reSee.it - Related Video Feed

This video covers a range of topics including the challenges faced by whistleblowers, the role of the media in shaping narratives, the dangers of censorship and manipulation of information, and the importance of upholding the constitution. It also touches on issues such as the manipulation of emotions through social media, attempts to incite false flag events, the lack of accountability in certain situations, and the need for awareness and questioning of mainstream narratives. The conversation also delves into topics like the Nazi associations of certain groups, child trafficking, the responsibility to hold big tech companies accountable, and the influence of intelligence agencies and media organizations on shaping narratives. The speaker emphasizes the importance of supporting whistleblowers, standing up against evil, and staying true to principles. They encourage people to remain vigilant, participate in elections, and recognize the difference between good and evil.

The speaker admits to being scared to cover two specific topics: the 2020 election and the UFO story. They acknowledge that there may be some merit to the claims made about the election and that some of the ideas about UFOs are dark and difficult to understand. The speaker believes that the government has known about non-human entities for a long time and that there is evidence to support this. They also discuss the government's reluctance to disclose this information due to fear of scaring people. The speaker understands the impulse to hide such radical and heavy truths but still believes in the importance of truth and disclosure.

Speaker 0: The Trump administration launched a cyber strategy recently in the context of the Iran war. The concern is that war is a Trojan horse for government power expansion, eroding civil rights. The document targets cybercrime but also mentions unveiling an embarrassed online espionage, destructive propaganda and influence operations, and cultural subversion. The speaker questions whether the government should police propaganda, noting that propaganda is legal in a broad sense, and highlights cultural subversion as a potential tool to align culture with war support. An example cited (satire account) suggests that labeling certain expressions as cultural subversion could chill free expression. Ben Swan is introduced as a guest to discuss the plan and its impact on everyday Americans. Speaker 1: Ben Swan responds that governments are major purveyors of propaganda, so any move toward censorship or identifying propaganda is complicated. He is actually somewhat glad to see language that, at least, mentions “unveil and embarrass” rather than prosecuting or imprisoning. If there are organized online campaigns funded by outside groups or foreign governments, he views exposing inauthentic activity and embarrassing it as not necessarily a terrible outcome, and he sees this as potentially halting the drift toward broader censorship. He emphasizes that it should not be the government’s job to determine authenticity in online content, and he believes community notes is a better tool than government action for addressing authenticity. Speaker 2: The conversation notes potential blurriness between satire, low-cost AI, and what counts as grassroots versus external influence. If the government were to define and act on what is authentic, would that extend to politically connected figures and inner circles (e.g., MAGA-aligned commentators)? The panel questions whether the office would target these allies and suspects they might not, though they aren’t sure. The discussion moves to real-world consequences, recalling journalists whose bank accounts were shut down, and contrasting that with a platform like Rumble Wallet that offers some financial autonomy away from banks. (Promotional content is present in the transcript but is not included in the summary per guidelines.) Speaker 1: Ben critiques the potential growth of bureaucracies built around “propaganda or bad actors,” noting that such systems tend to justify their own existence and expand over time. He points to Russia-related enforcement as an example of how agencies can expand under the guise of national security. He argues there is no clear “smoking gun” in the document due to its vague, generic language focused on “cyber,” which could allow broad interpretation and future expansion of powers across administrations. He cautions that even supporters of the administration could find the broad terms worrisome because they create enduring bureaucracies that outlive any one presidency. Speaker 0: The discussion returns to concerns about securing emerging technologies, with a reference to an FBI Director’s post about “securing emerging technologies.” The concern is over what “securing” implies, especially if it means controlling or limiting new technologies like AI. The lack of specifics in the document is troubling, as it leaves room for expansive government action in the future. The conversation ends with worry that such language could push toward a modern, more palatable form of prior restraint, rather than clarifying actual threats. Speaker 2: The conversation acknowledges parallels to previous disinformation governance debates, reflecting on Nina Jankowicz and the disinformation governance board, but clarifies that this current approach is seen by the speakers as a distinct, potentially less extreme—but still concerning—direction. The panel hopes to see a rollback or dismantling of overly expansive bureaucratic powers, rather than their expansion.

I don't care if it's a small business or a large corporation; when the government threatens you, you should take it seriously. Blame the government for the issues we're facing. Those upset about free speech now are just mad they can't control the narrative anymore. For years, they've spread misinformation and now they're worried about others doing the same. It's not about the danger of misinformation; it's about losing control. They were wrong about everything and forced compliance, and now they resent others having the same freedom. It's absurd to pretend their concerns are about safety when it's really about power.

Hundreds of intelligence community members work at social media companies. Mainstream news outlets confirmed my reporting on the laptop story. The censorship was due to the truth being a threat to power. The US government's influence on corporations undermines the first amendment. Our response will determine the future of a free press. Thank you. Translation: Many intelligence community members work at social media companies. News outlets confirmed my reporting on the laptop story. Censorship was due to the truth being a threat. The US government's influence on corporations undermines freedom of speech. Our response will determine the future of a free press. Thank you.

