reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker describes digitally verified ID and its growth in China. In China, a traffic camera can catch you jaywalking, and the digital ID system has your blood, genetic code, and photograph, plus it can identify how you walk. So even without a visible face, you can be picked up by gate. It will convict you of jaywalking and take money out of your bank account with no intermediating judiciary at all and show a picture of you to the people in the neighborhood, so they know that you have jaywalked and reduce your social credit score. If your social credit score falls below a certain level, then you can't you can't buy drinks from a vending machine. You can't play video games. You can't go on a train. You can't get out of your fifteen minute city. All that's already in place in China. Do you think that that's that would be helpful or unhelpful? It would be I think it would bring in and has already in China. I think it'll bring in a totalitarian tyranny. So 100% complete that it would make George Orwell's 1984 look like a picnic.

Speaker 0 raises concern about Instagram sharing a link to cdc.gov and foregrounds what a QR code can reveal. He says the QR code that people have holds a lot more information on them than they may think, noting that this is Canada’s QR code but many countries have a similar thing. He enumerates the information embedded in the QR code: - Religion - Organ donor - Driver’s license - Marital status - Nonessential access - Reserved for future use (a note that there is information planned for future use) - Allergies - Gender identity - Smoker - Sex - Are you a firearms owner? - Are you a restricted firearms owner? - Are you do you have any warrants? - Then, what’s your credit score? - How many accounts do you have? - How much do you owe? - What did you make this year? - What did you make last year? He asserts that this is how much information the QR code will have and that it will be the social credit system on steroids, if not a carbon copy of it. He claims this is what people are being—implied to be—subjected to, and that the only power this system has is the power you give it. He concludes with: If everyone refute.

Life is about to change for every Australian. This bill will be misused because this bill is written to be misused. No hiding behind anonymous accounts or faulted false addresses. You can expect a knock on your door at home, work, or school as we're seeing happening in other countries with digital identity already in The government knows digital ID will be compulsory by the device of preventing access to government services, banking services, air travel, and major purchases for any Australian who does not have a digital ID. The digital ID will in effect create a live data file of your movements, purchases, accounts, and associates containing reference to every piece of data being held in the private and government sector as a first step in a wider agenda.

Speaker argues digital ID is being pushed with investment to force voluntary adoption, and that without it, it will fail and is the cornerstone of UN Agenda 2030; programmable, surveillable money and digital ecosystems depend on it. They compare to vaccine passports and urge planning to avoid compliance, like avoiding vaccine mandates. In the US, conservatives are framed as solutions to illegal migration and voter fraud; biometric IDs pitched as addressing cybercrime and societal ills. Digital ID is seen as essential to social credit scores and Orwellian designs. The speaker says convenience is used to ensnare people into compliance: opt-in smartphones, voting for two evils. The carrot approach may come with a stick; people have power and should act locally to opt out, starting with no to digital ID to avoid biometric surveillance state, predictive policing, precrime, and health care prevention measures and emergency use authorizations. We can opt out.

The speaker describes a system introduced in Thailand that centralizes biometric data and requires all ID and financial information to be under one roof. They claim this led to an immediate, nationwide disruption: "simultaneously, over 3,000,000 people had their bank accounts shut down." Thailand is framed as a case study for the use of biometric data in every facet of life, with "Every banking transaction [being] monitored and scrutinized." Any perceived discrepancy is said to be flagged as fraud and punished without due process. According to the speaker, regulations overwhelmed the system, resulting in a "full fledged banking crisis." They assert that "Over 3,000,000 Thai bank accounts were frozen instantaneously without warning as a result of government overreach." When people attempt to check why a payment failed, they are reportedly told that their account has been frozen. The claim is that "All of your accounts for that matter" are frozen, and the bank is "investigating you for suspicious activity and potential money laundering or fraud." There is said to be "no warning, call, or letter, and there is no clarification as to what transaction was flagged." The outcome is described as being "completely locked out of your accounts," losing the ability to purchase, fill your gas tank, or buy groceries. The speaker notes that millions are facing this reality in Thailand, and that the situation has "freaked the entire country out." They add that "thousands of accounts are frozen each week" and that panic has ensued. Retailers are no longer accepting cards and are demanding payment in cash as they worry about being removed from the banking system. Confidence in the government and the entire banking system is said to have evaporated, with people "rationally fear[ing] that their account will be targeted next without warning." The speaker asserts that government overreach has backfired, leading people to remove themselves from the banking system entirely, which they describe as "a really good thing to see, folks." The narrative frames this as a backlash that demonstrates the necessity of keeping cash alive and relying less on a digital system. It is presented as a test case for what the digital ID will do, and a warning against accepting it. The speaker contends that many warnings have been issued for a long time, and emphasizes the need for people to see what is happening. In closing, they say, "All everyone's been arguing over whether Charlie Kirk died or whether he didn't. It doesn't matter. What matters is what they're gonna do with it."

