reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Israel just approved another $40,000,000 boost to their global propaganda budget, on top of a $150,000,000 increase over what they had already been doing. $24,000,000 of that is for 'global influence campaigns' and $16,000,000 is to finance international delegations visiting Israel. They fund your trip—flights from New York to Tel Aviv, hotels, free food and drinks, travel; your entire trip is paid for—and they send good looking IDF soldiers around with you, described as 'HEXAS type of soldiers.' The conversation links this to influencing American media, noting Brad Parscale and Clock Tower, which will integrate its pro Israel messaging into Salem Media Network properties; Salem Media Network did not respond to a question about compensation for promoting messages on behalf of Israel. It discusses ChatGPT and Wikipedia absorbing propaganda into AI systems, and mentions SKDK Knickerbocker's bot-farm campaign and Democratic involvement.

US senators. Last year, 93 out of 100 US senators were people whose campaigns had been funded by Israel, APAC, and the Israel lobby. 93 out of 100 US senators were taking money from a group that represents a foreign government and foreign interests in order to operate our government on behalf of someone else, and they all work here in this building. This is representative Ro Khanna from California, and he does not take APEC money according to their website TrackAPEC. Here's what he had to say. "It's too much. I mean, it's too much. If you have people who have a particular point of view, in Apex case, they're basically whatever Netanyahu does is right. That's their point of view. And they're saying, okay, you don't take that view, we may come after you. We may have millions of dollars spent against you." Now ask any American content creator what the scariest subject to cover is, and the answer is Israel. Even YouTubers I know will say their channels were shadowbanned for months after covering them. And folks, the plot around free speech thickens. News just broke that Larry Ellison, cofounder of Oracle, will be buying TikTok, a platform where young people can freely exchange unfiltered ideas. No Israel connection here. Right? Wrong. Ellison is one of the IDF's largest private donors, giving the army tens of millions of dollars through Friends of the IDF, a nonprofit that brands itself as a nonpolitical, nonmilitary organization, but somehow also is the official US partner of Israel soldiers.

Speaker 0 explains that there are activities that are completely off the radar, done in collaboration with other organizations, producing content that they publish with their own anarch. Speaker 1 adds that the Israel project is supplying white label, i.e., unbranded content, to other outlets. Speaker 2 notes that they’re putting together a lot of pro-Israel media through various social media channels that aren’t the Israel Project’s channel. Speaker 3 and Speaker 2 describe many side projects aimed at influencing the public debate, and that these efforts are kept secret because they don’t want people to know these side projects are associated with the Israel project. Speaker 1 details that Tip runs a collection of Facebook communities covering topics from history and the environment to current affairs and feminism, with affiliations to the Israel project deliberately vague. Speaker 3 questions why these groups can’t be connected to the Israel project. Speaker 2 responds that the aim is for people to view them as objectively as possible. He states there’s a team of about 13 people working on a lot of videos and explainers on a range of topics, with only roughly 25% of the content being Israel or Jewish-state related. Speaker 4 comments that the Israel brand is increasingly toxic, so it’s not possible to sell Israel directly; instead, you need to have other hip, innocuous, fun material, into which Israel content is slipped from time to time. Speaker 3 suggests that the rest of the non-Israel material is meant to enable the Israel material to pass more easily, describing it as the key strategy to blend in everything. Speaker 2 reiterates the goal of blending in all content, ensuring the Israel-related material can pass as part of a broader, non-Israel-led narrative.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a historic shift in American public opinion regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. - Speaker 1 notes that public opinion on who voters sympathize with shifted dramatically in the wake of the current war. In October 2023, Americans favored Israel by 48 points; now, they favor the Palestinians by 1 point. He says he reviewed polls since the question began in the 1980s and that this is the first time Palestinians lead on this question, marking a historic shift away from the Israeli position toward the Palestinians. - He emphasizes that the shift was led by Democrats, moving from Democrats favoring Israel by 26 points to Palestinians by 46 points, describing it as a roughly 70-point swing and stating that, for the first time ever, more Americans sympathize with the Palestinians over the Israelis. - Speaker 0 adds that the shift is “a first that I have seen in my lifetime” and credits independent media and journalists reporting from Gaza for bringing images to social media, including images of civilians and alleged Israeli actions. He asserts that without on-the-ground reporting, people wouldn’t have seen certain images, asserts that journalists were killed by the IDF, and claims those images contributed to waking people up. - He contends that APAC is panicking, citing a new ad and a rebranding as “America first,” and argues Israel has lost the media war and the narrative, including some conservative and evangelical support (referencing Charlie Kirk’s base). - Speaker 1 details a parallel shift within the Republican Party, noting a significant age-based divide. Among Republicans over 50, they sympathize with Israel by 66 points; among those under 50, they sympathize with the Palestinians by 25 points. This creates about a 40-point gap, with younger Republicans leaning more toward the Palestinians than older Republicans. - Speaker 0 adds that Israel has hired pro-Israel influencers—paid about $7,000 per post—targeting the youth to reel back pro-Israel sentiment in the conservative youth vote. He notes these influencers were primarily young, implying a deliberate strategy to mobilize younger voters, while older voters are less in need of such outreach. - The speakers conclude that this combination of media exposure, shifts in party and demographic alignments, and targeted influencer campaigns constitutes a broad, historic realignment in American attitudes toward the conflict.

The discussion centers on a leaked document detailing private international focus groups and surveys funded by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to test messaging for Israel after the war and to regain international legitimacy. The project included 15 focus groups (six in the United States, three in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France each), plus quantitative testing with 8,050 interviews (3,250 in the US, 1,200 in the UK, Germany, France, and Spain) as a baseline, and animatic testing with 5,600 interviews (4,000 in the US and 1,600 in the UK and Europe) to test specific messages, tone, and delivery. The aim is to determine how to shift global perceptions of Israel and avoid further isolation. The document, attributed to the Stagwell Group (Mark Penn’s firm) and the MFA, shows substantial investment in audience research, including focus groups and telephone interviews, to identify levers that could move public opinion from current baseline views toward greater international legitimacy for Israel. A striking takeaway cited is a recommendation to ramp up Islamophobia in messaging, arguing that when Israel is compared to Iran or Hamas, people tend to prefer Israel. The research also surveyed European attitudes toward Muslim immigrants and found underlying hostility in parts of Europe, which the MFA’s messaging strategy suggests Israel should lean into by contrasting itself with Hamas and Iran as standing up against a perceived threat. Key findings highlighted include: - International attitudes toward Israel are consistently worse in Europe (UK, France, Spain) than in the US, with Spain showing particularly negative views. Most Europeans support the Palestinians, except in Germany where support for Israel is stronger, though they recoil against both Hamas and Iran. - When Israel is compared to Hamas or Iran, Israel polls relatively better; when asked to choose between Palestinians and Israelis, Palestinians generally win, especially among younger cohorts. - The juxtaposition Israelis versus Palestinians is more favorable to Israel in the US than in Europe. In Europe (UK, France, Spain) there is greater favorability toward the Palestinians, while Germany and the US show more favorability toward Israel. - Youth attitudes show a shift: Gen Z in the UK and Germany are more likely to support Palestinians over Israel, with stark percentages (e.g., UK Gen Z 65-35, Germany Gen Z 63-37; in Spain, a near-universal tilt toward Palestinians). - Page-level cross-national comparisons show the most powerful countries (US, Germany) still leaning toward Israel, while the least powerful (Spain) lean toward the Palestinians. Gen Z across European countries shows increasing Palestinian support relative to older cohorts. - The document also notes misperceptions about casualty figures in Gaza: Spaniards 40,000; French 30,000; British 25,000; Germans and Americans 10,000. It also asks respondents whether those killed were mostly Hamas terrorists or civilians, with a majority in all regions believing civilians were mostly killed, including the US being the lowest but still majority civilian casualties believed. - If actual casualty numbers are higher than perceived, Israel believes attitudes could shift; the research tracks what people think about who was killed to anticipate messaging impact. Additional context: - The MFA’s Hasbara efforts have received substantial funding since October 7, fueling this extensive research program. - The document discusses potential post-war strategies, including the controversial idea of elevating ISIS-linked groups (Abu Shabab) to portray Hamas as more moderate, thereby arguing that no partners for peace exist and reshaping regional narratives—though this raises concerns about long-term consequences. - The discussion notes that the research was leaked and was originally intended to remain private, with the Commission of the Israeli MFA funding this line of propaganda-adjacent work. The conversation concludes with reflections on how the tone and content of messaging may evolve, acknowledging that some strategies may not move the US as much as other audiences, and noting the potential for a new chapter in the propaganda effort.

On February 2025, Pam Bondi, on her first day as attorney general, disbands the Foreign Influence Task Force, the DOJ office responsible for enforcing FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act). The change explicitly limits DOJ prosecutors from criminally charging individuals involved in public relations work and policy advocacy on behalf of foreign businesses and nonprofits. This move is described as an incapacitation of the enforcement mechanism, effectively giving a green light to foreign influence operatives and enabling the Knesset’s 2018 plan to skirt FARA to proceed with minimal risk of prosecution. The memo cited (attributed to Pam Bondi) is noted as containing this and other points, with Gen X Girl highlighted as having noticed this aspect. The memo directs shifting resources in the National Security Division to address more pressing priorities and to end risks of further weaponization and abuses of prosecutorial discretion. As a result, the foreign influence task force is to be disbanded. Recourse to criminal charges under FARA and 18 U.S.C. 951 is to be limited to instances of alleged conduct similar to traditional espionage by foreign government actors. The counterintelligence and export control section, including the FARA unit, is to focus on civil enforcement, regulatory initiatives, and public guidance. The implication is that there would be no more FARA enforcement unless it resembles espionage activity. The discussion then shifts to Havas Media Group, described as part of a complex web of companies and subsidiaries involving shell companies and LLCs that funnel money from the top down, primarily from Israel, to social media influencers, propaganda campaigns, and digital campaigns. This network is framed as enabling plausible deniability for the Israeli government. With the FARA enforcement landscape opened up by Bondi’s changes, the argument is that rather than the Israeli government paying directly for influence campaigns, it would pay through intermediaries—NGOs, nonprofits, foundations, LLCs—around the world, which would then target Americans with propaganda. The broader context notes a surrounding environment in which new organizations have proliferated, money has flowed more freely, and influencers have received compensation and embarked on trips with talking points. Additional related points include mentions of Israel’s concerns about FARA rules and how campaigns might be structured to avoid registration, and a claim that there was a prior focus on how to skirt FARA regulations. The narrative concludes by tying Bondi’s actions to a surge in new organizations, money, and influencer activity following the disbanding of the foreign influence enforcement framework.

Google, Palantir, Microsoft, Apple, Meta, X, Oracle, Amazon, what do all these companies have in common? Well, they're making a bag off the Palestinian genocide. These four companies, Google, Oracle, Amazon, and Microsoft run data centers for the Israeli military, storing the massive amount of surveillance data they track Palestinians. It's the infrastructure for the genocide. They feed that data, store it in these data centers, providing the compute for Palantir's AI killing systems, their algorithms that they've entered into a massive warfare deal with Israel for. It's allowed the systematic destruction of Palestinian civilization in Gaza. That's Palantir. They've netted hundreds of billions since entering this deal. They provide the means. Who provides the weapons? Well, of course, everyone knows this answer. It's The United States taxpayer. It's our war company. So add them in there too. On top of this, you have Google, X, and Meta all taking money from Israel, all taking money from Netanyahu's propaganda arm to push propaganda to Americans, denying the genocide, denying war crimes, denying masturbation in Gaza. Most recently, drop site news exposed Google and X, Google taking 45 mil, X taking 2 mil, from Netanyahu's office to deny masturbation in Gaza. This started just days after Israel began cutting off all aid to the Gaza Strip for over eighty straight days. This is complicity at the top level. I didn't forget about Apple. Of course, they run their largest R and D center in Israel, complicit in apartheid and occupation. They also match employee donations to the IDF and groups linked to the IDF. They're funding war criminals. Let's take let's take our attention away from Israel and look back home. Every single one of these companies are run by Zionists. Every single one of them. They've all donated to Trump because if they get in his good graces, Trump will let them do whatever they want. Trump loves letting billionaires do whatever they want. In fact, that's why only five companies control 90% of The US media market. It's true. That doesn't include social media, but we'll get to that in a second. Five companies, none of The US outlets are willing to call it a genocide or call out Israel's crimes. That's because their editorial boards are controlled by Zionists. This is not some conspiracy theory. It's factual. You cannot go to CNN, let alone any conservative site. But CNN, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, none of them none of them are calling it genocide. They're all covering up. They're all playing the propaganda game for Israel. Now let's turn our attention to the social media because that's not included in the 90%. We have the top three, the big three, Meta, X, and TikTok. And TikTok's an interesting case. But first of all, Meta blacklist pro Palestinian activist. I'm blacklisted on Meta for my free speech criticizing Israel. They've also hired hundreds of ex IDF soldiers from the intelligence unit, unit a two hundred, to run their moderation team. That's why this is all happening. They put Zionists in charge of their free speech policy. That's similar to what TikTok has done. They got lobbied by the ADL. They were pressured by the US government, surely, by this bipartisan bill to ban TikTok because of hosting anti Israel content like mine and many people, to hire an ex IDF soldier and put her, Erica Mendel, in charge of their hate speech policy, which she changed, and those changes went into effect on September 13. Since then, every single one of my videos criticizing Israel, making connections, talking about how literally, everything I'm talking about in this video, that's what has been getting pulled off the For You page or just getting banned out right now. The censorship is super ramped up, they're trying to sell TikTok US to Larry Ellison, who is the CEO of Oracle, the one who runs the data centers. You know, Larry Ellison once offered Netanyahu a seat on the board of Oracle. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. They're buds. They're like that. He's gonna con he's a Zionist, magabillionaire. Right? Whatever. And he's going to censor everyone once he owns it. So we got two things for TikTok. Met we covered MetaX. Elon Musk, he banned his own chatbot, Grok, when it started telling people there was genocide in Gaza. He's disgusting, and, you know, obviously, he took the money from Israel to run propaganda ads. So that's just great. That covers about everything. Welcome to The United States Of Israel, guys. Welcome to The United States Of Israel. We haven't even touched we haven't even touched on what our government has done under Biden. They arrested 3,200 student activists and professors who protested the genocide peacefully on college campuses, calling on their schools to divest their massive endowment funds worth billions from all these complicit companies I'm telling you about right now. But the schools wouldn't do it. They wouldn't do the right thing and stand with humanity. And, you know, there's a lot you can talk about under Biden. He, conducted most of this genocide, oversaw the destruction of every single one of Gaza's hospitals, amongst other things, while lying about a ceasefire even though he never pressured Israel for a ceasefire once. Now Trump, you know, he ramps it up even more, and they're talking about taking away US citizens' passports if you criticize the state of Israel. They are deporting student activists like Mahmoud Khalil, who, you know, is pro Palestinian. He stands in solidarity with them. They're pulling funding from schools that allow allow anti Israel or pro Palestinian protests that are peaceful. They're pulling funding. Both parties were involved in passing that bill to ban TikTok, which has led us to where we are now with Larry Ellison. So, you know, we can we can blame both parties for that. Let's look at the parties a little more closely, though, and who funds them. APAC. APAC spent over 100,000,000. They're just one part of the massive prosely lobby. They spent 100,000,000 and elected into power a super majority of Zionists into congress. They supported a super majority of Zionists in 2024 and got them elected. Almost every single one except like two, I believe. That's why no one in government is gonna say no to giving Israel as many weapons as they ask for. That's why they're gonna do everything they want to to suppress criticism of Israel, do all these things that I just described, enable these companies to make a bag off the Palestinian genocide? Why do only 20 of our 435 congress members say it's genocide when half of American voters are saying it's genocide? And just look at the Democrat party, what is it? 77% of their base says it's genocide? 92% of their base wants to stop sending weapons to Israel? And yet they can't even they can't even criticize Israel. The party won't stop weapons to Israel. They won't even vote on that policy on their platform. This is a pretty good picture, like, the wide view of what is happening. You have all the billionaires aligned with Israel, whether they be Christian or Jewish Zionist. You have every single big tech company supporting Israel in some way, fueling the systems they are using to commit genocide, taking money for propaganda. You have all our media institutions doing the same thing and running cover for them. And you have all of our politicians as well. This isn't some conspiracy theory. This is real life. You have to admit that there might be there might be a problem when you have four and a half percent of congress saying genocide while 50 plus percent of American voters are saying it's genocide. What's going on? We've lost our sovereignty. It's not a joke. It's not hyperbole. We go to war against Iran on Israel's behalf. We change our laws prevent criticism of Israel. We're trying to ban boycotting Israel to throw American citizens in jail. The DOJ has been given the power to denaturalize anyone they see fit and explicitly those who are critical of the state of Israel. This is this is great. Trump also threatened to not do a deal with Canada because they're recognizing Palestine. We're sanctioning the international courts. We're threatening to pull out of the UN if they kick Israel out. Both of us on the left and right need to unite and rid Zionist influence out of America. This is insane. They don't care about what we think. They don't care about our interests or our human morals or the fact it's our tax dollars funding all of this. Every single one of these genocide profiteers must be held accountable. Our politicians, the companies, and the billionaires. You can support my work by clicking the link in my bio, which will let you subscribe to my Substack. Thank you and free Palestine.

