reSee.it - Related Video Feed

It is suggested that a small group was involved in something "off the charts bad." The speaker hopes someone like Whitney Webb will one day explain exactly how it was formulated, what they were doing, and how they were getting information out of people. The speaker believes that those involved have to age out and die before the truth comes out, using the JFK assassination as an example of a truth that remains hidden.

Speaker 0 from New Hampshire discusses the internal war happening in our country between two factions. They mention that shots have been fired and the situation is escalating. They advise everyone to be aware and change their mindset. Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of situational awareness and being cautious with the information available. They mention that police have entered the Vatican and there is anticipation for a significant arrest that will shock the world. Speaker 1 agrees and adds that it will be biblical. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 wondering if the pope has been arrested.

This subterranean war has been ongoing for about 70 years, with the good guys, often associated with the White House, countering the globalists. When the full truth emerges, the world, especially Australia, will owe a tremendous debt to the United States for their sacrifices. Arrests have already begun in Australia, and significant revelations are expected in the coming months, including the exposure of prominent figures like the Clintons. It's crucial to recognize the ongoing progress, even if it seems slow. Good men are working hard for the planet's benefit, and while we desire immediate results, this is a complex and extensive task.

Speaker 0 argues that we are in a SIOP (psychological operation) right now, describing it as a “big time SIOP.” They believe “the powers that be” are trying to speed up a timeline that was designed to unfold over another sixty, seventy years because they “don’t have that time to be around for.” They suggest that either this is a deliberate acceleration or that the masters no longer “care” about being seen. The speaker notes that there is always a “they,” and acknowledges there are people “the powers that be” who have “been there a while.” The speaker identifies as someone who teaches SIOPs and asserts, “I’m the guy that teaches SIOPs,” then repeats, “we are in a SIOP. 1000% we are in a big time SIOP.” They clarify this assertion does not come with x-ray vision or knowledge of “puppet masters,” but they emphasize that they research the techniques involved and believe they are “definitely here.” The speaker contends that a similar process has occurred globally, in which psyops were sped up and were not allowed to mature before the next phase began. They acknowledge that some listeners may dismiss these claims as bonkers or crazy, noting that the phenomena appear “in your face” and come from multiple directions—“the left, from the right, from everywhere.” They insist, however, that this cross-cutting exposure is not about political alignment; “it has nothing to do with left or right,” adding that this realization is itself a separate topic of discussion. A central claim is that a timeline is being accelerated, with developments happening “more and more in the open.” The speaker suggests there is likely “not time for the previous step to make sure to get our minds ready to receive the next one.” In sum, the transcript presents a perspective that the current period exemplifies a deliberate, accelerated, and increasingly overt psyop landscape, driven by powerful actors who may be acting with urgency or impunity, and that this acceleration mirrors patterns observed in other parts of the world.

Speaker 0 states that “this right here was always the plan from day zero, and they just told us,” signaling that the plan has been in motion from the beginning and that the participants were informed about it. Speaker 1 asks the group to explain the plan in detail: how much it will cost, where the money will come from, and who will reward the contracts. The question centers on funding sources, cost, and accountability for contracts. Speaker 2 responds by saying the money-raising part is “the easy part,” but emphasizes that the real focus is the master plan. They say they are working with a group of people who have been developing master plans for two years, implying a long preexisting framework behind the project. They assert that “we have plans already. We have a master plan already,” and mention that Jared has been pushing this and that they are working together on it. They claim that if the world saw the progress so far, they would be impressed. Speaker 0 interjects with a clarification question about the two-year timeline, noting a perceived gap in the explanation and pressing for details on what was being done during that period. Speaker 3 explains the timing more specifically: the material was filmed before October 7 and released later, indicating that the planning had been underway prior to that date. They suggest that this means “they were working on the plans before October 7.” Speaker 0 adds, “So that means that everything else was a script that they already wanted to implement the whole time,” implying that prior material or discourse could have been designed to align with the planned actions. Speaker 3 references Charlie Kirk and asks, “Was there a stand down order?” This raises a question about whether a directive to halt actions existed. Speaker 0 questions the existence of a stand-down order, asserting that “Israel’s the side of new size New Jersey,” then shares a personal observation from a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Gaza border, noting the distance as forty-five minutes, and mentions that “Six hours. They’re live streaming the killing of Jews.” They pose the question of whether someone in the government ordered a stand-down. Speaker 3 notes that “the sixty minute episode aired on October 19,” and that the material “was filmed immediately after October 7.” They add that the filming occurred “days after the Israel cease fire deal completion, October 10.” Speaker 0 reiterates the sequence by summarizing that the events were filmed immediately after October 7 and occurred in the days following the cease-fire agreement on October 10.

