reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 discusses Palantir and expanded government use. Key points: - Palantir is openly building databases on people, used with ICE and announced for broader government use; Palantir also manages all health data due to extensive contracts with HHS. - Trump’s first term included a push to have social media companies flag statements to prevent shootings, using analytics to determine intervention before a crime—concept described as “minority report.” - William Barr, during the first Trump administration, created DEEP, a program that legalized precrime in the United States; there were a few arrests under DEEP for Facebook posts, but not many, with the legal framework in place since Trump’s first term. - The pitch for a precrime system included HARPA, a health-focused version of DARPA, and a program called Safe Homes intended to analyze American social media posts for early warning signs of neuropsychiatric violence. Based on that analysis, individuals could be sent to a court-ordered psychologist or physician or placed under house arrest without having committed any crime. - With Palantir’s increased government integration, especially through the Doge agency led by Elon Musk, Palantir has embedded itself further in government, including the IRS and mortgage-related entities like Fannie Mae; this involves access to data from the Department of Treasury and the IRS, forming a master database aimed at stopping crime before it happens. - Palantir’s precrime activities included piloting predictive policing programs in police departments, initially in New Orleans, targeting primarily low-income minority neighborhoods. - Other companies besides Palantir, such as Predpol in Los Angeles, claim to provide predictive policing with an accuracy of 0.5%; contracts with Predpol have not been terminated. - The overarching concept traces to the Panopticon idea: constant surveillance leads people to police themselves and censor themselves, implying control through perpetual observation, rather than purely improved efficiency in policing. The speaker characterizes this as the foundational form of control.

The discussion centers on the kill chain concept and Palantir’s role within it. One speaker explains that the system you call the kill chain was created privately, while publicly lawyers frame it as something like “tech for the amelioration of unwanted blah blah blah.” The term kill chain sounds good to him, though not originally Palantir’s; it’s a general military sequence from identifying a target to taking a life. Palantir’s contract added their software and artificial intelligence to the kill chain, making it quicker, and, in his view, “better and more violent.” He notes that stepping back to examine the actual application of these technologies can be destabilizing. Another speaker discusses a personal trajectory: Juan didn’t leave Palantir entirely for ethical reasons, only taking another job, but his motivation to speak out against Palantir grew after observing the Israeli invasion of Gaza following the October 7 attacks. Palantir has contracts with the Israeli Defense Forces, with the exact nature intentionally opaque, yet evidence suggests Palantir’s AI tech was used for target selection in Gaza. The speaker Carp embraces controversy as part of marketing, stating Palantir is comfortable being unpopular. He adds that Palantir works with health insurance companies to build AI for denials management to protect revenue, raising the question of whether Palantir’s AI should decide what care is covered for individuals. A third speaker explains the technical approach: they use what legal scholars call predicate-based search to identify indicators of potential bad behavior in a person’s life. In essence, Palantir makes software that helps customers collect and analyze data and then act on the analysis. By 2013, a decade after founding, Palantir’s client list included the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Marines, the Air Force, Special Operations Command, and more. Palantir already had contracts with the IRS to analyze taxpayer data to guide auditors to easier audits, handling financial information for many. They also had multiple contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services, whose core responsibility is Medicare and Medicaid, controlling millions of Americans’ health records and access to health care. A final speaker warns that as we increasingly live in a simulated world, we move toward governance by algorithm, governed by those influencing these AI systems to advance profit- or control-seeking objectives.

Directed EMP weapons have been developed, and the founder of Palantir, an AI platform used by the military, has played a significant role in revolutionizing warfare. The capability to neutralize drones was available at any moment.