They express that recognition by Microsoft or the UN means little in the face of ongoing genocide, emphasizing that “the genocide, that's when you will have our respect” and that words from politicians or organizations do not solve the problem. Shadow banning is described as a process where big tech restricts content reach for users, aligning with policy or regularity to support the propaganda they serve. Content labeling before model training could be biased (e.g., from IDEV), leading to content being flagged and pro-Palestinian users banned. Meta later calls such issues “bugs,” but they are viewed as deliberate actions to suppress certain content. They claim Larry Ellison, owner of Oracle, is the biggest contributor to the “Friends for Idea Yeah. Charity,” with last contribution around 16,000,000. They assert that if a person who is friends with Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel owns 80% of TikTok, and Netanyahu promotes using TikTok and X to spread their narrative, it demonstrates the danger of social media in shaping global views and the propaganda machine. They accuse these entities of trying to control social media to brainwash younger generations, potentially restricting pro-Palestinian speech. Lobbying is described as highly structured, with knowledge of where to go, who to speak with, and organizations that move money to actions aligned with those goals. They urge each person to contribute their own skills toward free Palestine, noting strengths in tech, music, journalism, etc., and to create alternatives and support one another to change the dynamic. They argue that Zionists became powerful by mutual support, while others are weaker due to lack of unity, asserting that unity would strengthen their movement. Hejazi introduces himself as the founder of Upscroll. He is Palestinian, born in Jordan, currently living in Australia, with seventeen years of experience in Big Tech. The genocide’s ongoing impact changed his life, leading him to feel complicit via his work at big tech and to witness shadow banning of friends, family, and others posting about Gaza. He mentions that 60 relatives were killed in Gaza. He quit his successful professional career to build an alternative social media platform and decided to devote himself to creating Upscroll, an independent platform to counter the influence of Meta, X, and TikTok. Upscroll launched a couple of months ago and is similar to Instagram, X, and soon TikTok, with tens of thousands joining monthly. On launch, the platform saw rapid uptake: hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands as users sought an alternative to shadow bans, seeking to have their content reach others. The platform is presented as a response to the pain of posting without reach and the desire to become independent from dominant platforms.

The discussion centers on the Smith-Mont Act (referred to as the Smithmont Act) and its modernization, arguing it enabled U.S. influence operations abroad while constraining them at home. The claim is that, after World War II, winning elections and shaping law in foreign countries required an apparatus to influence hearts and minds, which shifted warfare from military occupation to political subversion. In this view, the 1948 act authorized a covert, permanent department of “dirty tricks” to infiltrate and co-opt universities, unions, media, politicians, judges, and the broader “swarm army” of influence, effectively creating a global propaganda machinery controlled by the State Department, CIA, and later USAID. A key figure cited is Frank Wisner, associated with the so-called Wissner’s Wurlitzer, described as a “church organ” that could play the international media like a symphony to cause any media narrative to go viral worldwide. The assertion is that the United States and United Kingdom dominated early robust radio, film, TV, and print, enabling foreign propaganda operations. The Smith-Mont framework supposedly allowed the U.S. to plant fake news abroad—“propaganda abroad”—but prohibited such activities from affecting domestic audiences, shielding Americans from comparable interference. The speaker argues the rationale for this separation was economic: if foreign governments resisted resource access, military basing, or U.S. multinational operations, Americans would bear economic costs (lower living standards, fewer imports, higher prices). Thus, foreign influence operations were designed to be accessible abroad and barred from coming home. This protection lasted about seventy years but is claimed to have eroded in the last decade, with reference to a broader “Smithmont problem” now affecting funding and operations. The claimed evolution is that the foreign policy establishment can fund groups that operate domestically in a dual-use fashion—providing foreign grants for media propaganda abroad while also operating within the U.S.—and can influence social media censorship to coerce foreign governments into enacting censorship laws that affect U.S. peer-to-peer speech. The speaker warns that, to preserve the foreign influence function, there must be a hard firewall and severe penalties for any violations, implying the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between foreign propaganda activities and domestic communications. Overall, the transcript asserts that the Smith-Mont framework created a permanent, cloaked apparatus for influencing foreign audiences, with a historical showcase of Wisner’s organization and its reach, while stressing the need to reinstate stringent firewalls and penalties to prevent domestic misuse of such operations.

Max Blumenthal discusses what he calls the all-encompassing, defining influence of pro-Israel interests in the United States, arguing that Israeli influence has shaped Donald Trump’s career and policy from the beginning. He traces this to Trump’s inner circle and to figures connected to pro-Israel billionaires in New York, such as Charles Kushner, Howard Lutnick, and Steve Witkoff, and to the Adelsons’ network around the Republican Jewish Coalition. He cites Trump’s early appearances with Adelson-backed circles and his 2015-2016 remarks at the RJC convention, where Trump suggested making a deal between Israelis and Palestinians and referenced a Palestinian state, which Blumenthal says alarmed the Adelsons and the RJC. Blumenthal asserts that Trump’s 2016 rise was financed by Israel-first billionaires, with Paul Singer shifting from initially opposing Trump to backing him for the Iran policy he desired. He claims Singer’s money helped Trump move toward a war with Iran, aligning with figures like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and other pro-Israel advisors who provided influence, while Bannon was sidelined. He argues Tucker Carlson and other voices in the first term may have constrained war with Iran, but that the second term brought even more pro-Israel personnel, including Mike Waltz in national security circles, and Marco Rubio continuing to push the Israel-aligned line. Blumenthal details what he describes as a cultivated, orchestrated process of influence over Trump and his advisers, culminating in a February 11, 2020 or 2021 meeting in the Situation Room where Netanyahu dictated terms to Trump to strike Iran. He describes the room as divided between an “A Team” of pro-Israel figures (Susie Wiles, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, and others) and a dissenting “B Team” (J. D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and another figure) who had little real influence. He asserts that Netanyahu, with Mossad director David Barnea briefing Ratcliffe, steered Trump toward war with Iran, and that many within the administration recognized the war’s insanity but did not oppose it due to fear of repercussions. Blumenthal contends that the ceasefire in the region was sabotaged by Israel and that President Trump’s posture is effectively dictated by Israeli leadership. He cites Rubio’s post-briefing disclosure that Israel would attack Iran regardless of U.S. preference, and says the ceasefire’s terms, as drafted by the State Department for Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, indicate that Lebanon should be included; Israel, he says, launched a major assault in Lebanon—killing hundreds and attacking areas around Beirut and the American University of Beirut—in an attempt to provoke Iran and place the United States on the spot to reject Lebanon’s inclusion. He argues this demonstrates a “coup” in the White House, with Trump acting as “the first Israeli president,” and says the ceasefire is a hoax being sabotaged by Israel. Blumenthal points to domestic political consequences in the United States, noting Joe Kent’s resignation as a sign of MAGA discontent and arguing that Netanyahu has destabilized presidencies across the board. He claims that within MAGA, overt Israeli influence exists in influential media and political circles, including financiers and podcasters. Blumenthal lists prominent figures he claims are effectively Israeli foreign agents within MAGA infrastructure: Josh Hammer, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Dinesh D’Souza, Sebastian Gorka, Brandon Tatum, Todd Starnes, Laura Trump, and Don Jr.; and he asserts that Salem Media Group operates as an Israeli foreign agent, with Brad Parscale as a registered agent overseeing a contract between Israel’s foreign ministry and Clock Tower Strategies, delivering tens of millions in payments to influencers. He claims Laura Trump and Don Jr. own a stake in Salem Media, signaling a merger between the Trump orbit and Israeli interests. Finally, Blumenthal argues there is a fusion of ideological zeal and institutionalized influence, with a battleground between MAGA voices not paid by Israel and others who are funded to propagate Israel-first narratives, and he predicts a major clash in upcoming party conventions over U.S. policy toward Israel. He concludes that the clock is running out for Israel and that the country’s strategy relies on continuing aggressive actions, including bombing, to resolve its problems.

- The report centers on nearly a year of investigation into the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) and Larry Ellison, the world’s second-richest man, highlighting a close relationship between Ellison and the Israeli government, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and noting Ellison’s donations to Friends of the IDF as their biggest donor. Oracle, co-founded by Ellison, is described as on the verge of taking over the US version of TikTok, a platform influential with American youth. - The narrative emphasizes Ellison’s advocacy for the use of social media as a battlefield and identifies Oracle’s potential role in global information control through AI and data strategy. - Safra Catz, Oracle’s former CEO, is quoted as saying she wants to embed love and respect for Israel into American culture. The transcript also notes a controversial LinkedIn policy stance on hate speech, with a claim about “from the river to the sea.” - It is claimed that David Ellison, Larry Ellison’s son, owns Paramount, which recently took ownership of CBS News, run by Ari Wise, described as a “self-proclaimed Zionist fanatic.” The report asserts that anti-Zionism is equated with anti-Semitism in the narrative. - The event coverage includes a Dubai World Leaders Summit in February where Ellison, interviewed by Tony Blair, spoke about AI. Ellison allegedly proposed unifying national data into a single, easily consumable database for AI models. - The investigation indicates the UK government is starting to unify its data, with Blair’s Institute advising on this effort. Blair is depicted as a long-time advocate for ID cards and digital ID cards, proposing to bring together all personal data in one place. - The discussion contrasts the potential benefits of digital ID (faster, cheaper, more reliable interactions with the state) with the potential dangers of centralized personal data controlled by a single private company, noting Blair’s push and Oracle’s willingness to take on the role. It is noted that Ellison advocated for ID cards as far back as 2001. - The conversation expands to health data: a call to consolidate health care data, diagnostic data, electronic health records, and genomic data into a single unified data platform, arguing the NHS has a rich but fragmented population data set not easily accessible to AI models. These models are said to be trained mainly on data from the Internet, implying national health records are particularly valuable and not publicly available. - The report asserts deep TBI involvement in Keir Starmer’s government, creating a risk that valuable UK data could be co-opted by Ellison and Oracle for private gain. It claims Oracle has earned over £1.1 billion in UK government contracts and Ellison has already benefited from such arrangements. - It is alleged that Blair and Ellison have maintained a long relationship, with Blair appearing in Ellison’s yachts and on Lanai. Blair has recorded a video for Oracle; Ellison’s wealth and ventures are described through the rhetorical question about the difference between Larry Ellison and God, implying Ellison’s outsized influence and wealth. - The piece asserts the potential for surveillance-driven monetization through AI and data consolidation, with Ellison stating that citizens will be on their best behavior as data is constantly recorded, “the camera’s always on,” and that recordings are accessible only with a court order. - The report finishes by noting the influence of the Tony Blair Institute in UK policy, its international reach, and the concern that its promotion of big-tech and AI boosterism may overshadow the needs of local populations. It calls for further independent media scrutiny of big-tech lobbying and its impact on policy, inviting support for Double Down News on Patreon.

I spent years researching and watching lengthy videos to understand the influence of organizations like the Atlantic Council, which is heavily funded by U.S. government agencies, including the CIA and the Pentagon. This group trains journalists to identify and censor disinformation, particularly targeting populist narratives like those of Donald Trump and Brexit. They promote a framework called the "four D's" of disinformation: dismiss, distort, distract, and dismay. This framework allows them to label factually true information as disinformation if it undermines government narratives. The Atlantic Council's connections to high-ranking CIA officials and its role in shaping media narratives illustrate a troubling intersection of government and media, aiming to control public discourse and influence political outcomes.

APAC, a powerful lobbying group, almost had to register as a foreign agent in the past, but avoided it. Documents show the American Zionist Council's close ties to Israel. Despite US laws requiring disclosure of foreign influence, APAC remains unregistered, influencing elections and policies. Concerns arise over foreign entities like China manipulating social media.

The transcript outlines "Largest geofencing and targeted Christian digital campaign ever." "Geofence boundaries of every major church in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Christian colleges during worship times" to "track attendees and target with ads." "Israel, the state of Israel, on this FARA registration is disclosing that a foreign state pays for an influence campaign that will locate your cell phone if you go to church in any of CA, AZ, NV, CO." "They will target and track your phone at church and, after you leave, continue to track you and send you customized Israel ads using Israeli money to back that campaign." "That's why we have FARA." "List of targeted churches includes Scottsdale Bible Church, North Phoenix back Baptist Church, Northwest Community Church, Palm Valley Community Church, Palmcroft Baptist Church." "Analyses of attendees, budget conversions, cost per message, slides exposing what they're trying to do."

Speaker 0 stated that 'you and the Likud party are cut from the same ideological cloth as Trump and the GOP in America,' citing Charlie Kirk as a mentor and 'Evangelicals' as the reason Israel has public support; he asked for a backup plan 'if we lose evangelical support for the state of Israel' to stay strong 'outside of the diaspora.' Speaker 1 replied: 'Christian influencers' are key and described the 'woke Reich' as opposing the base in the US, noting money from NGOs and governments funds the challenge; we must fight back with 'our influencers' and 'the weapons that apply to the battlefields'—especially social media. The most important purchase is 'class Followers' with 'Five followers. TikTok. No. Barts? TikTok.' 'Oh. TikTok. Number one.' and 'X' is also crucial. 'We have to talk to Elon. He's not an enemy. He's a friend.' If we get those two things, 'we get a lot,' though there will be counterpoint: 'Are we gonna succeed with everyone? No.'

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

I'm starting to think that "America First" may not mean what we think it means. America First PR is a conservative PR firm run by Melissa Rain Lively. She seems well-connected, pictured with figures like Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump, but she was once a "Jewish woman who escaped QAnon." Now, she's at Mar-a-Lago, and I wonder if it has something to do with Israel relaunching a plan to disguise its propaganda behind foreign agents, a "new Hezbollah, Hezbollah 2.0." She often looks MAGA, but many posts focus on another country, like strengthening ties between the U.S. and Israel. Then there are posts like "Time to get terrorists" with foreign troops. Something seems off with "America First PR." What do you think?

Brad Parscale, described as the chief strategy officer of Salem Media Group and previously Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, is presented as central to a high‑impact, cross‑network operation tying Israeli government messaging to a large Christian conservative media ecosystem. The transcript asserts that Parscale is a registered foreign agent for Israel, with a $9,000,000 contract routed through the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Havas Media Group. It notes that the foreign agent FARA filing was made in September, eight days after what is described as Charlie Kirk’s assassination, adding a provocative timestamp to the narrative. The core claim is that Parscale is not only the CSO of Salem Media Group but also the mastermind of a broad media reach. Salem is characterized as the largest Christian conservative media outlet/network in America, with 117 radio stations in 38 markets, and holdings including Town Hall, Red State, PJ Media, and Twitchy, plus the Salem Podcast Network, the Salem Radio Network, and the Salem News Channel. The network allegedly broadcasts through programs associated with Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, Laura Trump, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, and others, and the speaker notes past involvement of Dinesh D’Souza. The implication is that Parscale’s role connects Salem’s operations to a wider set of conservative media voices and cross‑pollination across networks. A key timeline is presented: Parscale’s collaboration with Trump began in 2011 on basic website work for the Trump organization. In 2015, he was hired to build exploratory campaign websites, earning a $1,500 initial payment. By the end of the 2016 campaign, his firm reportedly received about $94,000,000 for digital work, including Facebook micro‑targeting and large‑scale small‑dollar fundraising. He was named campaign manager for the 2020 reelection bid, but in September 2020 he was Baker Acted in Fort Lauderdale after a SWAT response, with ten guns seized; his wife Candice reported bruises. He stepped away from the campaign and public life for four years. In January 2025, Parscale rejoined Salem Media Group, with a press release announcing his appointment as chief strategy officer, described by Salem’s CEO as a “huge win for conservative media.” Parscale’s statement referenced Salem’s Christian foundation and his renewed faith. Three months later, on April 14, Salem announced a deal involving Donald Trump Jr. and Lara Trump: Salem acquired a 30% stake in MXM News, a mobile news aggregation app co‑owned by Trump Jr. and Lara Trump, with Don Jr. and Lara Trump gaining significant ownership in Salem as part of the arrangement. Laura Trump had already joined Salem in 2024 as a podcast host, renewing an exclusive agreement. The transcript emphasizes the organizational convergence: Parscale as CSO, the Trump family’s increasing ownership involvement in Salem, and Laura Trump’s exclusive show. It also asserts that the FARA filing for Clock Tower X LLC states that Israeli government messaging would be integrated directly into Salem’s properties, funded by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs via Havas Germany, with execution across the Charlie Kirk Show, Dennis Prager, Josh Hammer, Laura Trump, and other outlets. It is claimed that Salem Media Group itself does not appear as a disclosed entity in the filing, and that the delivery mechanism omits material relationships, implying a willful omission of foreign influence from the disclosure.

The speaker argues that the United States has, for about a century, supported Israel not only for strategic reasons but through a broad, coordinated influence network. The question is raised: why have we fought regime-change wars on Israel’s behalf, why do we back Israel in Gaza, and why do we provide foreign aid? The speaker states the answer is not solely because of APAC. The central claim is that there exists a vast network inside the United States—a “fifth column.” This network stretches from Silicon Valley and Stanford on the West Coast to Harvard and Columbia on the East Coast, including major businesses like BlackRock and large hedge funds, mainstream media, banking and finance, and Hollywood, all the way to Washington, D.C. through lobbying groups such as APAC and J Street and mega donors like Sheldon Adelson. The speaker describes this as a Jewish oligarchy that operates across industries and elite sectors, working either directly under Israeli intelligence or on behalf of Israel, to push America to support Israel’s well-being. The justification offered is that because they are Jewish, they care about the Jewish state; because they are Jewish, they have a special allegiance to Israel. The speaker asserts that after October 7, there was particular sympathy, and influence was used in various spheres—CBS, Harvard, Columbia, Silicon Valley, government, and Congress. The reference is made to a representative who served in the IDF and appeared in his IDF uniform, illustrating the claimed special affinity. The argument continues that when called upon, this network uses its influence across media, finance, academia, Hollywood, technology, and government. The stated purpose of this influence is to benefit their Jewish community at large and to benefit Israel.

We were covering an article about 55,000 Democrat NGOs discovered to be contributing to campaigns, moving things around, and pushing propaganda. It was discovered through AI that to figure out where the money's coming from, you have to go through layers and layers, and it's all funneling down to one group or another. It's a giant propaganda machine, a giant regime change machine.

- Speaker 0 asserts that drones are in the air all day and mentions Palantir as “keeping tabs of on everything that was happening,” suggesting Palantir’s involvement in Gaza. Speaker 1 confirms Palantir’s involvement in Gaza, noting a long-standing relationship with Israel that began in 2014 and significantly scaled up during the Gaza events starting in 2020. They describe the source as biased and imply the article’s phrasing is questionable, but acknowledge the basic fact of Palantir’s use in Israel, including a mention that it’s “even on palantir.com.” - The discussion shifts to perceptions of bias in reporting. Speaker 2 notes that when Jamie mentions an article, Joe Rogan quickly labels it “a very biased article and that no one should trust it,” arguing that Palantir’s technology being used in Israel is a well-known fact. This is presented as something Joe Rogan “plays super dumb to,” influenced by fear of Peter Thiel, according to Speaker 2. - There is a critique of Joe Rogan’s appearance or demeanor, with Speaker 0 making a flippant remark and Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 continuing the thread about Joe’s attitude toward the information and his handlers. - The conversation revisits Joe Rogan’s relationship with his “handlers,” with Speaker 2 suggesting Joe’s handlers have been upset with him, possibly due to a recent Dave Smith podcast in which Rogan appeared anti-MAGA, calling MAGA supporters “a bunch of dorks,” and criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration policy while praising Obama-era deportations. Speaker 2 recounts that JD Vance said he would text Rogan to tell him he was wrong, indicating tension or pressure from political allies. - Speaker 1 quotes/digests a broader concept: “America is great. Make America greater, I’m down. But make America great again and then it becomes a movement of a bunch of fucking dorks,” noting that many participants are “dorks” and “real genuine patriots,” and that the idea of making America great is good, but the inclusivity of the team leads to problems. - Speaker 3 challenges a claim: Rogan roasted the Trump administration and suggested that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are better at deporting people than Rogan, claiming this is almost an exact quote, and questions whether MAGA is “full of dorks.” The group contemplates whether the audience includes many dorks, but asserts a distinction between dorks and genuine patriots. - The dialogue concludes with Speaker 2 asserting that there are people in the government with direct contact to Joe Rogan who push their agenda, implying Rogan might be under pressure to align with certain positions. This is presented alongside the idea that Joe is “skating on extremely thin ice” with these figures, and that Theo’s critique of the administration contributed to tensions. Joe’s response is characterized as telling Theo to “chill out and stop talk.”

Kim Iverson's video claims 'Israel government is paying a cohort of 14 to 18 social media influencers between 6,100 and 7,300 per post,' and 'Israel is paying influencers $7,000 per post.' Netanyahu referred this week to 'a community pushing out preferred messaging in The US media.' The discussion adds that 'Americans are giving billions of dollars to Israel. Israel then in turn is pouring that money back into America to pay influencers to put Israel's interest above our own.' It centers on TikTok: 'Larry Ellison is the largest single donor to the IDF, and he is going to be the largest shareholder in TikTok.' 'The most important purchase that is going on right now is TikTok.' 'We don't trust China.' Israel has spent 'a $150,000,000' on public diplomacy (Hezboah). The broadcast includes lines like 'Jews control all the industries' and 'Antisemites are stacking eviction notices.'