Emails have surfaced between Jack Smith and Merrick Garland, where it turns out they were planning trials like Stalin ran or the Maxi trials in Italy where they tried 250 mafia figures together. They're gonna try a thousand of us altogether in a stadium on camera and send us off to be liquidated. It was crazy what they had. And the emails, they were already planning it. They had no expectation of losing this last November. They found this in the bag. On the bright side, what I found is that it's very easy to figure out what they did because whatever they're accusing you of doing, that's what they were actually working on. That's how they became experts on all of it. So it really makes it easy to put together their rap sheets in that context. Leticia James is just one blaring example of that mindset here. So where do you think this is all headed right now then? So, how do you think it's gonna roll out? And who's domino number three? I think that we are have to I've I'm an outsider. I don't know any more than the next monkey, but what I would do is we have to, at a geopolitical level, mission one and two have to overthrow the governments of Venezuela and Cuba. None of them can survive. This was an act of war that was successful. They overthrew our republic. This was successful. It's a freaking miracle. We were never supposed to get out from under that. They cannot survive. This was a six act of war that eliminated our country. So that's and domestic have to, this all has to be exposed. We've got to this all has to be exposed. And all the parts of society, we need to have almost like a truth and reconciliation where a lot of people who took part in what was basically a Bolshevik revolution have to be exposed. And there there are people you know, there's a 120 federal officers from the CIA and the FBI who went out to Stanford, joined the Stanford Internet Observatory, and took part in a mass censorship industrial complex against the American people. In which case all kinds of medical information was suppressed, which got people killed as well as they supported this political coup. I don't think it's a coincidence that that happened just when it did. And they suppressed any information about the elections. Those people took part in a coup. The professors who took part in it, in a way with pleading, we're just idiotic professors who read too many Herbert Marcuse underlined it too. The people who swore an oath to the constitution at some point in their life and took part in that, I believe should be hung from the Golden Gate in full daylight, left to sunset, and then their bodies disposed at sea so that American soil isn't polluted by the corpse corpses of people who took part in such a program. That was the overthrow of The United States Of America, and there were people who swore an oath to the constitution who took part in it. And that's what really should If I were the president, probably, I would let all that machinery grind on. And at the last moment, I'd probably sign and send them to some island in Hawaii for five years and say, everyone just cool this hell off. We're all just gonna cool off. You guys betrayed the country by all rights. You should be hung. But what we're gonna do is send you this we're gonna take over some resort in Oahu at the tip of wire. We'll just send you there for, like, five years. Everybody shut up. Stay off social media. Be nicer? The Point Barrel, Alaska, I was thinking would be a little bit more appropriate, but that's alright. I mean on top of Island 2. Aleutian Island. Yeah. And just say we don't wanna hear from you for five years. You're gonna be well fed, take care of. Your tennis game's gonna be great. It's not gonna be, you know, it's gonna be prison cells. You can live like a college dorm. But, literally, the US should send them off for, like, four or five years just and not hear from them. They overthrew our country. And that's probably what really should I think should that or some kind of peace and reconciliation, but everything has to be exposed. Think of all the institutions from all these things that they used to throw in our face become our weapons. The idea that 60 judges looked at this and didn't see anything becomes our point, not their point. How corrupt is the system? Now once it's all proven and exposed to them, how corrupt is the system? 60 judges looked at this and saw nothing. That's how corrupt and weak and ineffective the system is. So all these points become points in our favor.

The speaker reports aggressive military actions and ongoing negotiations with Iran. They state that they have “destroyed a lot of additional targets today” and that “the navy's gone” and “the air force is gone,” while noting that “we know that” and that they “destroyed many, many targets today” in what was “a big day.” Negotiations are described as both direct and indirect, with emissaries involved as well as direct dealings. On the diplomatic side, the speaker says Iran “agreed to send eight votes two days ago, and then they added another two, so it was 10 votes,” and that “today, they gave us as a tribute I don't know. Can't define it exactly, but they gave us, I think out of a sign of respect, 20 boats of oil.” These vessels would be moving “through the Hormoz Strait” and would begin “starting tomorrow morning over the next couple of days.” The speaker claims to be “doing extremely well in that negotiation,” while acknowledging uncertainty in dealings with Iran: “you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them and then we always have to blow them up.” Historical references are cited to explain current posture: the “b two bombers” and the termination of the “Iran nuclear deal done by Barack Hussein Obama, probably the worst deal we've ever done as a country, of the dumbest deals we've ever done.” The speaker asserts that the deal was terminated, otherwise “right now, they'd have a nuclear weapon,” and that an attack with the B-2 bombers was used to stop them from having nuclear capability. The speaker suggests a possible future deal with Iran but notes it is not certain: “I think we'll make a deal with them. Pretty sure. But it's possible we won't.” Regarding regime change, the speaker asserts that “we've had regime change, if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed. They're all dead.” The “next regime is mostly dead,” and the “third regime” involves “a whole different group of people” than any before. The speaker contends that this constitutes regime change and characterizes the first regime as “really bad, really evil,” which is claimed to be “done.” The second regime is described as “appointed, and they're gone.” The third group is described as “much more reasonable,” leading the speaker to say that regime change appears to be achieved and may be automatic.

In this conversation, the speakers discuss a high-profile operation centered on Maduro’s kidnapping, its implications, and broader geopolitical consequences. - The operation to capture Maduro is described as not a regime change but an action intended to “hold off Maduro, get US control of the oil, and get China and Russia and Iran out.” A senior Venezuelan security official is identified as a full cooperator with the United States, allowing US forces to enter “the front door” with minimal resistance and no return fire. The plan reportedly involved a coordinated assault with Venezuelan forces, and while several air defenses were destroyed or not activated, most were not deployed due to a stand-down order. The operation did not replace the Venezuelan government; Maduro remained in power, at least for the moment. - For context on the execution, Speaker 1, who has experience scripting Delta Force and SEAL Team Six exercises, notes the mission took place in full moonlight (unusual for planned clandestine night operations). He claims the Venezuelan air defenses were substantial but largely avoided activation because of the stand-down order, enabling a seamless entry for US forces. He compares this to a counterterrorism exercise in the US years earlier—staged surveillance and pre-positioned access that eliminated obstacles in advance. - Casualties and aftermath are uncertain. There are conflicting reports on casualties among Cubans and Venezuelans, with no clear names or numbers yet confirmed. The operation involved collaboration with Venezuelan forces and did not topple the Maduro regime. - On the motive and internal dynamics, Speaker 1 suggests multiple potential actors within Maduro’s circle could have incentives to cooperate with the US, possibly including financial or visa-based incentives. The possibility of infiltrators within intelligence, military, or police is raised. The role of a specific senior official who allegedly ordered a stand-down is mentioned, though not named. - Questions about the rocket attack on a US chopper are raised, with speculation that it might have been a lone actor or a malfunction rather than a deliberate act by a large organized force. - The discussion turns to the interim president Delcy Rodríguez. While theories exist that she cooperated with the US, Speaker 1 says that the theory of her involvement is likely a cover story designed to divert attention from those actually involved. - The broader geopolitical frame emphasizes that this is not about regime change in Venezuela, but about oil access and limiting adversaries. The conversation suggests a recurring US strategy: remove Maduro, gain oil leverage, and push rivals like China, Russia, and Iran out of influence. The hypothesis includes using economic and political pressure and, if necessary, military options, while acknowledging the risk of drawing wider regional opposition and potential escalation. - The discussion then broadens to the US role in the multipolar order. The speakers debate whether the world is tilting toward a multipolar system or a reinforced US unipolar order. They agree that the reality is mixed: Russia and China are building a new international order with India and Brazil, while US actions—such as threats against Venezuela, arms packages to Taiwan, and support for Ukraine—signal both erosion of hegemony and attempts to sustain influence. - The Monroe Doctrine is critiqued. The speakers contend that the so-called Dunro Doctrine (a term they use to describe perceived US interference) misreads the historical framework. They argue that the Monroe Doctrine was never a proclamation of exclusive US dominance in the Western Hemisphere; instead, the US has historically faced resistance as other powers gain influence. - Iran and the Middle East are discussed at length. The twelve-day war (in reference to Iran’s confrontation with Israel) is described as not severely weakening Iran militarily, though it has economic and political strains. Iran’s allies (Russia, China) have become more engaged since sanctions relief began in September, and Iran has pursued stronger economic ties with both Russia and China, including a potential North–South Corridor. Iran reportedly rejected a mutual defense treaty with Russia initially but later pursued stronger cooperation after the conflict. Iran’s leadership is described as consolidating power and preparing for potential future conflicts, while the protests inside Iran are depicted as largely manufactured or at least amplified by Western intelligence networks, though there is genuine internal discontent over currency and economic conditions. - The panelists debate whether the US could or would attempt another targeted strike on Iranian leadership. They argue that the US would face greater risk and likely casualties if attempting a similar operation without a compatible insider network, making a repeat Maduro-like capture unlikely. - Final reflections acknowledge that the US’s global influence is eroding, but the US remains deeply involved in global affairs. The discussion ends with a cautionary stance toward US hegemonic assumptions and recognition of a rising multipolar framework in which China, Russia, and allied states exert greater influence in Latin America, the Middle East, and beyond.

Speaker 0 describes the situation as not a lone incident but an intentional design to start an internal component of what he calls a color revolution, one among many to expect. Speaker 1 asks for clarification on what is meant by a color revolution, who is driving it against the United States, and who is in charge. Speaker 0 replies that a hard look back to 2016 under Obama is necessary and believes Obama is still in the mix, with John Brennan as the operational commander on the battlefield in the United States. He says there are indicators from Brennan’s statements and actions, and that Obama is part of the command structure. He mentions an international component he calls the axis of resistance, consisting of communists emanating from the CCP’s control and communists inside the United States, arguing that there are communists in Congress who voted in 1992 not to vote against socialism. He adds Islamists, narco cartels, and terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, and the Cartel del Sol as part of this axis, with people at the “pincer” of it organizing and controlling the activities. He asserts the color revolutions in Ukraine as an example and claims the war there is a “total loser war” that must end. He says Trump must tell his team to ensure executive orders are implemented at all levels and emphasizes the phrase, “lawyers advise, leaders decide,” urging President Trump to gather all relevant agencies (CIA, DNI, Sec War, Sec State, Sec Commerce, and especially the Secretary of Homeland Security) and make a decision. He states that the color revolution is a long-term effort that accelerated after Trump’s 2016 victory, with ongoing actions described as economic warfare, cyber warfare, and political interference. He cites the New Virginia Majority, a communist movement inside the United States aiming to place communists in local government and school boards, and mentions contrived cultural shifts including Islamification in various parts of the country, including Florida, Dearborn, and Houston. He asserts Islam is not compatible with Christianity and Sharia law is not compatible with constitutional law. Speaker 1 agrees there were people who served their country; she supports removing those who served but opposes letting any of them into the United States, emphasizing a different culture. Speaker 2 agrees. Speaker 1 notes the large Muslim population spread across many regions, suggesting others could have taken Afghan refugees, but questions the appropriateness of bringing them in. Speaker 2 states it is not surprising that a CIA-trained individual who previously appeared untroubled could appear in Washington, D.C. to shoot at troops, and explains a broader pattern: old-school descendants became part of a strike force, loyal at one time but funded and equipped by the U.S., who were later abandoned during the Obama–Biden period. He describes withdrawal from bases and overnight equipment removal, followed by a lack of transition to self-sufficiency, leading to brought-in desperate fighters who may be paid to kill National Guard members. He asserts these events demonstrate a deep state pattern involving Biden, Obama, and Brennan.

