over a half a million Americans had been used in human experiments over four decades without informed consent, including mind control, with no accountability. He argues that mind-control technology has advanced, and questions who should govern its use, given the lack of legal frameworks. - The discussion covers mind-effects research and the lack of treaties governing such technologies. They reference a European Parliament security and disarmament resolution (1999) addressing mind-effects and mind-control technology, and Russian Duma resolutions (2002) seeking similar safeguards. Zabigniew Brzezinski’s Between Two Ages is cited regarding electronically stroking the ionosphere to influence behavior over geographic areas, connecting it to HARP and other electromagnetic carriers capable of mass or individual influence. - Speaker 6 explains historical demonstrations of electronic mind control, starting with Jose Delgado’s remote manipulation of a charging bull using radio energy and electrodes, and notes later work showing noninvasive techniques to influence behavior using low-power magnetic fields. Speaker 7 reiterates Delgado’s animal studies and the potential for noninvasive methods to affect emotions and memory, with broader implications for humans. - Speaker 3 discusses the progression of research funded by DARPA and others toward higher-resolution control of brain activity, enabling controlled effects that override senses and create synthetic memories, raising questions about future justice and evidence. They describe European Parliament and NATO/US military interest in mind-control technologies and the absence of robust legal protections. - Speaker 9 presents advances in AI-enabled brain-reading and memory-altering devices, including mind-reading and emotion decoding, while Speaker 10 and Speaker 12 discuss privacy concerns, brain-data privacy laws (Colorado’s law adding brain data to privacy protections), and the availability of consumer devices that decode brainwaves. They warn that brain data can be misused by insurers, law enforcement, advertisers, and governments, with private companies often sharing data without clear disclosure. - The segment concludes with a note that devices can infer attention and thoughts, and that DARPA’s N3D program aims for noninvasive neuromodulation with implantable electrodes read/write capabilities. It references 1980s–1990s discussions of RF energy as a potential nonlethal mind-control technology, and a 1993 Johns Hopkins conference listing low-frequency weapons as attractive options.

The speaker claims the Obama campaign spied on their campaign and was caught red-handed, possibly committing treason. They allege this has never happened before, or at least no one has been caught. The speaker believes spying occurred and that President Obama, Joe Biden, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and Lisa Page all knew about it. They claim to have documented evidence in texts and other forms. The speaker describes this as a terrible act that should never happen again to a president and calls it a setup and a political crime of the century. They await the consequences for those involved.

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.

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

Tulsi Gabbard is described as "doing a great job" in the speaker’s view, with an aside that includes the word "Whisk." The speaker notes that Gabbard "took a lot of heat two days ago because she went in at Pam's insistence," and that she "looked at votes that wanna be checked out from Georgia." The question is raised aloud: "They say, why is she doing it? Right, Pam? Why is she doing it?" The response given is that the reason is "Because Pam wanted her to do it." The speaker emphasizes the motive by stating, "And you know why? Because she's smart." The dialogue then references a belief that others suggested the action was tied to Gabbard’s position or stance, saying, "they said, well, this has to do her position. Has to do it's really not so, but her position has to do with international." The speaker counters that line of thinking by invoking a different narrative about international affairs and election interference. The speaker recalls the longstanding chorus that has claimed Russia, Russia, Russia has been meddling in elections, noting, "the same people that said that, they've been saying Russia, Russia, Russia has been screwing our elections." The speaker then contemplates the possibility that Russia "had something to do with it," but follows with, "They say, no. No. Russia didn't have." The implication is that the narrative on foreign interference has shifted, leading to the assertion that "now they're saying Russia had nothing to do with it." The speaker adds a broader hypothetical, stating, "Because if I say Russia, that it's perfectly fine. But you could add China and about five other countries to it." Amid these discussions, the speaker reiterates praise for Tulsi Gabbard: "But she's done a great job, and Pam has done a fantastic job, and we appreciate it both." The closing lines suggest a personal note about not having seen the person in a while: "I haven't seen you in a couple of times. And I have one of..." The remainder of the sentence is cut off in the transcript.