The speaker argues against digital IDs, listing 20 concerns: functionality creep into immigration, healthcare, banking, voting, driving, and travel; loss of anonymity; government overreach; it won't stop illegal immigration; it would rely on phones; enforcement could be undermined by cash-paying employers; single point of failure; government as the nexus of verification; a state surveillance honeypot; inevitable future abuses by any regime; massive cost and bureaucratic drag; marginalization of those unable or unwilling to comply; UK previously rejected ID cards; examples of failures in other countries (India ANWA, EU database); authoritarian temptations; excuses for illegal immigration and labor; burden shifting to citizens; ratchet effect; not for stated reasons but globalist aims; alternative is zero-knowledge proofs where individuals hold ID; digital IDs from the state are a horrendous idea and must be stopped.

Speaker 0 argues Canada introduced a bill allowing the minister to 'kick any Canadian citizen off the Internet to cut off their phone line, to turn off their phone.' 'If there is reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, the minister may prohibit a telecommunication service provider from providing any service to the specified person.' He warns 15.2 clause five makes the decision 'secret.' He says this signals 'Chinese Communist Party levels of government overreach.' He links the bill to the digital ID agenda and World Economic Forum's claim that digital identity is crucial for 'civic participation' and to UN 'Real ID' plans, noting Rand Paul tweets. He argues it could isolate people from paying bills, banking, or organizing politics, describing a potential 'digital gulag.' He advocates repeal in the US and hopes Canada defeats the agenda.

Your wake up call. The British government is pushing forward with plans for a national digital ID system. They've called it the Brit card and if that name doesn't send a chill down your spine you have not been paying attention. This is about building a centralized state controlled digital identity system that could be used to link your finances, your medical history, your travel movements, your social media activity, even your social activity in real life and more. It's quite frankly a digital dog tag and once it's clipped around your neck, you will not be able to take it off. There are active conversations now about linking spending capabilities to your digital identity. That means if your ID is flagged, limited or suspended, I don't know because maybe you said some hurt words on social media, that will mean you can't access your own money.

A speaker discusses India's nationwide digital ID system, Aadhaar, and chip away at the assurances given by officials who praised its rollout. The speaker notes that about a week or so earlier, Kirstjarma met with Prime Minister Modi and top officials in India to extol the benefits of digital ID, highlighting Aadhaar and claiming a fabulous nationwide rollout. The speaker then presents a troubling counterpoint: cybercriminals are claiming they have stolen the entire Aadhaar database—describing it as the database of 815,000,000 people with details such as names, addresses, identity confirmations, bank details, and more. According to these claims, the criminals are currently selling the entire database for $80,000 at a time. The speaker acknowledges uncertainty about verification but states that this story is circulating and raises questions about security. The core concern is about how secure the system will be when every facet of a person’s life could be held in one place: passport, driving license, NHS records, criminal records, bank details, every transaction, gas and electricity bills, travel records, flight records, car tax, council tax, and any arrest or hospital appointment information. The speaker asks whether we can trust the people running these systems to keep data secure, given the frequency of data breaches and data thefts, including several large incidents in the past year in the country. The concern is framed as a general warning about the viability of a centralized digital ID system that aggregates extensive personal information, and how well it would function in practice if it were compromised. A specific anecdotal point is raised: India’s example is cited as a real-world instance of the system’s security challenges, with the speaker encouraging listeners to look up the incident. The speaker notes that Star Lord was out in India holding up India as an example of how well the system could work, referencing a perceived contrast between the praise and the security breach claim. The segment closes with a skeptical modulo—“Right, Kia. We believe you.”—casting doubt on official assurances. In summary, the speaker highlights a purported massive data breach claim against India’s Aadhaar system, questions the security of a centralized digital identity that consolidates extensive personal data, and contrasts official praise with concerns about data vulnerability and trust in those who manage such systems.