The discussion centers on six American scientists working on advanced materials and plasma technology who have suddenly disappeared, with a parallel pattern of missing Chinese scientists. The speakers debate where the technology originated (with sources suggesting it came from downed UAPs/UFOs) and why these individuals are vanishing, including both U.S. and Chinese scientists who worked on similar high-end military applications. Brandon Weichert outlines a sequence of events and connections: - In mid-March 2026, three Chinese defense scientists — Zhao Jingkang (nuclear weapons expert), Wu Manching (radar and metamaterials expert), and Wei Yiyan (missile systems expert) — were quietly erased from the Chinese Academy of Engineering’s website, signaling they are no longer among the living. - A few days later, hypersonics expert Yan Hong (a key figure in plasma aerodynamics) died suddenly at 56. - Weichert pairs these five Chinese scientists with the six American scientists who were working on related technologies, noting massive overlap in their work and suggesting that the Americans’ and Chinese’ programs mirror each other in advanced plasma and weapon systems. - He concludes that there is shadowboxing between the United States and China, describing it as a shaping operation in the run-up to a potential major conflict, with both sides attempting to eliminate the other’s brainpower—the human capital essential to sustaining high-end warfare. - He recalls historical precedents where nations targeted each other’s scientists (the Americans reportedly killing Soviet scientists and vice versa; Israelis targeting Iranian scientists) and argues this is not unprecedented. - Weichert cautions that the topic is not necessarily about aliens; he suggests that the systems discussed may be advanced technologies developed in the U.S., Russia, and China for years, potentially including non-alien sources and even Nazi-era technologies that were inherited, while acknowledging that alien explanations exist in public discourse. - He notes that there is a broader geopolitical dynamic at play, including the possibility that the timing of alien-related talk may be designed to distract from conventional advances in technology and the fact that China may have caught up to or surpassed the U.S. in some conventional technologies. The conversation also addresses satellites and space warfare: - There are reports on meteors or fireballs in the sky, but the speakers believe some debris could be from satellites shot down in low Earth orbit. - SpaceX Starlinks have suffered “an explosive fragmentary event,” potentially from being hit by anti-satellite weapons; Starlinks have previously been used for protests (in Iran) and supplied to Ukraine, and the Russians have developed systems like Klinka and TOBAL to knock down Starlinks. - There is a longstanding concern that electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons on satellites could disrupt or destroy the U.S. electric grid, with a claim that one EMP detonated 50 miles above the continental United States could knock out 90–95% of the grid and take at least two years to restore, especially given reliance on Chinese-made restoring equipment. - The discussion returns to the importance of human capital and education, with a provocative claim that the Department of Education may be the single greatest national security threat due to its impact on human capital, alongside the national debt. The speakers acknowledge disagreement about whether the origin of the advanced plasma technology is extraterrestrial or terrestrial, emphasizing instead the strategic implications of missing scientists on both sides and the ongoing modernization and counterspace dimensions of the conflict.

Glenn: Welcome back, with Janis Varoufakis, former Greek finance minister and founder of DM25. The world has grown more dangerous. He notes the war in Iran is asymmetric: the US is more powerful but Iran can shut down energy trade and view the conflict as existential, willing to shut down the global economy to avoid defeat. Glenn asks where the war is headed and whether there is an off-ramp. Yanis: The US has a history of asymmetric conflicts where it enters with confidence and exits with its wings clipped—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Iran has faced stronger opposition than those cases, and despite striking Tel Aviv and Gulf bases, the US pain threshold seems lower than Iran’s. He points out the difference this time is a broader regional and global resistance and Iran’s capacity to respond through strategic actions like shutting Hormuz, making escalation costly for the US. Glenn: Economics show that industrial might, supply