The speaker asserts that, similar to the Russian indictments for direct election interference and boosting Trump in 2016, some Americans are also engaged in propaganda. The speaker suggests that civil or even criminal charges against these Americans could serve as a better deterrent.

- The conversation opens with Speaker 0 claiming that Trump and Steen have decided to “finish off the Sand People,” followed by Speaker 1 joking that it has nothing to do with the Epstein files. The discussion quickly shifts to a fictional or hyperbolic framing of war, with Speaker 0 saying, “I’m sending my son off to Iran tonight. Let’s see if we can find your son. Timmy, you’re going to war. Pack your bags.” Israel’s involvement and a reference to “Europa, the last battle” are invoked, with Speaker 2 and Speaker 3 commenting on something being “based.” - The broadcast pivots to a claim about burning a “satanic ball statue” in Iran, and then, without confirming details, Speaker 0 notes that Trump and Steen bombed a “bunch of children” as Jeffrey Epstein would say. Normies are shown reacting: Speaker 1 asks whether people support “project Epstein fury,” and various normie voices express mixed, performative patriotism and cynicism about taxes, “bread and circuses,” and sending troops to war again. - A sequence presents a claim that a US airstrike destroyed a school in Southern Iran, with a live reporter (Ching Chong) at the scene. The segment devolves into vulgar and antisemitic humor and sensational SNL-style banter, including disparaging remarks about foreskins and various ethnic groups, as well as sensationalist claims about who bears responsibility for violence. - The dialogue includes a contentious exchange about whether Israel or the United States is responsible for bombings, with speakers asserting that “they did it to themselves because they’re terrorists and stuff,” and another speaker claiming that the United States bombed “a girl’s elementary school in Southern Iran on the first day of the war and kill a 175 people.” There is further debate about who is responsible, with references to Iran’s supposed connection to terrorism and to the United States and Israel as the principal aggressors in various lines. - A recurring theme is support for broad military action against Iran, juxtaposed with anti-war skepticism from some speakers. A speaker (Speaker 11) cites the idea that Iran “is getting a bomb” and contrasts that with his claim that evidence shows those pushing for conflict have caused “catastrophes in American foreign policy,” while another speaker references religious or apocalyptic motifs, claiming a spiritual battle and that “the goyim are starting to notice, and we must usher in the digital beast system.” - The broadcast repeatedly frames Iran as the aggressor, with live segments from Tel Aviv and Tehran depicting bombings and casualties, intercut with conspiratorial commentary about the Western media, “Mossad,” and claims that mainstream reporting is propaganda. There are also derisive remarks about vaccines, “mRNA,” and “poisonous vaccine” rhetoric, alongside antisemitic tropes and references to “the Jews,” “Khazarians,” and “Chosinites.” - The program closes with a sensational note on the Dow Jones reaching 50,000, touted as evidence of success amid ongoing war messaging. The hosts mock critics, threaten to demonetize or distract audiences with “Epstein files” and conspiratorial content, and end with a call to engage with the channel via like, comment, and subscribe, while noting previous demonetizations and “false flag” distractions. - Throughout, the dialogue contains provocative, inflammatory content about Israel, Iran, antisemitic tropes, conspiracy theories, and glorified military action, presented as a chaotic news/propaganda segment with alternating calls for war and supposed skepticism, blended with pop-culture references and apocalyptic rhetoric.

Speaker 0 states that sources claim Brennan used "reverse targeting" to entrap Trump advisors Carter Page and George Papadopoulos via Halper and Mifsud. Papadopoulos told former Australian ambassador Downer about Russian offers to help Trump. This appears to be how Russiagate started. Speaker 1 believes John Brennan is a dark figure. Speaker 1 was arrested in 2012 and charged with espionage for blowing the whistle on the sea ice torch program. Speaker 1 claims to have found memos where Brennan told Holder to charge him with espionage, even though Holder's people didn't think he committed it, and then to make him defend himself. The espionage charges were dropped after Speaker 1 went bankrupt from legal fees. Speaker 1 believes Brennan was responsible for the origin of Russiagate. Speaker 1 claims the FBI isn't capable of such operations, but the CIA and John Brennan are. Speaker 1 claims Brennan and his contemporaries devise operations to get from point A to point C, ruining people along the way, and discusses potential tactics.

There are Americans involved in propaganda efforts, particularly in relation to Trump in 2016. The discussion revolves around whether these individuals should face civil or criminal charges as a means of deterrence.

The speaker asserts that misinformation and lies are already being spread, and warns of foreign interference. Drawing on experience from the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the speaker claims Black people were specifically targeted with misinformation. The speaker urges listeners not to let them take their voice.

The speaker claims to be with "good elements" of the CIA, whose goal was to take the country back from globalists after Donald Trump's election. According to the speaker, the country is under the control of the communist Chinese, the EU, Hollywood, and big banks. The speaker denies receiving talking points from the CIA, instead asserting that the CIA gets its talking points from them and other patriots. The speaker concludes by stating, "I run the CIA."

Speaker 0 is being accused of spreading a Russian plan, but this claim is dismissed by both parties and former heads of the CIA. The accusation is considered garbage and not believed by anyone, including Speaker 0's friend Bernie.

This message is directed to everyone on the deep state target list. The speaker believes that if any political presidential candidate, like RFK or Trump, is assassinated, America will respond in kind. They claim to have created a list of those involved. The speaker hopes this won't happen, but if it does, they believe option 2 behind Trump would be better for them. They even suggest that killing Trump would be the best case scenario for them, as it would lead to a quick and effective cleansing, resulting in game over for the deep state.

The speaker claims that the microphone could have been a weapon used against Donald Trump. They suggest the microphone could have contained a pathogen, anthrax, or fentanyl. The speaker states that President Trump could have been killed via the microphone.

The speaker claims the CIA interfered in the 2020 election, referencing RFK Jr.'s statements and using the word "tomatoes" in place of "interference." They allege that platforms censoring this information are complicit in election interference. The speaker discusses a letter signed by 51 former senior intelligence officials who suggested that emails from Hunter Biden's laptop had "classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." The speaker points out that the officials admitted they didn't know if the emails were genuine or if Russia was involved. The speaker identifies some of the signatories as known liars, including James Clapper, Michael Hayden, and Gina Haspel. The speaker claims the CIA is forbidden from interfering in American elections but does so anyway to discredit information, including information related to Hunter Biden. They reference court testimony alleging Joe Biden was aware of and influenced by Hunter's business dealings. The speaker also references Bill Clinton's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The speaker concludes by criticizing intelligence agencies for meddling and lying, and praises those who seek truth and honesty.

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.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

The speaker asserts that misinformation and lies are already being spread, and warns of foreign interference. Drawing on experience from the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the speaker claims Black people were specifically targeted with misinformation. The speaker urges listeners not to let them take their voice.

The speaker suggests that some Americans engaged in propaganda to boost Trump in 2016. They raise the question of whether these individuals should face civil or even criminal charges as a potential deterrence.

The speaker asserts that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, suggesting that a full investigation would reveal Trump's illegitimacy as president. They claim that Trump lost the election and was only placed in office due to Russian interference. The speaker then asks if the listener believes Trump is an illegitimate president based on their statement, which they cannot retract.

The speakers discuss the use of Soviet-style tactics to silence opposition and the fear it instills in people. They mention a case in Michigan where defendants were charged with attempting to interfere with the election process. The prosecutor argues that even if the defendants believed they were acting patriotically, it does not justify violating the law. The second speaker clarifies that their intention was to be alternate state electors if Donald Trump won the state.

There are Americans involved in propaganda efforts, similar to those that supported Trump in 2016. It’s worth considering whether these individuals should face civil or criminal charges as a means of deterrence.