Age verification is a normalisation of identification, the introduction of digital surveillance, and the end of privacy. It is described as giving the state and corporations excessive powers and creating more KYC honeypots. The speaker says we should fight that because it will start creeping into any centralised large social media website.

They're rolling out digital ID even when people don't want it? In The UK, over 2,000,000 people said no. We don't want it. The government's response? We're gonna do it anyway. And now the line is no digital ID, no jobs. They said you will not be able to work in The United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It's as simple as that. Just a reminder, pilot programs always start somewhere and then scale to the rest of the world. Today, it's The UK. Tomorrow, it's where you live. They will market it as if it's for your convenience or your safety, like they are doing now by saying it's to tackle illegal immigration. But once your likelihood is tied to a QR code or a government app, your freedoms can be taken away with the flip of a switch. Now it's just for a job. Soon it will be banking, travel, grocery shopping. You will be completely under control.

Speaker 0 explains that these groups have invested heavily to find excuses to push digital ID, urging voluntary adoption. They argue digital ID is the cornerstone of the entire UN Agenda 2030; without it, programmable, surveillable money and many online designs won’t work, and they frame it as something people must comply with, even though it’s pitched as voluntary. They compare digital ID to vaccine passports, suggesting that to change the direction of the world, people must plan to live in a way that avoids compliance with digital ID, just as one might navigate around vaccine mandates. In the United States, conservatives are portrayed as being pitched digital ID as a solution to illegal migration and voter fraud, while claims are made that biometric digital ideas are presented as essential to solving cybercrime, hacking, cyberbullying, and other societal ills. The speaker contends that digital ID underpins social credit and other Orwellian designs that are part of the agenda. A key theme is that the push relies on convenience: opting in is convenient, having money on a phone and a life centered on a smartphone is convenient, and voting every four years is convenient but framed within a system of “two lesser evils.” The speaker argues this convenience is a carrot used to enslave people, while resisting adoption is inconvenient and requires changing one’s life to be more resilient and sustainable for families and communities. They call for reconnecting with neighbors, meeting in person, and reducing online dependence to build real human connections and solutions. The speaker notes that during COVID, lockdowns contributed to isolation and pushed people toward virtual-only connections controlled by those who own the infrastructure, software, and platforms. The claim is that the power to set up digital ID resides with those investing in it, and people should reclaim power by actions in neighborhoods and families and by saying no to digital ID and the surveillance state. There is concern that digital ID enables not only real-time surveillance but predictive capabilities about future behavior, with intelligence agencies pursuing predictive policing (precrime) and extending similar predictions to health care to prevent the next pandemic, potentially eliminating the need for pandemics to be declared to justify emergency use authorizations or mandates in communities. The overall message is to opt out of digital ID, recognizing that this is the world some are trying to create, and that opting out is possible.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the UK government’s rollout of a national digital ID, presenting it as imminent and not merely a future possibility. Speaker 0 states that the government is rolling out a national digital ID in the UK and asserts it is happening now, not something to consider for someday. Speaker 1 reinforces the opposition to digital ID, urging a rejection of it. Speaker 0 reports that they are outside BBC Broadcasting House for a digital ID protest, framing the event as a mobilization against the rollout. Speaker 1 warns that saying yes to digital ID could lead to an inability to say no to the government ever again, not just to the current government but to future ones unknown. Speaker 0 recalls assurances that national ID cards were dead and not representative of Britain, noting that the modern version is not a plastic card but a “live connection.” Speaker 1 calls on people to raise their heads out of complacency, asserting that humans are not data and emphasizing that the issue concerns everyone’s freedom. Speaker 0 contends that what is happening is an attempt to funnel humanity into being a number, implying a loss of individuality. Speaker 1 describes a future where the ability to earn, move, buy, or speak is not a right but a permission, and permissions can be switched off, framing this as a consequence of Digital ID. Speaker 0 summarizes the topic as Digital ID: how it started, how it is being sold, and what life looks like behind a biometric paper.