chains, and technological sovereignty matter, suggesting a shift away from free trade. He asks whether these lessons will redefine Western ideology and asks about the role of deindustrialization over the last decades. Yanıs: He says the shift began after Bretton Woods and the era of financialization and neoliberalism, with industrial capacity shipped out and the West leveraging finance and, later, big tech. He notes Margaret Thatcher’s role in deindustrialization and shipping capacity abroad, and he is surprised Trump fell into a war against Iran without a clear exit strategy. He argues Netanyahu’s influence pulled the US into a long war, framing it as a tactic to keep Israelis in fear and justify annexation moves in the West Bank, thus sustaining conflict. He also addresses the liberal-imperialist claim of liberating women, stating that women of Iran do not need bombs and that liberation would require defeating the powers that prevent peace and democracy, citing the 1953 coup and the suppression of the left in Iran after 1979. He emphasizes that the regime’s survival has involved neoliberal policies within Iran and that both reformists and conservatives in Iran ultimately align around survival and regional power, with the regime having benefited from long-term Western hostility and recent escalations. Glenn: Raises the point that the US miscalculated even the narrative—often incoherent, with statements about “liberating women” fluctuating between aims of freeing women and destroying Iran’s ability to rebuild. Yanīs: He challenges the idea that this war is about liberating women, and reiterates that the people of Iran face a stark choice between the current regime and a failed-state trajectory. He argues the regime's popularity is enough to sustain it, and that external pressures are not driving a straightforward democratic outcome. He notes that the real losers are ordinary people in the US, Iran, and globally, with rising food and energy prices, while the leaders of Iran may see gains in rallying around a common external threat. Glenn: Cites Trump’s tweets about higher oil prices and questions the populist credentials when the impact is on the average person. Yanīs: He discusses the changing nature of warfare, highlighting drone technology as a major shift. A drone economy makes cheap drones capable of challenging costly missiles, altering the political economy of war and enabling autonomous, AI-driven weapons. He notes that drone warfare, as seen in Ukraine and now Iran, could lead to a permanent-war dynamic where peace becomes a system error. He mentions how tech companies like Palantir train AI for civilian and military applications, including hospital management, illustrating the broader commercialization of war tech. Glenn: Reflects on how competition among NATO, Russia, and China could reshape power dynamics, particularly with autonomous weapons and the ability of adversaries to strike at vulnerabilities. Yanīs: He cautions about the risk of a broader great-power war and notes that drones, autonomy, and AI could enable rapid decision-making with less human oversight, expanding the lethality and reducing accountability. Glenn: Observes that Iran can absorb pain and still threaten Hormuz, while the US and Israel may be unable to declare a decisive victory without economic and political costs. He asks where US and Israel go from here. Yanīs: He argues Netanyahu seeks permanent war to justify expansion, while the Trump administration would like a quick victory. He underscores that a clear victory is hard to define when Hormuz remains contested, and that Trump’s options may be to declare a triumph or continue the conflict, depending on midterm politics. He emphasizes that the war’s outcomes are measured by the cost to ordinary people rather than leaders’ narratives. Glenn: Adds that the war’s casualties and economic effects will hit working people hardest, and notes Trump’s failure to align populism with real-world costs. Yanīs: Returns to the moral dimension, explaining that he has opposed illegal wars by the US and Israel in various contexts and that his duty is to call out both sides, stressing international law and stopping his own governments from dropping bombs on Iran as the top priority. Glenn: Agrees, adding that human rights should restrain war, not justify it, and warns against substituting humanitarian rhetoric for power plays. Yanīs: Concludes by recalling past anti-war activism and reiterates that solidarity should resist imperialism, not substitute it with bombings of other regimes. He emphasizes choosing international law and opposing the gang-like rule of Western governments. Glenn: Thanks Yanis; Yanis thanks him as well.

