reSee.it - Related Video Feed

As a journalist for 25 years, the speaker admits to being educated to lie and manipulate the public. They express their concern about the German and American media's efforts to provoke war with Russia. The speaker reveals that journalists are bribed to betray the people and push for war. They discuss their experiences documenting the use of German poison gas in Iraq and how it was not widely reported. The speaker admits to being a non-official cover for intelligence agencies and feeling ashamed for working for a newspaper that was bribed by billionaires and the CIA. They discuss the influence of transatlantic organizations in shaping journalists' pro-American views. The speaker believes that Germany is still a colony of the United States and that journalists from various countries are manipulated by intelligence agencies. They share an example of being asked to write an article by the German foreign intelligence agency without having any secret information. The speaker emphasizes the importance of journalism being independent and not controlled by intelligence agencies. They mention facing house searches and legal accusations but are determined to reveal the truth.

Some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal lines, which is dangerous for our democracy.

I'm tired of the manipulation and lies from the press. They manipulate everything and even the history books are not truthful. It's important to know this.

"One of the hopeful things that I have discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past fifty years has been a result of media lives." "The media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough." "If they hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could have stopped it." "Populations don't like wars and populations have to be fooled into wars." "Populations don't willingly and with open eyes go into a war." "But our number one enemy is ignorance and I believe that is the number one enemy that everyone is not understanding what is actually going on in the world." "Now, the question is who is promoting ignorance?" "In this latter category, it is bad media." "The result is we see wars and we see corrupt governance continue."

Some members of the media use their platforms to push their personal bias and agenda, controlling people's thoughts. This is dangerous.

In the past 94 days, Israel has killed 111 journalists, averaging more than one journalist per day. This alarming situation puts all journalists at risk, and it's concerning that the silence from the journalism community is so loud. We cannot ignore the fact that this silence undermines the credibility of journalists who claim to speak the truth.

Media has played a significant role in starting wars over the past 50 years by not digging deep enough and reprinting government propaganda. Populations are not willingly drawn into wars, so a good media environment promotes peace. Ignorance is our biggest enemy, as people need to understand the truth to make informed decisions. Some organizations promote ignorance by distorting information, particularly in the media. While there are a few excellent journalists, the majority are so distorted that we may be better off without them. This distortion has led to wars.

Speaker 0 argues that the goal is not to subjugate Afghanistan but to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and European countries, through Afghanistan, and back into the hands of a transnational security alliance. The goal, according to this view, is to have an endless war, not a successful war. Speaker 1 contends that nearly every war started in the past fifty years has been a result of media lies, and the media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough and hadn't reprinted government propaganda. He suggests that populations don’t willingly and with open eyes go into wars, so a good media environment is necessary for a peaceful environment.

A viral chart claims more journalists died in Gaza last year than in World War II, based on a report by the Watson Institute at Brown University. The speaker argues this is dishonest, as the report's data source would fail a high school project. The report claims only 67 journalists died in World War II, using data from the Freedom Forum's journalist memorial, which doesn't claim this is the total number. The speaker notes that pre-war Europe had tens of thousands of Jewish people working in media, but the report only lists two Jewish journalists killed during the Holocaust. Conversely, the report massively overcounts journalists in Gaza, including a construction worker. Many listed "journalists" are confirmed terror operatives, such as Abdullah al Jamal, a Hamas operative who held Israeli hostages. Others include Khaled Riyadh Hamad, a Hamas terrorist, and Mohammad Wushar, who was filmed shooting an RPG. Akhil Hussain Salah is listed as a journalist but is also a field commander for the Al Aqsa Mahdah's brigade. Many Gazan journalists are linked to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with some trained at Hamas' media training center. The speaker concludes that the report omits the control Hamas exerts over journalists in Gaza and promotes Hamas propaganda.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based on false information about attacks that never happened. Only two members of Congress voted against it. Evidence from sailors and pilots contradicts the claims of attacks. The war in Vietnam was built on lies, as revealed in recently released White House tapes discussing plans for retaliation before the alleged attacks. The whole conflict was a fraud, causing immense damage to both the US and Vietnam.