Speaker 0 outlines a four-stage model of subversion arranged along a timeline: demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization. - Demoralization: This stage takes roughly fifteen to twenty years, enough to educate one generation. It features tendencies in society moving away from core moral values. The aim is to exploit these movements by the originator of subversion. Areas targeted include religion, education, social life, power structure, labor relations, and law and order. - Religion: destroy or ridicule established faiths, replace with fake organizations, erode the basic religious dogma that connects people with the supreme being. - Education: divert learning away from constructive subjects (mathematics, physics, languages, chemistry) toward topics like history of urban warfare, natural foods, home economics, sexuality, or other diversions. - Social life: replace traditional institutions with fake organizations; remove initiative and responsibility from natural social links, substituting bureaucratically controlled bodies; social workers are described as primarily motivated by paychecks rather than genuine social concern. - Power structure: replace legitimate, elected or appointed bodies with artificial, unelected groups; the media is highlighted as a key example. - Law and order: erosion of the enforcement of law, with media described as undermining trust in those who protect society. - Bureaucracy and media: a trend toward mediocrity and dependence on established establishments; the media is portrayed as having monopolistic power to shape public opinion. - The media and the state of power: The media are described as having enormous influence and being elected by no one, with a claim that they can “rape your mind.” A speaker’s aside notes a historical critique of media elites as mediocrity. - Sleeperness: The concept of sleepers is introduced: students sent abroad who sleep for fifteen to twenty years and then re-enter as leaders of groups, precipitating clashes between their groups and ordinary people, thereby destabilizing society. - Destabilization: The next stage narrows to economy, labor relations, law and order, and the military, with the media still playing a role. Key processes include radicalization and militarization of social relations, with public clashes (e.g., between passengers and strikers) becoming normalized. Compromise becomes nearly impossible, and traditional relations between teachers and students, workers and employers, deteriorate. The media positions itself in opposition to society, creating alienation. - Crisis: Destabilization leads to crisis when society can no longer function productively. The population seeks a savior, who presents a strong, centralized government, potentially socialist. - Normalization: The final stage stabilizes the country by force. Eliminations follow, removing those deemed disruptive (sleepers, activists, liberals, academics, etc.). The rulers aim for stability to exploit the country. It’s described as a reversal of destabilization. - Aftermath question/answer: Speaker 1 asks if those eliminated serve any purpose; Speaker 2 responds that leftists, professors, civil rights defenders are instrumental during destabilization, but once their job is done, they are no longer needed and may be eliminated. The closing line from Speaker 0 summarizes: “The first one demoralized country, the second destabilized, the third one brought it to crisis. Goodbye, comrade.”

Speaker 0 describes concerns from June 2005 that Israel wasn’t preparing to attack Iran anytime soon, and that there was hurry to roll out a sequence of events as planned. The sequence described starts with Israel attacking Iran, with retaliation by either Iran or China after Iran is struck with a nuclear weapon. This leads to a limited nuclear exchange in the Middle East, followed by a ceasefire. He heard this being planned in the meeting and says it is being choreographed, “like the script for a movie.” In this rollout of the scenario, as the world looks on with horror, people will demand from their governments heavy controls over travel, over communication, over people who meet, and over people who protest in the streets. They want to prevent crazy bombers in airplanes and in shopping malls. Because people will be driven into fear, they will request, demand, and insist on heavy controls from their governments, which will be justified. This is where the martial law situation in Western countries is intended to come about. The speaker emphasizes that this is just the start of a much bigger and pretty horrifying story.

Speaker 0 emphasizes a mission to crush violent crime and defend the nation “twenty four seven, three six five” from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, extending extraterritorially to the furthest reaches of the planet to deliver the justice voters elected. Speaker 1 describes the situation as “the largest Rico case in history,” with everything being done by the book, including the law of war manual. They state that corrupt people in the United States are not the only targets and that the Caval’s network is worldwide. They announce they are in the exposure phase, aiming to show everything to the people so patriots can clean house. They caution that progress will not be immediate and that the process must unfold to ensure there are no technicalities, loopholes, or payoffs. They claim Trump has had nine years to identify the patriots and select his team, and that although one may not see background events, actions are ongoing. Speaker 2 notes that the wheels of justice turn slowly, despite a personal sense of urgency, acknowledging that fraud has occurred and wondering why arrests have not yet happened. They invoke the proverb that “the wheels of justice turn slowly but surely,” and issue a warning: “You can run, but you cannot hide. Justice is coming.” Speaker 3 discusses moving parts coming together to save the public, praising President Trump and his aides for using executive authority, and asserting that a clear field is needed to proceed this year. They express strong alignment with Freedom Caucus–level conservatives and say everything is moving forward according to plan, claiming that obstacles have been overcome and a “new deal” is rolling out. They promise to keep the public updated and assert that the country is on the verge of “beautiful growth and prosperity,” urging Americans to hang in there. They express dedication to serving the people, stating that people should not fear their governments, but that governments should be afraid of their people. Speaker 0 closes with a rallying note that the American populace is facing an unconventional warfare scenario, specifically information warfare, underscoring the strategic shift to information-based operations.

There is a hidden enemy, a vast transgenerational criminal mafia that has corrupted our world. They have infiltrated the highest levels of power, controlling the media, banking system, and governments. They have caused poverty, division, and war, all for personal gain. But there is hope. Good people in positions of power are working to expose and eradicate this criminal cabal. They are using the internet and the NSA to gather evidence and plan a takedown. The battle is ongoing, but the good guys are winning. High-profile arrests are coming, and the criminals will be held accountable. It's time to wake up, unite, and reclaim our freedom. The best is yet to come.

The speaker acknowledges the frustration and anger felt by many people over the past four years. They discuss the destruction caused by unlawful government actions, the trampling of freedoms, and the decimation of health and lives. However, they argue that the war for the world was fought in the best and only way possible. They express gratitude to the White Hats and the Digital Army for their sacrifices. The speaker then shares stories about the Battle for the Atlantic and the importance of operational security. They emphasize the need to understand the complexity of the situation and the progress being made. They also mention recent arrests and the exposure of truths like PizzaGate. The speaker acknowledges that a period of national mourning may be ahead and encourages listeners to stay strong. They conclude by stating that the Black Hats are desperate and losing.

The events of January 6th were not spontaneous; planning began in September involving deep state members and various NGOs. We have identified those involved, and if you're on that list, you should consider leaving the country, as prosecution is likely. We have video evidence of meetings, including one with an infiltrator who recorded them. The planning included participation from groups like the Azov battalion in Ukraine, which is linked to Nazi ideologies. This group is not just labeled as Neo-Nazis; they represent a continuation of Hitler's legacy, marking a troubling resurgence of extremist ideologies.

Speaker 0: Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss the events of a fateful day. Speaker 1 expresses concern about the lack of public fear and urges action. Speaker 0 emphasizes the need for justice and accountability, regardless of the protesters' motives. They agree to frame the protesters and take strict measures, including a shoot-to-kill order. The video suggests that political power brokers are manipulating the narrative to protect their interests, raising questions about the extent they will go to safeguard themselves.

The speaker discusses the existence of a global cabal of criminals who have been corrupting the world and causing poverty, division, and crime. These criminals have infiltrated various sectors, including politics, media, and banking, and have amassed wealth and power. However, there are still good people in positions of power who have devised a plan to expose and arrest these criminals. The speaker mentions the role of the NSA in gathering information to expose the cabal's crimes. The speaker also mentions the emergence of Q, an online movement that aims to disseminate intelligence and inform the public about the ongoing covert war between the forces of good and evil. The speaker concludes by stating that the criminals will be punished and a new future awaits.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

Speaker 0 presents the argument that what is unfolding in the United States is a color revolution, described as a communist globalist playbook to take over a country without tanks, previously used in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and others. The speaker outlines the four-step manual: 1) demonize the leader of the people who were voted for; 2) flood the country with chaos such as riots, open borders, and economic pain; 3) weaponize the courts, the media, and big tech to finish him off; 4) install a puppet who sells the country out to China and the UN. Applying this to the United States, the speaker cites events from 2016 to 2020: the Russia collusion hoax, FBI spying, two fake impeachments, Antifa rioting with coverage described as “fiery but mostly peaceful” by CNN, and the aim of making people hate the voted-for leader. In 2020, the speaker alleges two ballot dumps, boarded-up windows, 51 intel agents lying about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and Zuckerberg spending $400,000,000 to help count votes in Democrat cities, with the goal of stealing the election while labeling dissent as conspiracy theory. From 2021 to 2024, the speaker asserts Biden opened the border on day one, bringing over 12,000,000 illegals, including military-age men from China and Venezuela, with free flights, hotels, and EBT cards, all at American expense. The resulting consequences are claimed as city collapse, rising crime, and strained schools and hospitals, with the goal of making Americans feel like strangers in their own country. From 2021 to 2025, the speaker lists 91 felony charges, the Mar-a-Lago raid, gag orders, and mugshots, arguing the intent was not merely to defeat Trump but to break him and other patriots who challenge the system. The treatment of Charlie Kirk is cited as a textbook color revolution. On 11/05/2024, the speaker proclaims the American people delivered a counterrevolution: 312 electoral votes, a popular vote landslide, and unprecedented turnout among Hispanic and Black Republicans, described as the greatest peaceful counterrevolution in world history. The speaker notes that the same “snakes” who funded BLM riots, the Ukraine coup, and the Arab Spring still sit in the FBI, CIA, big tech, and universities, and warns they will try again in 2026 or 2028, asserting that every time there is another mostly peaceful riot, a new crisis before an election, and a wave of experts using scripted language, you are witnessing the Color Revolution Playbook live on American soil. The message concludes with reminders of past attempts such as back mass deportations and border failures, urging continued defense of the border, teaching children the truth, and supporting the president to take all necessary measures to restore the republic. The speaker ends with blessings for the United States of America.

Speaker 0 declares that the game is over for the new world order. They express anger towards Fauci, Gates, Schwab, and the Rothschilds. The speaker claims to have them in their sights and challenges their belief that they could eliminate them. The speaker concludes by stating that their opponents' plans will not succeed.

Speaker 0 argues that there must be a change of direction, which is exactly what the Iranian people are demanding. He suggests that if the Iranian people receive support from the president for that idea, it would encourage them to take to the streets in even greater numbers and apply more pressure on the regime from within. He identifies the decisive factor as the instrument of repression that has been unleashed against the people and states that overcoming this obstacle is what could tilt the odds in favor of a movement that could push toward a complete collapse of the regime. He asserts that a decisive strike could alter the balance, describing it as the mechanism that would enable the people to prevail. Speaker 1 asks whether such decisive actions would involve American strikes, and whether Israeli strikes could play a role, implying that the Iranian people might view external intervention as cavalry coming to aid them. Speaker 0 confirms that it could be an American strike, an Israeli strike, or any force willing to act; he emphasizes that the cavalry is seen as necessary because the regime has to be confronted in ways that the regime cannot be confronted through ordinary means, and that the nation’s defenses can only be sustained up to a point without such intervention. Speaker 0 notes that the regime is so desperate that it has to import elements from Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq to act as instruments of repression, indicating that the regime is running out of its own capable personnel to carry out the dirty work. He asserts that the regime is on its last leg and on the verge of collapse, and that it will try every other means to survive. That is why a definitive strike could completely reverse the odds in favor of the nation and defenseless people, and such support is what is needed. Speaker 1 asks what should be struck: whether to target command and control facilities of the IRGC, or to launch a decapitation strike against the Ayatollah, and what either the United States or Israel, or any willing party, should do. Speaker 0 responds that from the perspective of the people on the streets, the priority is to neutralize every element that has been unleashed against them. He says anything connected to the regime’s mechanism of control or violence should be targeted, and that such action cannot be achieved through diplomacy or negotiation. He notes that the president’s promises have been heartening to the people of Iran, and if those promises are carried out, they would change the entire complexion of the situation. Speaker 1 then asks what would happen if the regime topples.

Speaker 0 describes the events as “a classic regime change color revolution destabilization operation.” He asserts that “the military strike was being prepared in advance,” and that “the violence that they carried out” was carried out by “agent provocateurs managed and inserted by US and Israeli intelligence,” with British intelligence also involved. He adds that “when it comes to Iran, The United States and Britain are hand in hand since the first coup in Iran, which was a US British operation.” He further claims that Iranians who supported the shah “fled to The US, to Europe, to Canada, where they've set themselves up,” and that “nearly all of whom are quite wealthy,” consisting of monarchists who have been “looked after very well by the US government.” He says the US regards them as a “fifth column that they can deploy during times like this.” The speaker extends the accusation to other conflicts, stating that the US keeps “Syrian fifth column, an Afghan, an Iraqi, a Libyan fifth column,” and that wherever there’s a war, “The US and the British, the Canadians, they keep them in residence, and they use them either to create the future political class that they'll then parachute in.” He describes this as part of “the neocolonial system.” He concedes that “it didn't work out, but it was ugly.” Regarding information warfare, he criticizes the mainstream media, politicians, and “these so called influencers,” describing their misinformation and propaganda campaign as “even uglier.” He emphasizes that “this is not the first go around,” claiming they have “been doing this perpetually for years,” with the aim of creating unrest and instability and momentum. He explains a sequence they allegedly seek: if they can obtain momentum, it is followed by “a military strike, and then a decapitation of the leadership, and then regime change, hopefully.” He concludes that “so it didn't work out.”

The speaker describes themselves as a former "deep state" operative, accustomed to manipulating events from the shadows. They claim to have been involved in backroom deals, influencing politicians, and illicit financial activities. However, the speaker believes their past is catching up to them. They mention a "department of government efficiency crew" and Kash Patel investigating ghost payrolls, slush funds, and buried deals. The speaker also highlights specific individuals posing a threat: Patel with his investigative skills, Bongino publicizing the "Ukraine laundry," and Bondi, an attorney general, preparing to prosecute. The speaker feels trapped, with no means of escape or hiding, as their past actions are being exposed. They acknowledge the end of their ability to manipulate the system and anticipate facing legal consequences.

Speaker 0 argues that Freemasons, the New World Order, Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, the North American Union, martial law, military checkpoints, US concentration camps, and a one world government will come to Americans unless action is taken now. The time is here; act now, America, before it's too late. Speaker 1 defines false flag operations as a distract-and-unify tactic for the government to push a hidden agenda. Globalization, control of oil, and suspension of civil liberties are used to gain more control, with fear being the game. He urges liberals, conservatives, and independents to join together as Americans and make their voices heard. He claims attackers want people split and distracted, and warns of an escalated attempt by the administration to scare the public into thinking Iran is a threat. He cautions to look for another false flag operation to justify fighting Iran, and to check for other mock drills occurring during the same time as real events; citing the nine-eleven attacks and the London bombings as examples where similar exercises happened the day of the attacks. He asks questions, demands answers, and asks who benefits. He asserts there is no interest in creating a stable environment in Iraq. He states the Pentagon has lost track of guns and ammunition and questions whose hands they fall into, arguing that disorder and chaos are being sought as distractions, with the conflict expected to last years. He predicts continued bases in Iraq under the pretext of security and national interest, and repeats the question: who benefits? Speaker 2 notes that in 2005 ExxonMobil achieved a record profit of $35,000,000,000, and an economist estimated that $7,000,000,000 of that amount was due to market conditions created by the war. Speaker 1 continues that under the pretext of security and fear of being attacked, the government will suspend freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and protection from illegal searches and seizures; they will ask law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns and to bear arms; they will establish martial law with the army policing the citizens, which is described as illegal. Speaker 3 adds that fear of nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks on US territory might trigger drastic measures. NFL News 12 Jeff Bell reports that clergy would help the government with their biggest problem, which is "us." Speaker 1 repeats: remember, ask yourself, who benefits? Speaker 3 reiterates that their biggest problem is "us," not external enemies, and that those who follow the markets see increasing housing foreclosures and banks calling in loans. People who couldn’t afford loans would have houses bought back by those who built them for pennies on the dollar. This would allow a small elite to regain control, weaken the dollar, realize a North American union, and establish a broader global economy. The repeated question remains: who benefits? Speaker 2 concludes with the confession: “The truth is, I hope I'm wrong.”

The bad extraterrestrials can no longer control the planet due to the disclosure process; their methods of secrecy and manipulation are ineffective. With the good extraterrestrials now in a position of power, it makes no sense for the bad ones to continue fighting. Instead, they will likely retreat to save their resources. This realization brings clarity to the disclosure process, which is set to unfold soon, although the exact timing remains uncertain due to necessary coordination. The conversation reveals a comprehensive and effective plan that could genuinely work, marking a significant moment of understanding.