This transcript centers on the emergence of neuroscience and neurotechnology as potential weapons and the privacy, security, and ethical implications that accompany them. Key points include: - The novelty and viability of neuroscience as a weapon: nanoparticulate aerosolizable nanomaterials could be breathed in to disrupt blood flow and neurological network activity, usable as enclosed weapons or broad disruption tools. Nanomaterials could also enable electrodes to be inserted into a head to create vast arrays of viable sensors and transmitters. DARPA’s N3D program (next generation non-invasive neuromodulation) aims to create implantable electrodes that read from and write into the brain remotely in real time, without surgical brain insertion. - Advances in AI and neuroscience: artificial intelligence is enabling medical breakthroughs, including devices that can read minds and alter brains to treat conditions like anxiety or Alzheimer's. - Privacy concerns and protective legislation: as brain data becomes more accessible, privacy protections are seen as essential. Colorado passed a first-in-the-nation law adding biological or brain data to the state privacy act, akin to fingerprints if used to identify people. However, a study by the Neuro Rights Foundation found that two thirds of private brain-data–collecting companies are sharing or selling data with third parties, and most do not disclose storage location, retention periods, access, or breach protocols. - Widespread readiness and access to brain-decoding tech: devices on the Internet can decode brainwaves to varying degrees, and tech from companies like Elon Musk, Apple, Meta, and OpenAI could change, enhance, and control thoughts, emotions, and memories. Lab-grade systems can decode brain activity to turn thought into text; brainwaves are described as encrypted signals readable by AI. - At-home attention monitoring devices: EarPods and other wearables can detect whether a person is paying attention or their mind is wandering, and can discriminate between types of attention (central tasks like programming, peripheral tasks like writing, or unrelated tasks like browsing). When combined with software and surveillance tech, the precision increases. - Ethical and societal risk considerations: this technology raises concerns about data insurance discrimination, law-enforcement interrogation, and advertising manipulation. Government access could extend to altering thoughts, emotions, and memories as the technology advances. Privacy protections are described as a no-brainer by Pazowski of the Neuro Rights Foundation, who emphasizes that brain data represents “everything that we are,” including thoughts, emotions, memories, and intentions. - Real-world and speculative applications and threats: debates about whether devices can truly control thoughts; references to brain-reading in mice; concerns about bi-directional interfaces, remote writing signals to the brain, and potential co-optation by malicious actors. There are mentions of preconscious recognition signals (P300, N400) used in interrogations to identify recognition of a potential co-conspirator or weapon, potentially without conscious processing. - Surveillance versus autonomy and safety: discussions about bossware and ubiquitous monitoring in workplaces, plus the possibility that such monitoring could extend to controlling attention or even thoughts. - Security, hacking, and potential misuse: Bluetooth-enabled headsets, write-capable technologies like transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and the risk of systems being hacked, underscoring the need to anticipate and mitigate misuse. - Global and political dimensions: comments on rapid progress (faster than expected), substantial military investment by China in neurotech, and concerns that AI integration with neuroweaponry could create new, uncharted information warfare. - Narratives of secrecy and manipulation: debates about why information is publicly released or withheld, the potential for misinformation, and the idea that these technologies could be used to “read our thoughts” and weaponize them, with implications for targeting, torture, and control of the narrative.

The Chinese army displayed the capabilities of its FPV drones and the massive swarms they create that can work in unison.