The CIA has various functions, some more legitimate than others. One function is to run secret wars, while another is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's minds. They use journalists to spread both true and false stories, exploiting their vulnerabilities to control them. In the past, the CIA had around 400 journalists cooperating with them, including well-known names. An example of their manipulation is seen in the Angola war, where they planted false stories about Cuban atrocities to create an illusion of communist brutality. This shows how the CIA uses the press to further their agenda.

Reading the newspaper either leaves you uninformed or misinformed. A consequence of excessive information is prioritizing speed over accuracy. The responsibility is to tell the truth, not just to be first. Society now values being first, regardless of who it hurts or whether it's true. The focus is on saying and selling, without concern for accuracy or consequences. Anything you practice, including BS, you'll get good at.

The speaker believes that media lies have been responsible for starting most wars in the past 50 years. They argue that if the media had dug deeper and not spread government propaganda, wars could have been prevented. The speaker suggests that populations are tricked into wars because they don't willingly enter them. They claim that a good media environment leads to peace, but ignorance is the main enemy. The organizations promoting ignorance are those that keep secrets and distort information. The speaker expresses their opinion that the media is generally so bad that the world might be better off without it.

The discussion centers on the ongoing tensions with Iran, the potential for American military involvement, and the role of media and ideology in shaping public perception. The speakers express a critical view of how the situation is being managed and portrayed. Key points about the Iran situation: - President Trump publicly claimed “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but the panel notes Israel’s public interest in a broader outcome, specifically regime change in Iran, which would require boots on the ground rather than air strikes. - It is argued that air strikes alone cannot achieve regime change; the Israeli military, even with about 170,000 active-duty soldiers plus reservists, would need American boots on the ground to accomplish such aims against a larger Iranian army. - Senators, including Richard Blumenthal, warned about the risk to American lives in potentially deploying ground troops in Iran, citing a path toward American ground forces. - The new National Defense Authorization Act renewal could lead to an involuntary draft by year’s end, a concern raised by Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute who argues it treats citizens as owned by the government. - There is tension between Trump’s public push for a quick end to conflict and Netanyahu’s government talking about a larger, more prolonged objective in the region, including a potential demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza’s situation. - Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini issued a televised statement threatening to shut the Strait of Hormuz until the United States begs and vowing vengeance for martyrs, signaling that the conflict could continue or escalate beyond initial claims of victory. - The panel highlights potential escalation, including the possibility of nuclear weapons discussion by Trump and concerns about who controls the war, given factions within Iran and differing US-Israeli goals. Tucker Carlson’s analysis and warnings: - Carlson is presented as having warned that a war with Iran would be hard due to Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal aimed at US bases and allies’ infrastructure, and that it would push Iran closer to China and Russia, potentially undermining the US. - Carlson emphasizes the lack of a clear, publicly articulated endgame or exit strategy for the war, arguing that diplomacy has deteriorated and that the US appears discredited in its ability to negotiate peace. - He discusses the governance of Israel and the idea that some Israeli leaders advocate for extreme measures, referencing “Amalek” language used by Netanyahu to describe enemies, which Carlson characterizes as dangerous and incompatible with Western civilization’s values. - Carlson argues that American interests and Israeli strategic aims diverge, and questions why Israel is the partner with decision-making authority in such a conflict. He notes the US’s reliance on Israel for intelligence (with Israel translating SIGINT) and suggests that Israel’s endgame may be to erode American influence in the region. - He also suggests the war is being used to advance a broader political and ideological project, including America’s pivot away from foreign entanglements; he asserts that certain power centers in the US and in media and defense circles benefit from perpetual conflict. - Carlson discusses the moral framework around targeting and civilian casualties, asserting that there is concern over the ethical implications of autonomous targeting and the potential for AI to play a role in warfare decisions. - He notes the possibility that AI involvement in targeting decisions exists in other conflicts, though in the Iran situation, he mentions that a human pressed play in the specific case of an attack (the school near an Iranian base), while coordinates may have come from other sources, possibly shared by Israel. - Carlson discusses media dynamics, describing mainstream outlets as “embedded” with the defense establishment and questioning why there isn’t a robust public discussion about the war’s endgame, exit ramps, or the true costs of war. Media, propaganda, and public discourse: - The panel critiques media coverage as lacking skepticism, with anchors and outlets seemingly aligned with the administration’s war narratives, raising concerns about “access journalism” and the absence of tough questions about goals, timelines, and consequences. - Carlson and participants discuss the use of propaganda—historically, Disney and the Treasury Department in World War II as examples—arguing that today’s propaganda around Iran relies on pop culture and entertainment to normalize or justify intervention without clear justification to the public. - They argue that contemporary media often fails to examine the ethics and consequences of war or to question the necessity and legitimacy of continuing conflict, suggesting a broader risk of technology-enabled control over public opinion and civil discourse. White House dynamics and internal debate: - The guests discuss the possibility of internal disagreement within the White House, noting that while some senior figures had reservations, external pressure, particularly from Netanyahu, may have pushed the administration toward action. - They touch on the strategic ambiguity surrounding US forces in the region, noting that while large-scale ground invasion is unlikely, special forces and other assets may be deployed, with civilian and military costs disproportionately affecting American families. - The conversation also explores concerns about civil liberties, surveillance, and the potential for centralized control of information and warfare technologies to influence domestic politics and social cohesion. Overall, the dialogue presents a multifaceted critique of the handling and propulsion of a potential Iran conflict, emphasizing the risk of escalatory dynamics, the clash of strategic goals between the US and Israel, concerns about democratic consent and media accountability, and the ethical implications of modern warfare technology.