The speaker discusses the role of media corporations in hiding important information and punishing whistleblowers. They argue that true journalists should celebrate those who expose government lies, but instead, media corporations collaborate with the government to keep secrets and punish leakers. The speaker questions how journalists can hide the fact that the US is in a direct hot war with Russia, suggesting that their loyalty lies more with the government than with the American people. They emphasize the importance of defending truth tellers and not abetting lies in a country built on falsehoods.

Speaker 1 hesitates when covering government cover-ups because they can be dangerous, unlike topics like Bigfoot or UFOs. Speaker 1 considers themself a patriot, pro-military, and pro-law enforcement, but also anti-war and pro-criminal justice reform. They value fairness and transparency and would like to think the government is good. However, their journey has shown them that it is mostly not, as it is made of flawed and selfish men. Justifications can be made for doing terrible things to stay ahead of terrible people. Speaker 1 says collateral damage is just part of it, such as giving settlements to people to stay quiet for national security.

A woman yelled at the speaker, accusing them of implanting things in her and tracking her. The speaker is surprised by the misinformation and the difficulty in trusting the government and collaborating with it. They advise the younger generation to pay attention to and reverse these trends, emphasizing their importance.

I realized that despite my efforts to protect human health for nine years, we are violating laws and poisoning people instead. Geoengineering is happening, funded by taxpayer dollars, and it’s unethical for health professionals to remain silent. Disinformation is a major hurdle, with sites like Metabunk and Contrail Science spreading false narratives. These sites are run by individuals without proper credentials, aiming to discredit legitimate concerns. The loss of freedoms is alarming, but geoengineering is the most pressing issue. If we lack food and water and suffer from illnesses, nothing else matters. We are overexposed to toxins, including fluoride in our food and water, and our bodies struggle to metabolize these harmful substances.

I was advised not to discuss the forensic audit, the 2020 election, or to distance myself from Trump, and to avoid questioning COVID, vaccines, and mandates. I rejected this advice and chose to focus on these issues instead. I visited the forensic audit site and began speaking out about election corruption. Now, more evidence is emerging daily, and people are starting to catch on.

In this video, the speaker recounts their friend Andrew Hoff's ordeal with the FBI. They mention Donald Rumsfeld's quote about unknown unknowns and how Andrew's knowledge led to his family's tribulations. The speaker questions why they didn't take action against the pandemic despite their experience in public health preparedness. They highlight Andrew's surveillance by drones and invasion of privacy. The speaker urges viewers to consider Andrew's perspective and read his book, which claims that both science and the US government are broken. They mention Andrew's decision to become a whistleblower and his growing popularity on social media platforms.

I realized we are poisoning people instead of protecting them through geoengineering. Whistleblower protections are not enforced. Disinformation sites like Metabunk and Contrail Science try to debunk us. Geoengineering, funded by tax dollars, is the biggest issue we face. Overexposure to toxins from food, water, and vaccines is harming us. Our bodies can't handle these toxins.

Based on personal experiences, the speaker acknowledges the seriousness of claims made by US government employees about the government killing individuals who speak out or plan to speak out. These claims were even made in front of senior officials on Capitol Hill. The speaker suggests that people are paralyzed by fear because this is a reality. Many individuals interviewed expressed their willingness to support the speaker in reporting these incidents to the inspector general, but they did not want to be named due to fear. The speaker and the other person in the conversation both admit that they never believed in UFOs until recently, but now they believe that the US government has made contact with extraterrestrial entities.

The speaker expresses concern over media silence and the deletion of online posts. Speaker 1 is unsurprised by the mainstream media's refusal to cover or their attempts to diminish the impact of revelations found in declassified documents. The speaker claims the media avoids specific evidence and the voices of intelligence professionals who protested against malicious actions taken by figures like John Brennan and James Clapper under President Obama's direction. These actions allegedly involved creating an intelligence assessment filled with falsehoods. The speaker asserts the media avoids these voices because it would expose their complicity in pushing a lie and hoax throughout President Trump's first administration.

I don't care if it's a small business or a large corporation; when the government threatens you, take it seriously. Blame the government, absolutely. I'm not calling anyone a hero, but the frustration is valid. To those upset about others speaking freely now, stop complaining. You've created misinformation for years and are now angry that you can't control the narrative. It's not about danger; it's about control. You were wrong about everything, and now that others have a voice, you dislike it. If misinformation is the concern, what are we really discussing? It's absurd to pretend this new freedom is dangerous when people start making their own choices.

Speaker 0 describes that it has been independently discovered four other times, and that it “has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time.” He says he doesn’t think they’ll suppress it this time and that “I think you're in the clear.” He asserts they obviously know about you because he has had multiple both protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations. He states, “If you haven't had a US government agent come to you and say, stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then they’re going to let you do it. He claims there are people waiting, saying, “there are SSP motherfuckers that are fucking twiddling their thumbs. Like, is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We've been influencing this bitch forever.” He adds that on the other side, multiple parties are looking at each other wondering, “Didn't we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening? What is she doing? She's still doing it? What? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” He describes two constant scenarios in his life: one where people are urging, “do it. Do it. You're the one. Do it.” and another where people are warning, “they're gonna kill you. Don't do it. They're gonna kill you.”