The transcript surveys Palantir’s rise as a powerful data analytics company intertwined with government and military aims, emphasizing how fear, surveillance, and control have shaped its growth and public image. It frames Palantir as aiming to become “the ultimate military contractor and the ultimate arbiter of all of our data,” with its software described as enabling governments and major institutions to collect, analyze, and act on vast datasets, including in war zones. Key points include: - Palantir’s positioning and clients: The company claims it can revolutionize government systems with AI-powered data analysis and has been hired by the Department of Defense, the FBI, local police, the IRS, and other entities, including non-government customers like Wendy’s. Its business model is described as transforming “information those organizations collect, collect even more information, and use that data to draw conclusions.” - The kill chain concept and AI: Palantir’s tech is linked to the “kill chain,” a military term for the series of decisions leading to targeting and potentially taking life. Palantir’s contract adds AI to this chain, making it “quicker and better and safer and more violent.” - Founding story and rhetoric: Palantir traces its origins to a PayPal-connected network (the “PayPal mafia”) and to Alex Karp, who studied neoclassical social theory, with the company named after Tolkien’s Palantir. Middle-earth imagery is used to juxtapose potential good versus dangerous power. - Data, surveillance, and ontology: The software is described as capable of reconfiguring an organization’s ontology—what systems matter, what information matters, how processes are structured, and what biases are introduced. - Inside views and ethics: A former Palantir employee, Juan, explains his departure and later criticisms after observing the Israeli invasion of Gaza; Palantir’s involvement with the Israeli Defense Forces is noted, though contract details are opaque. The claim is that Palantir’s AI may have been used for target selection. - Revenue and focus on government: In 2024 Palantir earned nearly $2.9 billion, with 55% from government sources, most of it American. Palantir’s CTO Sham Sankar is cited with a Defense Reformation rhetoric that aligns with the Defense Innovation Board’s push to fund emerging tech, suggesting a fusion of defense spending and Palantir’s growth. - Domination and market strategy: Palantir is depicted as striving to be the “US government’s central operating system,” with Doge (an internal effort) aimed at unifying data across agencies like the IRS and Health and Human Services, potentially giving one contractor broad access to Americans’ data and health records. - Corporate culture and risk: The company is described as comfortable being unpopular, with leaders like Peter Thiel investing heavily and having a role in politics; Karp emphasizes civil liberties in terms of lawful use of government data and its potential misapplication. - Ethical tension and viewpoint: The piece notes that Palantir’s reach could enable governance by algorithm and automated decision-making, potentially reshaping personal lives, battlefields, and governance. The founders’ ownership structure preserves control through class voting shares. - Final reflections: The speakers argue that criticizing the system is fraught because watching and fear can silence dissent, and warn against replacing a broken system with an even more broken one, urging vigilance over who wields powerful data and AI.

Dmitry Sims junior hosts lieutenant general Abty Alaudinov, hero of Russia, hero of the Chechen Republic, hero of the Donetsk People’s Republic, commander of the Akhmet Special Forces, and deputy head of the main military political directorate of the Russian Ministry of Defense. The conversation centers on the current phase of the conflict, Russia’s strategy, the role of Western support, and comparisons with Israeli actions in Gaza and other theaters. Key points and claims: - Russia’s combat capability and strategy - Alaudinov states that “overall, all troops of the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Defense are engaged in active offensive operations across all sectors where we’re positioned,” with the most intense fighting around Pokrovsk, seen as the key point to break through to operational space. He notes progress in sectors where the Ahmad (Akhmet) special forces operate and emphasizes a broader offensive plan while maintaining an “active defense” to engage the entire front line and stretch the enemy’s resources. - He asserts that “only Russia is advancing” along the 1,000-kilometer line of contact and attributes slower offensive tempo to preserving personnel and avoiding a sharp breakthrough that could trigger NATO involvement. He argues the primary damage comes from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on both sides, and contends a rapid thrust would yield enormous losses. - Perceived signs of enemy strain - The speaker describes Ukraine as gradually crumbling under pressure, with Pokrovsk, Kupiansk, and the surrounding agglomeration “gradually falling apart.” He claims Russia liberates one or two settlements daily and that NATO support—drones and equipment—has not changed the overall dynamics; Ukraine cannot hold the front despite the influx of