Intel agencies have a significant influence on television broadcasts, Facebook, and Google. Many anchors, including a national security reporter, act as mouthpieces for the Pentagon and the CIA, knowingly spreading lies. This is a common practice, even at CNN. These reporters read government propaganda from intel agencies, and it's frustrating and offensive, regardless of whether one agrees with the lies or not. For instance, when the CIA and Pentagon claimed that Bashar al Assad used poison gas, there was no evidence to support it. Despite this, many people were killed in response.

Wars in the past 50 years have often been started due to media lies and government propaganda. If the media had dug deeper and not spread false information, wars could have been prevented. Populations are usually against wars and need to be deceived to support them. A good media environment can lead to a more peaceful world. Translation (if needed): The start of many wars in the last 50 years has been linked to false information from the media and government propaganda. People are typically against wars and must be misled to support them. A reliable media can help create a more peaceful society.

One-sided news stories and the sharing of biased and false news on social media are plaguing our country. Some media outlets publish these fake stories without fact-checking. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

One-sided news stories and the sharing of biased and false news on social media are plaguing our country. Some media outlets publish these fake stories without fact-checking. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

Reading the newspaper makes you misinformed, not reading it leaves you uninformed. The long-term effect of too much information is the obsession with being first rather than being truthful. Society prioritizes speed over accuracy, leading to spreading false information without regard for consequences. The speaker emphasizes the importance of telling the truth over being the first to report. Practicing spreading misinformation leads to proficiency in deceit.

Wars in the past 50 years were often caused by media lies spreading government propaganda. Populations must be deceived into supporting wars because they don't willingly choose conflict. A strong media environment can lead to peace.

During the Gulf War, a story emerged that Iraqi soldiers had taken babies out of incubators in Kuwait and left them to die. This story was widely reported and used to justify the war. However, investigations later revealed that the story was a complete hoax. The witness who testified to this atrocity was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, and she was coached by a PR firm hired to sell the war. The PR campaign, costing millions of dollars, manipulated public opinion and influenced the decision to go to war. This highlights the power of propaganda and the dangers of misinformation in shaping public perception and policy.

