reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Burn down the current system of electing officials, as it won't fix anything. Most people can't disobey immoral orders, won't act unless it benefits them, and are jerks. The government won't change because it keeps them in power. Target corporations that support corrupt politicians by boycotting them collectively. Protests and letters to officials are ineffective. Hold corporations accountable for underpaying and mistreating workers. Demand warranties on products to prevent scams. By taking down big corporations, we can make a real impact and force change. If you agree, show support and offer to help.

To slow down operations and prevent strikes, the Department of Labor conducts multiple rounds of cost-benefit analysis for new regulations. If cheating on the numbers is suspected, leaked drafts are sent to the Office of Inspector General for investigation. This coordinated effort effectively stops the process. Strikes are considered a last resort, and alternative tactics include go-slow methods and showing solidarity with federal workers. The fear of being fired, as seen during the Reagan administration, discourages federal employees from taking action. However, partnerships with powerful unions in the private sector can provide support and help resolve issues. During the recent government shutdown, the air traffic controllers' issues influenced the unions in the airline industry, contributing to reopening the government.

The speaker describes a coordinated protest involving diverse tactics and groups to disrupt a specific area. Actions included blocking buses and intersections, veterans occupying archives, and a "march of the dead" causing delays. Other tactics involved grandmothers knitting, sticker distribution, and students staging flash dance parties with civil disobedience, such as locking down to desks. The model involved various groups choosing their tactics and scheduling actions across locations and time to maximize impact within a small area. The speaker suggests considering a similar approach.

Don't comply with government laws, be independent. Refuse to follow orders, like in Bosnia where people resisted lockdowns and fake passports were made. Mass noncompliance weakens the government's power. Stand up for your rights, don't be afraid. Stop complying with unjust rules and take back control.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

Gene Sharp, a pioneer in nonviolent action, highlights the power individuals and federal workers possess. Rulers rely on people to collect taxes, enforce laws, manage transportation, allocate funds, and perform various tasks. If people refuse to provide these services, rulers would lose their ability to govern. President Harry S. Truman acknowledged the influence of bureaucrats, stating that he couldn't accomplish anything without them. This emphasizes that both ordinary people and federal workers hold significant power.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intention to defy Secretary Kristi Noem's orders, stating that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions. He emphasizes that there is significant room for interpretation of those priorities within the department. Wright describes the bureaucratic layers that filter directives, allowing him to navigate around Noem's agenda. He also shares concerns about the impact of Noem's conservative stance on his transgender colleagues, who are anxious about potential discrimination. Overall, Wright conveys a sense of disillusionment with the current leadership and the challenges faced by employees under Noem's administration.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intention to defy Secretary Kristi Noem's orders. He believes that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions, and he plans to filter any directives he receives. Wright describes the bureaucratic process as layered, allowing for interpretation that can steer decisions away from Noem's agenda. He also shares concerns about the impact of Noem's conservative policies on his transgender colleagues, who are anxious about their job security. Overall, Wright conveys a sense of resistance to Noem's leadership and the challenges faced by his team in navigating her directives.

It's great to see such a massive turnout here today! Everyone in the labor movement, and those who value public service, recognize that enough is enough. An injury to one is an injury to all. They're counting on us giving up, but we can't. I know many of you have family, friends, and colleagues in the federal system who are scared. If you can, stand up. If you are able, decline to enforce illegal instructions. If the facts support it, use the whistleblower portals that the Senate Democrats have set up. We may be out of power, but we are not powerless. We're going to win.

Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I spoke with Byron, a White House adviser, who acknowledged that the deep state exists. He explained that bureaucracies often create commissions to delay action, which can hinder incoming leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential target for bureaucratic resistance. Byron mentioned that the bureaucracy should implement elected leaders' policies while also advising them. Our conversation revealed insights into how the bureaucracy operates, and I recorded it all. Byron seemed surprised but engaged. This highlights the importance of transparency in government, and we will continue to investigate and report on these matters.

The speaker advises federal government employees to leak information to journalists from mainstream press outlets like ProPublica and Politico. They suggest using Signal to communicate and recommend saving emails and recording meetings. The speaker also suggests writing poorly to make the administration look bad. Whistleblower protections are discussed, and the speaker acknowledges the risk involved in their actions. They mention the possibility of finding another job and suggest passing on information to a colleague with a higher risk threshold. The importance of finding ethical journalists who will protect sources is emphasized.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intent to defy orders from Secretary Kristi Noem. He believes that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions, and he plans to filter her directives. Wright describes the bureaucratic process as akin to a septic tank, where orders are filtered through layers before reaching him. He also shares concerns about the impact of Noem's conservative policies on his transgender colleagues, who feel threatened by her appointment. Wright emphasizes that the real power lies with permanent staff, who will interpret priorities in ways that align with their views.