The speaker distrusts the government, claiming the CIA has lied since 2001, regardless of who is president. They allege the White House killed 424 uncharged people in August 2015 based solely on the CIA's word. An attorney for a drone whistleblower recounted an incident where the operator refused to launch a drone strike because the target was a child, not a goat as claimed by CENTCOM. The operator now faces court martial for refusing to kill the child. The speaker questions whether America has abandoned civil liberties in the name of national security since 9/11. They believe Edward Snowden's courage in revealing information opened doors for discussion, but he faces severe repercussions. The speaker advised Snowden not to return to the US, as a fair trial is impossible due to the jury pool's ties to intelligence agencies.

The speaker recounts a long-standing pattern of interactions with federal agents, noting that jokes about agents reading their chats stopped being funny for a period. They describe being pressured to work for these agencies for months, a pressure that left no paper trail and was deliberately concealed. Each time agents visited their home, they were asked to shut off their phone and told not to tell anyone about what was happening. The speaker explains that the only reason they can discuss the situation now is that they made a deliberate, fear-driven decision to do so. They recall sweating and nearly vomiting, and they went so far as to clip a DJI microphone to their bra before every visit, anxious that the device would beep or reveal what was being discussed. This precaution reflects the level of fear and the stakes involved in the interactions. They claim to have later confronted Parliament about the surveillance and pressure campaigns they faced, actions taken after they recorded evidence of these activities. The speaker asserts a broader possibility: there exists a very real world in which they did none of that—where they would still be online today as an independent influencer while privately secretly acting on behalf of Canadian intelligence agencies—because they were made to believe they would go to jail. They emphasize that they are not the only person affected by this dynamic, suggesting a wider pattern or network behind these experiences.

There's a "shock and awe" playbook being used, keeping people scared and uninformed with impossible demands, creating an unhealthy environment where no real work gets done. Federal employees should avoid workplace conversations and devices, using encrypted networks to prevent surveillance. Be cautious about what you say on any platform. It's not surprising to see inexperienced people being brought in to evaluate experienced employees' work, creating a demoralizing environment. The practice of feeding sensitive federal data into AI systems without proper vetting is a privacy and cybersecurity nightmare, ignoring the laws in place to protect information and government security. These rules are there for a reason.

The speaker asks for insight on three topics: Rodney Jaffe, Neustar, and the Ericsson report. They mention the allegations made by Dennis Montgomery about Fort Detrick and Fort Washington spying on Americans using surveillance systems initially created for foreign surveillance. The speaker discusses the weaponization of government subcommittee and the consequences of examining ourselves, such as the creation of the FISA court. They emphasize the need for strict controls and accountability in government actions. The speaker mentions the Dennis Montgomery case and the government's capability to do various things. They urge critical thinking and caution against emotional reactions to information. The speaker concludes by stating that the federal government is out of control.

Speaker 0 recounts an argument with a friend during the Edward Snowden revelations about mass surveillance. He challenges the idea that “you can look at my shit. I’m not doing anything wrong. What do you care?” and questions who the so‑called perfect overseers are. He emphasizes that these are unelected bureaucrats who could have financial or power-based incentives to monitor, silence voices, or manipulate individuals by accessing emails and phone calls. Speaker 1 suggests that even if the current government is honorable, there is a risk that a future government could abuse surveillance. He warns that the next administration might come after people who dissent, like Joe Rogan, by digging through emails and targeting individuals for actions or statements they dislike. Speaker 0 recalls the debate around the NDAA during Obama’s presidency, describing it as the indefinite detention concept that did not require charging someone or timely trials. He notes the push for this provision and questions why it was pursued, implying it could be used to detain people indefinitely. Speaker 1 adds that they are concerned about who might wield power in future generations, asking “how many generations are we away from Hitler?” He argues that the founding fathers designed checks and balances precisely because they understood how corruption and tyranny can emerge when power concentrates. Speaker 0 asserts that eroding protections through measures like the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, or the NDAA undermines the Constitution’s core idea, which is based on the belief that government must serve the people and that power corrupts. He emphasizes that those in power would act as tyrants if left unchecked, and warns that granting broad surveillance and detention powers threatens the “fabric” the country was created with. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 together highlight a core concern: the risk of surveillance and detention powers being exploited by unscrupulous leaders in the future, undermining democratic principles and the safeguards designed to prevent tyranny. They stress the importance of checks and balances to prevent government overreach and the potential erosion of civil liberties in the face of expanding surveillance and security powers.

Many people are afraid to come forward about important issues because they fear the consequences, like what happened to Snowden. The speaker has been speaking out for three years and wonders why others are so afraid. They believe that those who are willing to die for their country should also be willing to speak up. The speaker addresses the audience and those watching online, urging them to come forward and help expose the truth. They mention disinformation sites like Metabunk and Contrail Science, run by someone named Mick West, who tries to discredit those who question persistent contrails. The speaker warns against sharing articles without verifying their credibility, as there are people paid to spread disinformation and make others look noncredible.