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, released new evidence alleging that former President Barack Obama and top aides conspired to subvert President Trump’s February victory and undermine the democratic will of the American people. The speaker asserts that while Obama publicly appeared to support a peaceful transfer of power, privately he took steps to sow discord and sabotage Trump, including manufacturing and politicizing intelligence that was used to justify baseless smears against the new president. The claim is that Trump had no involvement with Russia and that the Russia collusion narrative was a massive fraud, known to Obama and others involved, including former CIA director John Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, former deputy director Andrew McCabe, and others. The speaker reiterates that DNI Gabbard’s report confirms there was no collusion or corruption by Trump, attributing any wrongdoing to Barack Obama and the “weaponized” intelligence agencies of the time. The Russia hoax is characterized as a blatant lie manufactured by Democrat political operatives, approved by Obama, and leaked to the media to launch a years-long witch hunt against Trump in his first administration. Allies of the president, including Donald Trump Jr., were smeared as Russian assets, with some personally harmed by the false narrative. The speaker notes that much of this occurred during Trump’s first two years in office, consuming vast resources, time, and political capital to debunk the allegations at the highest levels of government. According to the speaker, nearly a decade later, declassification of documents by DNI Gabbard, alongside contributions from CIA Director Ratcliffe and committee Chairman Rick Crawford, supports a newly declassified 2020 report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This report reportedly found the intel community did not have direct information that Vladimir Putin sought to help elect Trump in 2016; instead, Russia was allegedly preparing for a Hillary Clinton victory. The narrative claims that, at the time, Obama’s unusual stance led the intel community to publish implausible intelligence to sabotage the incoming president. The speaker asserts this constitutes one of the greatest political scandals in American history, noting that legacy media outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post were rewarded with Pulitzer Prizes for propagating political disinformation. The claim is made that those awards should be stripped from journalists who disseminated out-of-context and false intelligence to push a political narrative in service of the Democrats and associated intelligence actors.

Global media reporting is often synchronized. Biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking

The interviewee describes a long career in journalism spanning about 25 years and asserts that he was educated to lie, betray, and not tell the truth to the public. He claims that German and American media have been pushing war in Europe and toward Russia, and he states that he is leaving behind past practices of manipulating readers and promoting propaganda. He says he is fed up with propaganda and asserts that journalists are bribed to betray people, not only in Germany but across Europe. He emphasizes that war does not come from itself and that there are people behind it, including journalists. The interviewee explains that he wrote a book to reveal what goes on behind closed doors and to warn against another war in Europe. He recounts a history of misrepresentation and suppression of atrocity stories, noting that in 1988 he witnessed the Kurdish gas attack in Iraq and was sent to Zubaydad near the Iraqi-Iranian border to photograph Iranians allegedly gassed with German-made poison gas (mustard gas, Zyklon-like agents). Upon returning to Germany, he says only a small photo and a minimal article appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine, with little emphasis on the brutality and the long-term suffering caused by German poison gas, making him feel misused. He discusses his role with intelligence agencies, describing himself as non-official cover (a journalist who also works for intelligence agencies). He claims that many foreign journalists are in the same situation and that the process is more prevalent among British journalists, and to a broader extent among Israelis, French, Australians, New Zealanders, and journalists from Arab countries, who may be intellectual puppets for the CIA. He provides an example with the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND), stating that the BND once asked him to write an article about Libya and Muammar Gaddafi, providing him secret information to publish under his own byline. He says the article claimed that Libya and Gaddafi secretly tried to build a poison gas factory, a story he printed that originated with the intelligence agency and appeared worldwide two days later. The interviewee recounts consequences of resisting intelligence services, such as a colleague who refused to cooperate with the BND and was dismissed from his job as a Yellow Angels helicopter pilot. He recalls multiple police searches of his home—six times—on accusations of leaking state secrets, and he notes that these pressures would intensify if he continued to resist. He claims that he has had three heart attacks, has no children, and suggests that if the authorities jail him, it would be worse for the truth he seeks to reveal. He asserts that Germany remains a colony of the United States, with American nukes on German soil, and that transatlantic organizations influence media to push pro-American and anti-Russian narratives, steering journalists toward compliance.

In the past, false information has been used to manipulate public opinion for war. In 1990, a girl claimed she saw babies killed in Kuwait, but it was a lie. Her father was Kuwait's ambassador. A similar tactic was used by Colin Powell, who falsely claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, leading to a US invasion and many Iraqi deaths. This raises the question of whether similar misinformation is being used in the case of Ukraine.