Speaker 0 describes a view that the last mission of the Freemasons to achieve their world vision is creating AI, and that this will occur at thirty three degrees north of the equator—in Jerusalem. He claims this is the end game, with the Freemasons aiming to create a world government in Jerusalem, and identifies the center of this world government as Solomon's Temple, Silicon Valley, and AI. He asserts that currently AI like ChatGPT “doesn’t really do anything,” producing only cool images and helping students cheat, and notes that if you don’t go to school you might not see much value in using ChatGPT or paying for it. He contrasts this with the global investment in data centers, noting that “everyone’s putting money into AI,” but questions how to make money from AI if the goal is using it directly, suggesting that creating an AI surveillance state would be more financially sensible. Speaker 0 then explains what a surveillance state is, citing China as an example with digital ID and digital currency, where “everything you buy, everything you do will be tracked.” He says this allows the creation of a profile on individuals that reveals who they are, how they behave, and what they think, and that the government can manipulate thinking and behavior. He ties this to a religious frame by stating that such a surveillance state is “the mark of the beast.” He concludes by identifying Package three d k as a global AI surveillance system.

The transcript argues that a digital ID system would allow the government to track, analyze, predict, and control private activities, describing it as the antithesis of individual freedom. It asserts that an implantable chip is not required, and that biometrics like fingerprints and facial scans would work more efficiently. It references the COVID-19 lockdown as a demonstration of how such systems could be deployed, noting that masks were recommended by authorities while private businesses enacted entry restrictions, and the public largely complied with private mandates to access essentials like groceries, travel, and banking. The claim is that these private mandates served as a beta test for digital ID compliance, normalizing the use of QR scans and facial recognition for entry into private businesses, and that this was deemed a success. The speaker describes the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008 as the gold standard for biometric regulation, saying it is being replicated across the United States. The Act allegedly requires private entities to obtain written consent before collecting biometrics, disclose policies, and destroy data after a set period, while exempting government entities from such restrictions. It is claimed that these laws have resulted in over a thousand class-action lawsuits since 2015, which purportedly led to standardized biometric consent prompts in apps and services, such as consent statements like by clicking accept or proceeding, you consent to collection of biometric data. The argument continues with a warning that a government-mandated digital ID would likely provoke mass protest, citing the UK as an example. It contends the United States will avoid a direct mandate by outsourcing to the private sector, creating a system that appears voluntary. It is claimed that the FBI’s Clearview AI has harvested over 30,000,000,000 faces from social media, and that because Clearview is a private company, the FBI can access this data without direct government action. It is asserted that in over 43 states, Department of Motor Vehicles offices have sold driver’s license photos to private firms that resold them to local police for facial recognition, implying that the government can collect and use biometric data via private entities under legal immunity, without a formal mandate. The piece concludes that, as with COVID-era practices, individuals will be free to give consent, but if they choose not to, they will be constrained. The report is presented by Greg Reiss. It notes that The Reiss Report is fully funded by Substack subscribers, inviting readers to subscribe at gregreese.substack.com.

Age verification is a normalization of identification. It's the introduction of digital surveillance. It's the end of privacy, and it's giving the state and corporation excessive powers and creating more KYC honeypots. The speaker thinks we should fight that because we're now going to start seeing this crippling in to any centralised, large social media website.

Speaker 0 asserts that there is no security whatsoever and that cybersecurity professionals face this problem daily. They state that while people are watching their phones, their phones are watching them. The operating system is designed to watch and listen to users, to know who their friends are, what is being said in text messages, and to listen at times. They claim that, although people look at their phones and it has many facilities, it is the world’s greatest spy device, designed as a spy device. Now, this.

Speaker described India's digital ID program as a cautionary example of how tying essential needs to a single ID can fail catastrophically. More than a billion people were forced into a system that linked food rations, pensions, and even hospital access to a digital ID, with criminal networks learning how to hack and manipulate biometric data. The core problems were practical and systemic. When fingerprints didn’t match or when hackers swapped someone’s identity, people were locked out of survival. Entire families were denied food, and in one state at least two dozen people starved to death after being cut off from rations. Some elderly pensioners went months with no income as hospitals turned them away because their ID had been cloned. The scenario described paints a situation where being sick, hungry, or elderly could be life-threatening if a glitch or a hacker interfered with one’s access to vital services. The speaker emphasized that this was not a minor glitch. Organized criminal groups exploited the system to steal benefits, reroute funds, and sell fake identities. At one point, millions of fake accounts were uncovered, used to siphon money meant for the poor. The system, marketed as secure, ended up creating a black market for identities in which the poor suffered and criminals thrived. The overarching message is presented as a warning about the real dangers of digital ID, focusing on control and exploitation rather than safety. Once everything a person needs to live—food, money, medicine—is tied to a single ID, all it takes is an error or a criminal to cut you off. The India experiment is described as showing what happens when such a system is deployed at scale: hunger and deprivation, alongside a thriving illicit market for manipulated identities.

Speaker 0: The speaker argues that digital ID is bad and that the government is coming for children by announcing digital ID cards for 13-year-olds. They claim this is not a good thing because children have the right to grow up in privacy, to come of age, to explore, to experiment, and to make mistakes, with everything they do logged, tracked, and documented into a device that will follow them for the rest of their life and potentially discriminate against them. They say digital ID will document things like skill reports, mental health issues, behavioral issues, accomplishments, and failures, and that having so much information about a person before adulthood would make it easy to build systems that profile people based on socioeconomic background, behavior, and psychology, determining what type of citizen they are before they have a chance at life. They posit that as a parent you raise your children with boundaries, ethics, and moral, but the government has its own ethics, morals, and boundaries. They claim the government will have the power to give a child a bus pass, a bank account, access into entertainment venues, and a work permit when they turn 16, and the government can decide what makes a child applicable for that. They ask who should raise the child— you or the state. They argue that assigning a QR code to enter a playground and another to go skateboarding normalizes surveillance as safety for children, and that future generations could be convinced to accept more surveillance and control because they have been conditioned since childhood to see it as normal. They acknowledge pushback, noting some may call the concerns exaggerated, but they insist there is no reason to think digital ID will be used ethically, and they insist digital ID is forever. They challenge the idea that the last 500 years of humanity justify the next 500 years as superior, and say the government cannot provide a solid explanation for this institutional change. They dismiss migration as “bollocks” and claim the only justification given is convenience. The core claim is that the refusal to provide a straight answer hides a motive: control, plain and simple. The speaker concludes that there is an opportunity to change history in a positive way, and that opportunity starts with individuals choosing not to comply and saying no, for the sake of their kids and future generations.

Speaker 0 asserts that the control grid arrived in America via Apple, stating they worked for Apple for seventeen years and still hold stock, so they find no joy in revealing this. They claim there are no good guys here and argue that we need to shut it down while we can. They state that Apple just rolled out digital ID integration and acknowledge it sounds convenient, but warn that every convenience has a price. According to them, once identity goes digital, it becomes programmable, and once programmable, it becomes controllable. They contend that individuals are handing over their entire identity wrapped in a product, a file that can easily be deleted. If one does not comply, access is lost; if opinions are not liked, accounts are frozen. They claim that stepping out of line results in travel restrictions, bank transfer blocks, and loss of benefits. They insist this is not speculation and that it is already live. Examples are offered to illustrate the claim: Thailand has programmable digital currency; Europe introduced biometric wallets; Canada froze accounts during protests; China is described as having started the pilot and now in full production mode with a live social credit system. They assert that China is secretly building the infrastructure at a global level right now, not through laws or force, but through updates and convenience. They claim that in Vietnam, 86,000,000 bank accounts were deleted because people wouldn’t agree to a digital ID. Concerning the European Union, they state that by 2027, large cash payments will be outlawed, forcing people onto digital rails that can be controlled. They describe this as just the on ramp, arguing that freedom becomes conditional when identity is controlled by a corporation or a government that can revoke it with a keystroke. They describe the arrival of dystopia as occurring not with tanks or force, but with app updates or convenience. They conclude by urging listeners to pay attention and push back while they still can. The message ends with an appeal to “Let’s go,” emphasizing urgency to resist the rollout of digital identity and programmable control embedded in convenient updates and services.

Digital ID: what could possibly go wrong? The transcript recalls Kirstyama’s recent visit to India to meet Modi and top officials, promoting India’s nationwide digital ID system called Aadhaar. It then presents a provocative claim: cyber criminals are reportedly saying they have stolen the entire Aadhaar database—815,000,000 people's details, including names, addresses, identity confirmations, bank details, and more—and are allegedly selling the database for $80,000 at a time. It notes uncertainty about verification but says the story is circulating. The speaker emphasizes concerns about security and the practicality of such a system: if every aspect of a person’s life—passport, driving license, NHS records, criminal record, bank details, all transactions, bills, travel and flight records, vehicle taxes, council taxes, hospital appointments, arrest records, and other personal data—are stored in one place, how safe and secure can it be? The question is raised of whether the people running these systems can be trusted to protect data, given ongoing data breaches and thefts, including several large incidents in the past year within the country. There’s a rhetorical comparison to India’s example, suggesting that this is a test case for the security of a highly centralized digital ID system. The speaker notes that StarMove had previously used India as an example of how well such a system could work, implying skepticism about that portrayal with the closing line, “The ironic thing is that StarMove was just out there holding them up as an example of how well the system could work. Yeah. Right, Kia. We believe you.” Key points: - Aadhaar is India’s nationwide digital ID system. - Alleged theft of 815,000,000 Aadhaar records, with claims of selling the data in chunks for $80,000; verification of this claim is uncertain. - The aggregation of extensive personal data in one system raises concerns about security and trust in the guardians of the data. - Data breaches are frequent, including notable incidents in the past year. - The India example is presented as a cautionary reference, contrasting with prior praise from StarMove.

Independent journalist Michael Schellenberger has been digging into the digital ID issue. He just released a lengthy piece on Substack called Public. He joins us with his thoughts. Michael says: The argument that digital IDs help thwart illegal immigration, ID fraud, streamline health care services sounds fantastic. But what’s the problem? Michael responds: Hey, great to be with you. Yeah. Another conspiracy theory that has started coming true. We saw this announcement in September. The World Economic Forum had been pushing digital IDs, the United Nations, the European Union, Britain. Of course, the really terrifying example is China, which uses digital IDs and a social credit score to control speech and to control what people think and say online. It could come in a lot of different ways. They’ll start voluntary, then they’ll make it mandatory. They’ll have rewards, and then they’ll have punishments. It’s quite terrifying. And when you listen to what the advocates for digital IDs say, it’s terrifying. And, you know, Laura, one thing I learned from this last round of investigations is that this is a huge cybersecurity threat. The idea that, I mean, imagine if you get hacked in one of the many websites that you log into. Imagine everything suddenly being hacked because it’s all centralized in a single place. That cybersecurity threat alone ought to be enough to kill the digital ID. But, again, this is potentially digital totalitarianism.

The speaker discusses the potential dangers of phone surveillance and the Pegasus software. They mention that the phone could be a portal to the CIA and criticize the lack of oversight and safeguards imposed by Congress. The speaker also highlights Israel's role in developing surveillance and AI technology. They mention instances where the Pegasus software has been used to target human rights activists and journalists. The speaker expresses concern about the tracking of digital information by foreign governments and emphasizes that the US government is equally sinister in tracking digital footprints without oversight. They caution listeners to be mindful of their online activities.

Four years ago, the UN announced a goal to implement digital IDs worldwide by 2030 as part of its sustainable development agenda. The UN Digital ID aims to streamline information sharing and access for UN personnel using blockchain and biometrics. Years prior, Donald Trump also aimed to complete a biometric entry/exit visa tracking system across land, sea, and air. According to the report, the opening of borders was intended to create chaos, making a digital ID system more acceptable. The Trump administration allegedly used tariffs to pressure foreign nations into biometric cooperation. After threatening tariffs on Colombia, a biometric cooperation agreement was drafted. The US Secretary of Homeland Security discussed biometric data sharing with the Mexican president in exchange for ending tariffs. Mexico now requires its CURP (similar to a US social security number) to include a QR code with fingerprint and retinal scan data. This data will be shared with Mexican and US agencies. The biometric CURP is required to purchase internet and mobile service, and internet providers must share user geolocation data with Mexican authorities.

The speaker argues that Trump is promoting digital ID and biometrics to address immigration, warning listeners not to be tricked into a control grid. They caution against canceling the Fed and ending up with the BIS and IMF. Biometrics and a digital ID are described as methods to deal with immigration problems that the federal government created, yet the speaker says these measures would trap people in a control grid, and notes that “that’s not a bad thing” to point out this risk. The speaker claims Trump’s cabinet includes many people who were “basically part of the syndicate” trying to build the control grid. Before getting enthusiastic about Republicans, the speaker insists they must hold their feet to the fire and demand that they reverse the control grid.