foreign weapons. - Western/NATO support - Alaudinov asserts that NATO testing is ongoing on Ukraine with drones, weapons, electronic warfare, etc., and that Trump’s shifting rhetoric does not reduce the flow of weapons or support. He contends that American support persists even as political statements change, and he notes deep American-NATO involvement via think tanks, satellites, and arms supplies that reach the front. - Drones and the changing nature of war - He emphasizes drones as the central element of modern warfare, while not negating the continued relevance of artillery and tanks. He argues: “a tank worth millions of dollars can be destroyed by a drone that costs $500,” and stresses the need to compete economically in war, deploying cheaper, effective unmanned systems to exhaust the enemy’s resources. - He claims Russia has a layered drone system for deep reconnaissance and strike with various warhead levels, ranges, and maneuverability, enabling operations from closest to farthest sectors and allowing “all targets” to be hit today. He asserts Russia is ahead of NATO in unmanned aviation. - Mobilization and tactics - Refuting Western depictions of “meat assaults,” he notes Russia conducted only one mobilization (300,000) and has continued advancing, while Ukraine has mobilized for years and still struggles. He attributes Ukraine’s resilience to nationalist formations behind mobilized troops, and he suggests that without NATO support, Ukraine would not sustain the front for many days. - Mercenaries and comparisons to Israeli actions - He characterizes Western mercenaries as having arrived with false expectations and being killed off in large numbers; Ukrainians are described as having strong spirit, but NATO soldiers lack endurance in the same way. Israeli mercenaries are described as capable in some contexts but not decisive against Russia. - On Gaza and the Israeli army, Alaudinov accuses Israel of “a fascist state” with tactics that spare no one, arguing Russia fights only those who fight with weapons and does not target women, children, or elders. He contrasts this with alleged Israeli actions in Gaza, saying Israel has no tactics and destroys civilians. - Nuclear considerations and doctrine - He asserts Russia is a nuclear power with substantial combat experience and advances in missiles like Zircon that could sink carriers, arguing NATO did not account for Russia’s capabilities when initiating the conflict. He presents a broader critique of Western policy and the so-called “deep state,” alleging far-reaching political dynamics involving Israel, Epstein, and compromise among Western leadership. - Closing perspective - The discussion closes with the host thanking Alaudinov for the detailed analysis of the operation and broader geopolitical commentary, including views on Israel, Gaza, Iran, and U.S. roles.

- Mitch testified that he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers, and he is taking a great personal risk in going public. - Fort Huachuca is described as the home to the only unmanned aircraft training center in the United States. The discussion connects Fort Huachuca to drone activity and to manned aircraft capable of releasing and retrieving drones, including the Bombardier Global 65,000 military jet with tail number N1098 Lima, which allegedly performed nine-eleven level maneuvers on the day Charlie Kirk was killed. - It is claimed that Fort Huachuca is also the military’s only site in the country that tests EMP blasts, electromagnetic pulse blasts that can disable telecommunications, and that these EMP blasts can be carried out by drones, such as the drone reported around UVU at the time Charlie Kirk was killed, where people on the ground said their cell phone service was disrupted. - The speaker suggests that, given Mitch’s information and previous discussions, the Fort Huachuca angle may be the explanation for what happened, implying that an EMP carried out by a drone from Fort Huachuca could be involved. - Lori Fransvi V is described as the founder of E3 Tech, a defense contractor that claims to produce EMP-proof technology for the military and that earns millions of dollars in government contracts. E3 Tech is said to be closely linked to Israel under the guise of allied defense contracting and cooperation. - It is stated that E3 Tech’s EMP-proof technology would have to pass through Fort Huachuca, making Fort Huachuca the lifeblood of E3 Tech’s work. - The narrative asserts a backstory about Erica Kirk’s mother, Lori Fransky, portraying her as a hardworking single mom who fought and clawed to get by, moving to Arizona because of her work. The speaker says, given what is now known, that Lori Fransky didn’t just have to be in Arizona for work, but had to be at Fort Huachuca, and that Erica also had to be there because of her mother’s defense contract. - It is claimed that Lori Fransby/Fransky’s parents are connected to Fort Huachuca as well: Kent Fransby with ties to Raytheon, Israel, LTD, and the Iron Dome, and involved in defense contracts with the same military base where Mitch says he saw Erica Kirk before Charlie Kirk’s assassination. - The overall assertion is that Fort Huachuca is central to Erica Kirk, to Ken Fransby, to Lori Fransby, and to Erica Kirk’s connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination.