reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker mentions hostages and suggests that they should not provide food to Arabs because they believe the world will support them.

If the Soviet Union and the PLO are removed, international terrorism would collapse. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects on the region. It is necessary to consider when to take out Iraq's regime. Iran and Libya are also nations to watch for nuclear weapons development. It is important for all to unite against Iran's aggression. Stand with Israel regardless of political affiliation. Translation: Removing the Soviet Union and the PLO would end international terrorism. Removing Saddam's regime would benefit the region. The focus should be on when to remove Iraq's regime. Iran, Iraq, and Libya are developing nuclear weapons. It is crucial to unite against Iran's aggression. Support Israel regardless of political beliefs.

The speaker argues that most U.S. interventions are driven by a power calculus rather than defense. “We view this as a power situation for The US” and it’s about “a perception of US power and US interest, and objectives of US global hegemony.” He contends that the Ukraine conflict is not simply about Putin invading Ukraine but “something a lot different that has to do with American power projection into the former Soviet Union.” If the United States acts as the police, he says, one cannot imagine how cynical “bullshit” is used to justify actions: “defending the people of Benghazi” is cited to bomb Libya and kill Muammar Gaddafi, with motives linked to Sarkozy’s dislike of Gaddafi and Hillary’s apparent appetite for bombing, while Obama was “convinced” by his secretary of state to back the NATO expedition. He argues the Libya operation had nothing to do with Libyans and “unleashed fifteen years of chaos,” cheating the UN Security Council because, like other actions, it was built on false pretenses. The same pattern, he claims, was used in attempts to overthrow Syria and in conspiring to overthrow Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014. The speaker maintains the problem is that “we’re not nice guys. We’re not trying to save the world. We’re not trying to make democracies.” He cites a committee of neocon luminaries, jokingly calling it “the Committee for the People of Chechnya,” to illustrate a strategy of weakening Russia by supporting a jihadist movement inside Russia—presented as a power game rather than principled intervention. He emphasizes that this is a game of power, not defense of real things. If one truly wanted to defend real objectives, he says, they should go to the UN Security Council and persuade others, because other countries are not crazy and do not want mayhem, whereas “we play games.” He concludes by reflecting on Iraq, stating it was “a game before we went in” and noting that “Powell could not move his lips without lying that day.” The implication is that, if the United States pursued its true interests, it would seek collective action through the UN Security Council, making it a collective security issue rather than unilateral action.

The speaker argues that migration is driven by actions that “destroy the entire regions” where migrants originate, destabilizing those areas so that migrants later arrive and can be used as “cheaper labor.” They claim that British imperialism and other foreign powers preyed on poor regions, leading people in those regions to want to come through Libya and then cross “the channel,” resulting in a “flood.” The speaker cites an “infamous conversation” between Muammar Gaddafi and Tony Blair. The speaker says Gaddafi told Blair that many people from poor regions would like to come through Libya, would come straight across the channel, and flood it. The speaker further claims Gaddafi warned that overthrowing his country would make things worse, and that, despite being warned, “they did it anyway.” The speaker interprets this as implying intent to create a flood of migrants, stating that the actors “knew it would happen, and they did it anyway.” The speaker concludes that people are “taught to be infuriated at the migrants” rather than at “the people who deliberately flooded the place with migrants.”

Israel is saying it will continue to stay in Lebanon, even though Speaker 0 says this is not part of the memorandum of understanding. Speaker 0 describes recent actions in southern Lebanon, saying Israel used a massive explosive to destroy a southern Lebanese town. Speaker 0 claims Israel is now saying there was a 200 meter long tunnel that “we had to blow it up,” and notes that this is described as one of the largest non-nuclear bombs used in modern history, with “astounding” images. Speaker 0 asks what the bomb could have been and what it indicates militarily. Speaker 1 responds that the device looks similar to the “mother of all bombs” (MOAB) and suspects it is a fueled air explosive, described as very powerful, possibly in a very large version. Speaker 1 says people online speculate it is a tactical nuclear weapon, but Speaker 1 states there is no evidence and says they lack access to data collection that could confirm radiation detection. Speaker 1 concludes that, from where they sit, it appears to involve a lot of fuel or explosive and is very devastating, while emphasizing a separate point about political messaging and troop morale. Speaker 1 says Benjamin Netanyahu is telling people, “we’re there, we’re staying, we’re not leaving,” and that listeners must listen to Netanyahu and believe him “from his vantage point.” Speaker 1 says Netanyahu spoke to a gathering of officers who had been fighting in southern Lebanon, encouraging them by telling them they had done great things and that they were “roaring ahead.” Speaker 1 says the officers’ reaction in the room was “very similar to Sersky,” describing heads down, no response, exhaustion, worn-out conditions, heavy losses, and doubt that Netanyahu would achieve what he said they would achieve. Speaker 1 also claims the war with Iran is not over, just as the war in Ukraine is not over, and predicts a shift in emphasis from the Persian Gulf region (the Gulf of Oman) toward Syria, Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon to do damage to Iran. Speaker 1 says the approach includes “going to the Kurds,” hoping they help against the Iranians, trying to enlist support of Islamist “murderers and killers” in Syria under the command of Mr. Erdogan, and “bribing him” to go along while he “murders Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs in Gaza.” Speaker 1 further claims the United States or its allies have “bribed and essentially bought the government of Lebanon,” which “effectively said we'll cede southern Lebanon to the Israelis.” Speaker 1 adds that northern Iraq and Syria are being watched for offensive action against the Iranians. Speaker 1 states the MOU “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on,” and says if Iran hasn’t figured that out, then they are not the “smart people.” Speaker 1 finishes by stating that, instead of responding to weekend attacks, Iran should have waited until Monday morning and “tanked the markets.”

De spreker stelt dat Boko Haram en ISIS proxy legers van de Verenigde Staten zijn. Hij beweert dat de VS Afghanistan binnenviel via in Pakistan opgeleide Moedjahedien, waarna Rusland te hulp werd gevraagd. Volgens de spreker hebben Hezbollah, het Palestijnse leger, Rusland en Iran Syrië en Irak bevrijd van ISIS. De VS houdt nu het oosten van Syrië bezet en steelt daar de olie, samen met Koerdische partners. Boko Haram, Al Qaida en ISIS zijn Amerikaanse proxy legers, met steun van Turkije en Israël in het conflict in Syrië. **Translation:** The speaker states that Boko Haram and ISIS are proxy armies of the United States. He claims that the US invaded Afghanistan via Mujahideen trained in Pakistan, after which Russia was asked for help. According to the speaker, Hezbollah, the Palestinian army, Russia and Iran liberated Syria and Iraq from ISIS. The US is now occupying eastern Syria and stealing oil there, together with Kurdish partners. Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and ISIS are American proxy armies, with support from Turkey and Israel in the conflict in Syria.

Speaker 0 asserts that removing the Soviet Union and its chief proxy, the PLO, would cause international terrorism to collapse. Speaker 1 argues for regime change as a strategic goal: removing Saddam’s regime would have enormous positive reverberations in the region, and there is interest in regime change in Iran as well. The question is not whether Iraq’s regime should be taken out, but when. It is not a question of whether to seek regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it. He also asks whether there are other nations the United States should consider launching preemptive attacks against, answering yes: Iraq and Iran are competing to be the first to acquire nuclear weapons, and Libya is also attempting to rapidly build an atomic bomb capability. He identifies three nations in focus: Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Speaker 2 emphasizes a unified front: they are together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror, and asserts that no matter one’s political stance, you stand with Israel.

