reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

They've been programming you your whole life through music, TV, movies, and games. The rulers of this world use modern technology to control our stories and manipulate the population. Communication companies were developed by military personnel who later became heads of major media corporations. The connections between government personnel and media companies like Google, Amazon, Netflix, Twitter, CNN, and ABC are extensive. If all these companies had the same political ideology or agenda, what would happen?

"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."

In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat The United States because The United States controls all the world's media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results.

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

We use unlimited force and control the global media to hide the truth from the public. People believe everything is done for good reasons, but it's not.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and isolate the two distinct claims made by the speakers. - Preserve the core, verbatim statements for the principal assertions. - Paraphrase surrounding context to enhance readability while keeping fidelity to the original meaning. - Exclude filler, repetition, and off-topic comments. - Do not add evaluative judgments about truth or bias; reproduce the claims as stated. - Translate any non-English elements (not needed here) to English. - Emphasize the two surprising or provocative points: the Afghanistan-money laundering claim and the media-lies argument. - Keep the final summary within 369–462 words. Speaker 0 argues that the goal is not to completely subjugate Afghanistan. The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of The United States, out of the tax bases of European countries, through Afghanistan, and back into the hands of a transnational security alliance. That is the goal, I. E. The goal is to have an endless war, not a successful war. Speaker 1 contends that nearly every war that has 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. If they hadn't, reprinted government propaganda, they could have stopped it. But what does that mean? Well that means basically 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. So if we have a good media environment then we will also have a peaceful environment.

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.

To destabilize a country, one must inundate its public square with misinformation and doubt, eroding trust in leaders, media, institutions, and even fellow citizens. When people no longer believe in the concept of truth, the game is won.

Many people don't realize the extent of deception in the media, particularly in choosing which narratives to focus on. Editors decide what stories make the front page, shaping what people pay attention to. It's important for narratives to come from the people themselves, like in the X system, rather than being dictated by a select few.

We are in a war most people don't even see. But it's not just bombs or bullets. It's information, technology, and control over what you believe. Every day, powerful forces shape the news you read and the thoughts you hold. This is fifth generation warfare. And whether you know it or not, you are already on the battlefield. The choice is yours. Remain unaware or recognize the fight and take a stand.

Wars throughout history, especially those involving democracies, have been fueled by propaganda and lies. Journalists, failing to fulfill their duty of providing truth, have contributed to this by spreading misinformation. In the US, each journalist is responsible for an average of 130 deaths due to their lack of seriousness in reporting.

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 world is caught in a cycle of preventable conflict and tribalism. People isolate themselves, only listening to those who agree with them, and view any disagreement as a personal attack. This irrational behavior leads to wars and destruction, with the powerful benefiting while the victims suffer. We need to step back from this impulse and realize that peace is our natural state. War used to be driven by kings and countries, but now it serves the interests of corporations. We must decouple ourselves from tribes and work towards reconciliation and forgiveness, as shown by the example of Rwanda. We need to examine our own attitudes towards peace and understand that it is possible. Peace is a gradual process that requires the cooperation of many nations. It is not about everyone loving each other, but living together in tolerance and resolving disputes peacefully. Enmity between nations and individuals can change over time.

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.

Our task is to start peace with truth, just as wars can be started by lies. It is up to all of us to seek out and share the truth.

We are in a war most people don't even see. It's not just bombs or bullets. It's information, technology, and control over what you believe. Every day, powerful forces shape the news you read and the thoughts you hold. This is fifth generation warfare. And whether you know it or not, you are already on the battlefield. The choice is yours. Remain unaware or recognize the fight and take a stand.

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.

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

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.

Sixty years after Kennedy spoke of peace amid war, we face a new conflict: fifth generation warfare and information warfare. Social media has become a battlefield for manufacturing public consent. Even if you think you’re not affected, distractions like cat videos can be just as harmful as disinformation. The military-industrial complex is intertwined with major financial institutions that profit from war and other industries, including healthcare and utilities. This system thrives on keeping people distracted and divided. Instead of consenting to this governance, we should strive to manufacture peace for everyone. The current political movement is gaining momentum against corruption, suggesting a shift towards serving the people. Freedom requires effort, and it's time to challenge the status quo.