Acts of commission in opposing threats to democracy include asking specific questions, wearing symbols of unity, creating a paper trail, leaking information selectively, and forming self-organizing units. Acts of omission involve refusing loyalty oaths, promoting internal debate, and slowing down work. A labor strike or walkout is a higher-risk option. These actions aim to challenge unethical or unconstitutional orders and protect the integrity of elections. It is important to exercise caution and consider potential legal consequences when engaging in these acts.

Federal workers are encouraged to self-organize with colleagues within their bureau and across government agencies to build trust and navigate challenges together. They should also connect with civic groups and have open conversations with them. Legal support and advocacy from civil society organizations can be helpful if they need to take action. Contributing their knowledge and skills to civic groups can be beneficial. It is important to stay in communication with grassroots groups and be prepared in case of a stolen election.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intention to defy orders from Secretary Kristi Noem. He believes that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions. Wright discusses how he and his colleagues can interpret and filter directives, likening it to a septic tank that processes information through various layers. He also shares concerns about Noem's conservative stance, particularly regarding LGBTQ colleagues, who are anxious about her appointment. Wright emphasizes that the real power lies with career civil servants, who can navigate and reinterpret the directives from political appointees.

I'm a platform services manager for the Department of Homeland Security. I'm not thrilled about Kristi Noem's appointment. The truth is, we don't let political appointees get in our way. It's my job to filter things. By the time marching orders get to me and below, we can steady the ship. I feel bad for the GS fifteens because they have to deal with the crazy stuff. They have to kiss ass and re-word ideas. DHS could fall on Noem's head, and she wouldn't even know it. The secretaries can set priorities, but they can't tell us what to do. If we don't agree with the priorities, there's a lot of room for interpretation. We can filter the marching orders, like a septic tank. Also, my trans colleagues are freaking out because this administration is super anti-trans.

Power is dispersed in society and concentrated in pillars of support, which are organizations and institutions that provide the necessary resources for those in power to stay in power. These pillars consist of ordinary people who contribute expertise, labor, and buying power. If people in these pillars withhold their cooperation and engage in nonviolent tactics like protests and strikes, rulers cannot maintain power, as seen in cases like the Philippines, Serbia, Ukraine, and Sudan. The loyalty of individuals within these pillars varies, with those closer to the center being more obedient. The goal of effective people power is to shift loyalties and bring people from the center to the outside. Bureaucracy is a powerful pillar, with federal workers having knowledge and influence over policies.

Momentum, and momentum is key to success. The third attribute of successful campaigns is they featured defections and loyalty shifts within key institutional pillars. Workers restricted their labor. Faith communities refused to allow their religion to be a tool of authoritarianism. Civil servants refused to carry out illegal orders. Businesses applied financial pressure. Security forces refused to obey orders to repress protesters. We're gonna talk through a lot of that tonight. Finally, successful movements have

The speaker discusses internal resistance to RFK Jr.’s policies and the idea that “deep staters” have been entrenched in government. They mention being forwarded an anecdote from a “good career employee.” They point to the FDA, noting that when Marty Makary came in, he had only about 10 political appointees he could choose. Jay Bhattacharya at the NIH allegedly had one political appointee. The speaker claims that every government employee is a “deep stater” who has been there a long time and that an email from a good employee circulates a CIA manual called How to Be a Bad Bureaucrat and Subvert an Institution from Within. The email supposedly asserts that 90% of employees at HHS, which has 70,000 employees, are talking in lunchrooms about the manual and telling each other that their job is to save America and save science from the agenda of President Trump and RFK Jr. The speaker asserts this reflects how people think across major departments and asks how to get rid of them, suggesting firing them as a solution, and mentions SIOP in this context. The CDC is presented as a case study of failure, described as a public health disaster in its COVID-19 response. The speaker alleges that the CDC’s guidance on school lockdowns copied directly from a teacher union document with which they were aligned, reproducing paragraphs from the teacher’s union advocating for two years of school shutdowns. It is claimed that the CDC also said that cloth masks were fine. The speaker says the CDC led the response and that the NIH funded the entire pandemic, including gain-of-function research, asserting that this constitutes “the creation of the pandemic.” In contrast, RFK Jr. is said to have fired three employees, and this action is described as national news. The overall narrative emphasizes a view of pervasive internal opposition within federal agencies, a controversial and sweeping critique of the CDC, NIH, and HHS responses to the pandemic, and a framing of RFK Jr.’s personnel decisions as transformative and newsworthy.

Shut It Down DC discusses their plans for responding to a potential coup and contested election scenarios. They emphasize the need to take action in the streets and disrupt business as usual in Congress. There is talk of revolution and potential violence, with some suggesting breaking windows to enter government buildings. Leaking information to journalists and creating parallel structures are mentioned as tactics. Federal workers are encouraged to engage in noncooperation to undermine those in power. The importance of communication with grassroots groups and sustained organizing is highlighted. Practical examples of slowing down processes and exposing wrongdoing are shared. Overall, the focus is on taking decisive action to resist a potential coup.