Speaker 0: The speaker questions the pretexts for international interventions, starting with Yugoslavia. “В какой предлог? Что, санкции Совета безопасности, что ли? Где Югославия, где США? Уничтожили страну.” The speaker acknowledges internal conflict in Yugoslavia but asks who gave the right to strike the European capital, insisting, “Никто. Просто так решили,” with satellite powers following and cheering. They label this as “всё международное право.” Next, the speaker asks about the pretext for entering Iraq (referred to as “Рак”). They describe the action as “Разработка оружия массового уничтожения” used to invade, destroy the country, and create “очаг международного терроризма,” only to later claim that a mistake had been made. They recount the line: “нас разведка подвела. Ничего себе! Разрушили страну разведка подвела.” They say, “И всё объяснение,” arguing that “Оказывается, не было там никакого массового оружия поражения, никто не готовил.” They state, “Наоборот, когда-то было всё как положено уничтожили.” Finally, they ask about Syria: “А в Сирию как зашли? Что санкций Советой безопасности? Нет. Что хотят, то и делают.” The speaker contends that in Syria, as with the previous cases, the actions were taken without regard to UNSC sanctions, with force used to satisfy unspecified objectives. In summary, the speaker challenges the legitimacy of military interventions by citing Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Syria, highlighting claimed pretexts of weapons of mass destruction, UNSC sanctions, and the perceived disregard for international law, suggesting that decisions are made arbitrarily while authorities and precedents are cited as justification.

Speaker 0 says Western European populations support what he calls a “suicidal war on Russia through Ukraine” because elites in Zelensky’s Ukraine use corruption to maintain control over their population, rather than protecting countries from Russia or the Soviet Union. He adds that the elites aim to protect societies from becoming democratic. Speaker 1 agrees and frames the pattern as one where leaders who prioritize national interest are eliminated. He cites Libya as an example, saying Muammar Gaddafi cared about Libyans and Africans, but was assassinated for defying the central banking system and relying on gold with his own oil. He then says Venezuela today follows a similar pattern, where becoming nationalist and enriching one’s people leads to being killed or overthrown. Speaker 1 describes the mechanism as “Gladio networks” and intelligence agencies deploying operations against leaders. He recounts the Congo in the early 1960s after independence from Belgium, when Patrice Lumumba was elected prime minister. He says Lumumba approached the United States with a proposal to give the uranium that had been allocated to Belgium, but to use the portion going to Belgium to enrich Congolese people. He states that President Dwight D. Eisenhower would not meet with Lumumba and that Vice President Richard Nixon would not meet with him; Lumumba instead met with the secretary of state, who told him that he could not cut out Belgium and that Congo would receive the same arrangement as before, providing essentially nothing for building schools and hospitals. Speaker 1 says Lumumba then refused the deal, and that the Soviet Union would have been interested in uranium. Speaker 1 concludes that Lumumba was murdered by Operation Gladio elements controlled by Otto Skorzeny, described as Nazi, under Reinhard Gehlen’s German intelligence, the BND. He ends by saying that any prime minister or president who “stands up for their country” is targeted by an “international syndicate” seeking to control the world’s resources.

The speaker questions the belief that the Gulf States funded the Gulf War, stating that the US is still paying for it. They also criticize the support given to the Al Sabah clan in Kuwait, claiming that the land was stolen from Iraq by the British. The speaker alleges that the British have been stealing oil from Kuwait and funneling the profits to British banks. They further assert that the British are using similar tactics in South Africa to control natural resources like gold.

The speaker states they fight for the people whose ancestors developed the lands, building cities and factories for centuries. They assert their concern is for the people, not natural resources that someone in the United States wants to keep. The speaker claims this unnamed party wants Ukrainians to be servants sitting on these natural resources.

The speaker describes undertaking a “stopover” which they characterize as an excursion in Iran, explaining that they had to “knock the hell out of them” because, in their view, the United States’ safety—and by extension the world’s safety—depended on it. They assert that this action was necessary to keep the country safe and to protect global security, framing it as an essential contribution that benefited the world. The narrator asserts that the world has not reciprocated this effort. They claim to have done a “great favor for the world,” and contrast that with a lack of reciprocity from others. A key part of their message centers on NATO, saying that the United States has given “billions and billions of dollars, trillions over the years.” In that context, they say they asked NATO for assistance, specifically for support with the streets, but contended that NATO did not want to get involved. The speaker implies that NATO’s reluctance to assist will have serious consequences, stating that this lack of involvement will “cost them dearly.” The remarks suggest a belief that the failure of others to participate or contribute will have notable negative repercussions for those parties in the future. The address closes with expressions of appreciation, with the speaker thanking everyone: “Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.” The overall message emphasizes a narrative of decisive action taken by the United States, a claim of asymmetrical reciprocity from international partners, and an expectation of consequences for those partners who chose not to assist.

The speaker emphasizes that countries receiving oil through the Hormone Strait must take responsibility for guarding and cherishing the passage, and that they should lead in protecting the oil they depend on, with external help available but the primary obligation on them. For nations unable to obtain fuel or those who refuse involvement in the decapitation of Iran, the speaker asserts that the speaker’s side had to act themselves. A concrete suggestion is offered in two points: 1) Buy oil from The United States Of America, which the speaker claims has plenty. 2) Build up some delayed courage—“Should have done it before. Should have done it with us as we asked.” Then go to the straight, take it, protect it, and use it for themselves. The speaker asserts that Iran has been essentially decimated and that the hard part of the conflict is done, implying it should be easy to proceed. They claim that once the conflict ends, the Strait will open up naturally. The rationale given is that those who rely on the Strait will want to sell oil to rebuild, and, as a result, oil flow will resume. Regarding economic indicators, the speaker notes that gas prices will rapidly come back down and stock prices will rapidly go back up. They remark that prices have not fallen very much, though they acknowledge some days have been favorable in the recent period.

The speaker stated, “How about we’re buying oil from Venezuela? When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over. We would have gotten all that oil. It would have been right next door.” The claim centers on the idea that external action could have enabled acquiring Venezuelan oil by seizing control as the country was described as near collapse.

- The speakers present a conspiratorial framing of Libya’s recent history and its global repercussions. They assert, “It’s a Chinese colony at this point,” implying foreign influence over Libya and its trajectory. - They claim that “the West and Hillary blows up Gaddafi,” arguing that those who were aligned with the West retaliated against Muammar Gaddafi. They further state that Gaddafi had “invested everything with the West, came and apologized,” and describe NATO as “the defensive alliance” that “went and just murdered Gaddafi for no reason.” - Gaddafi is portrayed in softened, almost heroic terms: “One’s Gaddafi, you know, the crazy colonel,” but the speakers emphasize that “the point was he was for the people.” They describe him as “a statesman,” noting that “he literally lived in a tent.” - The economic and infrastructural claims are central to their narrative: they say “98% of the state money coming in and oil went to not just his people, Africa,” and that he was “building real infrastructure” with a “whole plan to link up” with Africa. They imply that his policies would have connected Africa regionally rather than remaining separate from the rest of the continent. - They allege that the killing of Gaddafi was part of a broader, destabilizing plan: “they came and killed him,” and as a result, “now all of Africa’s collapsing because they blew up the South Point and the North Point.” They attribute these upheavals to “the globalist deliberately blow[ing] that up for destabilization.” - The discussion turns to population movements: they claim that “the population will be moved here and to Europe as it already is being in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, of course.” The speaker asserts personal certainty about this trend: “I know I see it so, so clearly.”

The speaker dismisses Western predictions of Russia's collapse, citing historical invasions that failed. Ukraine is described as a Western tool and a future source of terrorism due to its use as a "laundering machine." The speaker accuses the British Secret Service of orchestrating attacks on Russian strategic bombers and warns that further aggression could lead to Russia demolishing Britain with nuclear strikes. Russia possesses the capacity to damage Western interests globally through asymmetrical responses, but refrains due to moral principles. The speaker denies Russian involvement in attacks like the Skripal poisoning, questioning the British narrative. African countries are increasingly partnering with Russia and China due to Western exploitation, with Russia offering security and lacking a colonial past. The U.S. failure against the Houthis reflects a misunderstanding of modern warfare. The speaker believes globalists are a "Satanist cult" aiming to reduce the world population and are experimenting with societal destruction in the West through deindustrialization, "sex revolution," and promotion of LGBT ideologies to destroy the family unit. The Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan is framed as a U.S. failure that enriched individuals and enabled drug trafficking.

Speaker 0 claims Vladimir Putin hosted the world communist youth meeting in Sochi on the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, and that this year they “give aid to every communist country on earth.” Speaker 0 also claims Russian forces re-erect statues of Lenin in occupied Ukraine, and re-erect the statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky in his old spot in front of the SVR on his birthday, September 11th (last year). Speaker 0 further claims they reestablished the Soviet SMERSH. Speaker 0 says Russia is aligned with communist North Korea, receiving arms and reportedly troops; aligned with communist China, also receiving arms and troops; aligned with communist Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega, stationing military 1,000 miles from Florida; and aligned with socialist Venezuela. Speaker 0 also claims alignment with the communist South African ANC as a front for the Communist Party, and alignment with Marxist revolutionaries in Niger-Ku. Speaker 0 cites Russian paper Nzadesimaya Gazeta, stating it reported that the Russian government is beginning a program of “re-Sovietization” on December 19th, 2023. Speaker 0 adds that Putin states he never burned his party card, he likes socialist ideas, and Marxism is “just like Christianity.” Speaker 1 says there have been “very tough years,” including priests and temples destroyed, but that they “created a new religion,” and that communist ideology is very similar. Speaker 1 adds that they “recently erected a statue to communist Castro in Moscow.” Speaker 0 adds that they are “aligned with Yemen.” Speaker 0 cites KGB officer Nikolai Leonov’s office in 1975, saying it called for establishing a Soviet foothold in the Arabian Peninsula, described as the most Marxist country in the region, South Yemen. Speaker 0 claims they “clearly” did not understand perestroika, and that the Communist Bloc is stronger now than it was during the Cold War. Speaker 0 concludes that the “final war between the East and West is now inevitable” and that the West needs to prepare for Lenin.

The speaker claims: "we overthrew, Iraq with military force coming in from across the globe to overthrow Iraq." "We have gone in, and we have overthrown, Ukraine, with military force from the other side of the globe." "and, we we were the source of both of these conflicts, and it's very unfortunate because the American people are not are not like this." "It's just it's the foreign policy establishment." "Zelensky is a is a puppet." "He does what he is told, when he is told, and they you know, the the people who control him decided that if they put him in a green T shirt, he would look like a hero, so they they had him wear a green T shirt." "This is a fellow who is a comedy actor." "He is a creation of the media out of whole cloth." "He he really didn't exist as as anything until the media created an image of him, very much like a like a play actor."

Speaker 0 explains that once goals are achieved, Americans understand that “we’re real partners.” Speaker 1 reinforces: “Real partners.” Speaker 0 contends that what has to be done is to have alternative routes instead of going through the choke points of the Hormuz Straits and the Bab El Mandeb Straits in order to have the flow. Speaker 1 prompts: “Wait for it.” Speaker 0 continues: “Just have oil pipelines going west to through the Arabian Peninsula To where? Right up to Israel, right up to our Mediterranean. There” Speaker 1 interjects: “you have it.” Speaker 0 asserts that the real objective of all of this was to intentionally—“they knew that starting a war with Iran would cause a shutdown of both the Bab El Mamdab Straits, which is what the Houthis can affect in the Red Sea, and then the Strait Of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively shut down.” He states that they knew that would happen because their long-term goal has always been to force the Muslim countries in the Arab states, the Gulf Arab states, to route all of their oil exports through Israel. Speaker 1 adds: “Therefore, Israel can now control up to 40% of the world's petroleum. And that amount of control would absolutely make them a superpower, and that's exactly what they want.” Speaker 0 goes on to say that if Iran falls, it’s not going to be Turkey next; it’s going to be Egypt because they have to take back the Suez Canal. He notes that Egypt had control during the Arab-Israeli war for a brief time, but the UN forced them to give it back to Egypt. He emphasizes that they have always wanted that back. Speaker 1 contributes: “Because if they can control the Suez Canal and take that away from Egypt and they can force all the Gulf states to run all their oil through Israel. Israel controls the world, and that's their ultimate objective. That's the objective of this war.”

The speaker reveals a surprising reason why America, the UK, and France support Israel. Contrary to popular belief, it's not about oil but rather the Suez Canal. Egypt currently owns the canal and earns $9 billion annually from it. The Americans, British, French, and Israelis want a share of this profit. To achieve this, they plan to build the Ben Gurion Canal by nuking a rocky area in the Middle East. This new canal would allow two ships to pass simultaneously, unlike the current Suez Canal. It would empty into the Mediterranean at the northern point of Gaza, resulting in the displacement of Palestinians to the south.

The speaker discusses the need to stop prolonging the war and find a way to de-escalate the conflict without relying on weapons. They believe it is important to engage in dialogue with America, as they believe America is trying to extend the war and benefit from it economically. The speaker mentions that America wants to maintain its status as a superpower and prevent China and Russia from becoming stronger. They argue that the business dealings with Russia in the past have strengthened both Russia and Germany, but now Europe is being economically weakened. The speaker concludes by stating that America is undoubtedly the superpower in this situation.

"This discussion will teach you everything you need to know about US foreign policy over the last seven decades and how we got to where we are today, how we got to a war in Ukraine, an ongoing war in Gaza, The US bombing Iran, a war in Lebanon, and in the last two decades, a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and just death and destruction across The Middle East." "They were allied with The US against Iran. That includes Al Qaeda." "The defense planning guidance for 1994" ended up being known as the Wolfowitz doctrine: "America will not allow for any power or combination of regional powers anywhere in the world to challenge our military dominance over the planet, and we'll go to war with them first to prevent that from happening." "The purpose of NATO is to keep America in, Germany down, and the Soviets out." Rand Corporation’s "Extending Russia" study warned about "calibration of the amount of weapons that we're pouring in," and CIA officers said "the calibration is off." "Minsk one and Minsk two"; "the Americans in Kyiv refused to implement the thing." "Al Qaeda, nine eleven, the probably America's worst enemy now in our generation, was allied with The US." "Bases in Saudi from which to bomb and blockade Iraq." "Saddam Hussein… ally to The US against Iran." "Iran, even after the revolution, was not an ally of Israel, but Israel was supplying weapons to Iran after the revolution, and that was through The US."

The speaker discusses potential conflicts in Ukraine, Crimea, the Caucasus, and NATO's involvement. They criticize the West for instigating wars and claim that NATO's main goal is war with Russia. The speaker portrays the West as a decaying continent that thrives at the expense of the rest of the world, sending troops to the East while enjoying luxury. They argue that Western countries initiate wars and then talk about democracy.

The so-called golden billion have lived off other peoples for 500 years, exploiting Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The common people in those countries feel what's happening and see the speaker's struggle for independence and true sovereignty. This connects with their aspirations to be truly independent. The West has a strong desire to freeze the current unfair state of things in international affairs. For centuries, they've been stuffing their stomachs with human flesh and their pockets with money, but this ball of vampires is about to end.

The speaker says people are confused and upset because they feel U.S. foreign policy is “stalemated,” with conflicts becoming broader and harder, and explains this is happening because, in their view, “what the American people want is victory.” They argue there is a “bizarre notion” in foreign policy that Americans are deeply worried about the immediate cost of war to the enemy and that Americans cannot handle the “ugliness of war,” requiring conflicts to be “totally antiseptic.” They clarify they are not describing American willingness to endure casualties: “No one in America wants American casualties,” which they call a “tragedy and a horror.” However, they say Americans understand war involves casualties and are willing to undergo them in pursuit of an end and “a victory for America.” They also reject the idea that Americans would avoid striking specific targets—citing the example that America “can’t hit Kharg Island” because Iranian people would be deprived of oil resources—saying the American people are “not particularly concerned about that.” Instead, the speaker claims Americans are more concerned with “why we’re there, not winning.” They propose an approach of “An eye for everything”: if “you touch a ship in the Strait of Hormuz,” then the response would be to kill the head of the IRGC, kill “Khalibov,” and kill the “entire leadership class.” They add that this would include destroying “South Pars” and destroying “Kharg,” stating “One drone, and that’s what happens.” They conclude that this is “the way you win,” both “in the middle” and generally.