reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In new Epstein files, a plaintiff alleges that Trump raped her when she was a minor, aged 13 and pregnant, and that he later participated in the sacrifice of her newborn. The policies are not the top of the system; they are interchangeable pawns. Sex is described as a tool of compromise, a way to lock them in and bring them down at the desired moment. It is described as a classic operating mode of power frequently seen in films. The speaker asserts we live in an anti-life system that aims to sever us from empathy. In fashion, looks are dissociated and traumatized. Plush toys for children are equipped with BDSM accessories. Campaigns allegedly carry hidden messages with images of dismembered children. This is framed as the logic of trauma linked to the MK Ultra program. The idea is to break the victim to reprogram them and create new personalities. This pattern is said to appear with celebrities because pop culture normalizes dissociation. Everything is coded in their puppet-like clips, robotic gestures, two-tone hair, leopard spots. Bodies are described as becoming dehumanized sexual objects. Nicki Minaj is described as a prototype of the system with alter egos like Roman. She is said to be used today to support Trump. Trump is described as “your savior,” one who invokes God to ridicule believers, and as the inverse of what he claims to defend, and this is intentional. Therefore, Nicki Minaj represents Trump, Meghan Stallion represents Kamala Harris. The speaker claims there is nothing more to understand than that there is no left or right. The speaker asks the audience to look at a clip with a left Republican and a right Democrat, noting identical attire, identical sexual programs, and identical visual decadence. It is asserted that there has never been a camp, only one language, and its aim is to cut people off from their bearings to make their artificial system acceptable.

Speaker 0 says they picked up Henry Ford’s newest book from 1920, described as the original “international tiny hat.” They urge people to look into it, stating that Henry Ford was discussing the “tiny hat” in the twenties and that “here we are in 2026” with “the same issue going on.” Speaker 0 frames this as a continuity between Ford’s era and the present. Speaker 0 explains that anyone who went against the “tiny hat” was labeled an “anti tiny hat.” They present this labeling as a key part of how the idea operates, portraying it as a mechanism used to identify and categorize dissent or opposition. Speaker 0 further claims that the book goes into how “the tiny hats control everything, everything.” They describe the scope of control as total and comprehensive, emphasizing that the “tiny hats” influence or determine outcomes across many areas rather than in a limited or narrow way. They then describe the means by which this influence is said to be carried out: Speaker 0 says the “Bolshevik agenda” is used to push the “tiny hat” agenda onto the people. In Speaker 0’s account, the “Bolshevik agenda” functions as an underlying framework or strategy that helps advance the “tiny hat” agenda within society. Speaker 0 also connects the “tiny hat” to specific cultural or political themes. They mention “gender nonsense” and “all the other garbage you see” as examples of what they believe is being pushed. Speaker 0 states that these themes are “all backed by the tiny ants,” linking them to the same controlling force described earlier. Overall, Speaker 0 presents a narrative centered on Henry Ford’s 1920 book and the “international tiny hat,” asserting that the same issue is present in 2026. They highlight a pattern of labeling opponents as “anti tiny hat,” claim that “tiny hats control everything,” and state that a “Bolshevik agenda” is used to push the agenda onto the people, including “gender nonsense” and other referenced societal themes that are said to be supported by the “tiny ants.”

The speaker states that the "Russian story" would be called a covert influence campaign if they were doing it. The speaker also claims they would be the last to say they've never tried a covert influence campaign.

Let's discuss the recent propaganda tactics associated with Trump. This approach isn't new; it mirrors strategies used by autocrats like Hitler. Trump has effectively convinced a significant portion of the population that the system is rigged, fostering distrust in public institutions and the media. This tactic, which involves repeating a big lie, has historically led to disastrous societal outcomes. Despite legal consequences for figures like Rudy Giuliani, many still believe the false narratives. The overarching goal has been to undermine trust in our institutions, and Trump has succeeded in this regard, particularly through his promotion of "fake news."

In 1943, a directive from party headquarters advised labeling obstructive individuals as fascist, Nazi, or antisemitic to discredit them. The goal was to associate opponents with negative terms through repetition to sway public opinion.

In 1957, Paula Hitler published a statement aimed at the “Jewish controlled press” for its alleged lies about her brother, Adolf Hitler. Speaker 1 then delivers a forceful address: “Gentlemen, never forget this. Your names will long be forgotten even before your bodies have rotted away in the earth. But the name Adolf Hitler will still be a light in the darkness. You cannot murder him by drowning his memory in your sick buckets, and you cannot strangle him with your filthy ink stained fingers. His name exists forever in hundreds of thousands of souls.” He asserts the decline of those opposing Hitler and declares that they are too insignificant to touch him. He states that Hitler “loved Germany,” “fought for German honor,” and “gave his life for Germany.” He asks, “What have you given so far? Which one of you would give his life for Germany?” He accuses opponents of caring only about riches, power, and “never ending luxurious living,” suggesting they prefer indulging their senses without responsibility. He contends that when they think of Germany, they think of indulgence without responsibility, not the nation’s welfare. He asserts that the Fuhrer’s “unselfishness in word and deed” guarantees his immortality, and argues that the struggle for Germany’s greatness wasn’t crowned with success, noting a contrast with Cromwell’s success in Britain. The speaker then offers a comparative critique: the Englishman’s character is “unfair, ruled by jealousy, self importance, and a lack of consideration,” yet he remains loyal to his country and crown; by contrast, the German, with a “need for recognition,” is “never first and foremost a German.” He concludes that it does not matter to the critics, as they are “insignificant,” because if they destroy the entire nation, their guiding thought will still be “me first, me second, me third,” and with that pitiful philosophy, they cannot prevent the immortality of a giant.

Propaganda is a story or message that influences your thoughts and actions. Most of the information we receive contains subliminal messaging, aiming to control our minds. They want us to believe lies that can harm and even kill us. For example, they promote a medicine as safe when it's actually dangerous and has caused many deaths. This is a serious issue, and that's why I'm here today. I will always fight against propaganda and stand for the truth, even when they come after us. Thank you.

The speaker argues that legacy media all say the same thing at the same time using the same phrases, not even bothering to use a thesaurus. They point to a pre-debate moment about Biden and Trump where everyone was saying phrases like “sharp as” and “sharp as a tack,” noting that it’s not a common phrase. The speaker says it’s repeated on air with multiple people simultaneously, calling it weird and coordinated, “100.”

Jessica Headley and Ryan Wolf state: “Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Treasure Valley communities. The El Paso, Las Cruces communities. Eastern Iowa communities. Mid Michigan communities.” They express pride in the journalism they produce: “We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that CBS four news produces.” They then describe their concern: “But we are concerned about the trouble that training their responsible one-sided news stories plaguing our country.” They warn about the spread of biased and false information: “The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.” They add that “More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first.” The message repeats the core worry: “The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. And this is extremely dangerous to our democracy.” The refrain is reiterated multiple times: “This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.”

Speaker confronts the audience with a blunt accusation: 'Every one of you, you are. You're complicit in the attempted assassination of Donald Trump twice.' They demand silence: 'You dare Just be quiet.' The speaker asserts the audience 'are responsible for this because you are a you are echoing the horrifically horrible political violent rhetoric that's being produced by the Democrat party.' They reiterate to all present: 'Every single one of you here.' The passage closes with a pointed question: 'How can you say that you don't even know'. The speaker frames the remarks as a direct rebuke to the audience and implicates the rhetoric as coming from the Democrat party.

In 1943, a directive was allegedly issued from party headquarters to communists in the U.S. It instructed them to label obstructionists as fascist, Nazi, or anti-Semitic after building them up, and to use anti-fascist organizations to discredit them. The directive stated that associating opponents with names that "already have a bad smell" would, after repetition, become fact in the public mind. The speaker claims this 1943 directive predicted what "the left does today." They add that in 1971, Saul Olensky wrote in "Rules for Radicals" that "he who controls the language controls the masses." The speaker concludes that this tactic is not new for the radical left, and it is "crazy" how much the 1943 directive resembles what is seen today in 2025.

Speaker 0: Some people criticize Biden for not being genuine in his speeches. Speaker 1: He admits to not giving credit when quoting others, like Neil Kinnock and Robert Kennedy. Speaker 2: CBS News found another instance of Biden's plagiarism. Speaker 3: Biden also plagiarized John Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Neil Kinnock without acknowledgment. Speaker 2: Biden confessed to unintentional plagiarism in law school. Speaker 1: He copied five pages of someone else's work without citation and received an F. Speaker 4: Biden acknowledges his mistakes but admits to doing dumb things. Speaker 1: Critics argue that if Biden's words and visions belong to others, it's false advertising. Speaker 5: Taking personal material from another politician is unwise. Speaker 6: Appropriating someone else's personal material was a stupid move. Speaker 7: Many people now associate Biden with plagiarism. Speaker 8: These clips are politically devastating, making Biden appear like a wind-up doll with someone else's words.

The speaker argues that visible evidence from 1783 demonstrates that people were already in the air, suggesting the existence of air technology in the 18th century. They claim that this establishes a precedent for staging large-scale events from the sky, such as alien invasions, while the general public remains unaware of the true capabilities of aerial technology at that time. The assertion is used to question contemporary portrayals of early flight, such as the Wright brothers, by implying that their apparent airplane demonstrations are misleading or staged, and that humanity was already airborne long before. According to the speaker, in the 1780s there were published articles stating that UFOs and flying saucers were invading towns, and the speaker identifies what they see as blimps as the actual objects described in those accounts. The overall point is that an “alien invasion” narrative has been, in the speaker’s view, constructed or perpetuated for a long time, with aliens allegedly preparing to arrive from outer space for an extended period. The speaker emphasizes continuity of control by a particular group, asserting that the “same people” or the “same tiny hats” who run the government in the 1800s are the same individuals deemed to be in power in 2026. This framing ties the alleged long-running alien invasion narrative to a claim about enduring political power and hidden influence across centuries. In summary, the speaker contends that: - 1783 demonstrates people were in the air, implying advanced aerial capabilities existed long before commonly acknowledged milestones. - This underpins a theory that alien invasions could be staged or leveraged using air technology, while the public remains unaware of the true capabilities. - Historical references in the 1880s to UFOs and flying saucers invading towns are interpreted as blimp-based occurrences. - The idea of an ongoing alien invasion has persisted for a long time. - A recurring group described as “tiny hats” supposedly runs the government from the 1800s through to 2026, implying a continuity of influence across eras.

A: The conversation opens with references to the Epstein files and a sense that people are ignoring shocking information, including an incident at the Atlanta Airport involving a well-dressed Black man who freaks out, which they say they saw on social media. B: They discuss reading the Upstate files and criticize others for going on with their lives as if nothing is happening, describing the public as “zombies” and likening society to invasion of the body snatchers. They mention revelations such as a global pandemic and aliens, and claim that “Miles have been released,” yet people act normal. C: They express a belief that a small group of about 8,500 people is manipulating events, including media such as the Colbert show, and that reality as they know it is fake. They discuss the idea of predictive programming and insist that by presenting certain material or jokes, the public becomes desensitized and complicit. A: They argue there is a grand design behind these phenomena to desensitize the public to the idea of demons or occult wrongdoing, including references to Luciferian influence and spells cast on the world. They discuss a Colbert skit in which a baby is handed to Moloch and a dramatic red furnace, claiming the audience’s laughter signals hypnosis or conditioning. B: They claim there is a coded language in the Epstein emails, where references to “pizza” and “beef jerky” are used as code, and that such codes exist even if others dismiss them as paranoia. They note that some language is cryptic and argue that there is a recognizable code, contrasting it with the public’s dismissal of such interpretations. A: They mention the Epstein indictment and a claim about sulfuric acid: right after he was indicted, he allegedly ordered large quantities of sulfuric acid (six hundred and fifty-five-gallon containers, with figures like 8,000 or 50,000 gallons discussed) to process bodies. They repeat the claim that “they’re eating babies,” underscoring a belief in extreme horrors behind coded communications. B: They expand the discussion to alleged ongoing sacrifices in Los Angeles, suggesting high-level musicians are involved in daily sacrifices, including claims about killing chickens as part of those activities. They hedge about naming individuals, expressing concern about legal risk and safety, and reaffirm their position that such activities occur at a high level. A: The conversation repeats the sense of omnipresent manipulation and secrecy, emphasizing that a hidden group is controlling information and that people are afraid to confront it, with ongoing claims about decoding messages and real-world horrors behind public narratives.

本段对话充满重复，持续质问“是不是我们的人”，多次出现类似“不是 我 们 的 人”的表述，呈现身份认同的混乱与排他性。结尾出现叠加的短语：“就 是 一 个 方 式 的 话 就 是 一 个 方 式 的 话 就 是 一 个 方 族”，暗示似乎只有一种方式或一种族群。整体以循环式叙述为主，缺乏明确的论点。 This section of the dialogue is full of repetition, continually questioning “是不是 我 们 的 人” (whether they are our people), with multiple expressions like “不是 我 们 的 人” and “我 们 的 人”, presenting identity confusion and exclusion. The ending features the stacked phrase: “就 是 一 个 方 式 的 话 就 是 一 个 方 式 的 话 就 是 一 个 方 族”, implying there may be only one way or one tribe. Overall, the narration is cyclical and lacks a clear argument.

Speaker 1 claims Kamala Harris's campaign slogan, "We're not going back. Forward together," is the same slogan used by the Communist Party USA for the past decade. Speaker 1 states that three years ago, Communist co-chair Rosanna Cambrian wrote an article titled, "We're not going back forward together." Speaker 2 says that this is how communists work to build a movement to topple capitalism. Speaker 1 asserts that communists have long acted as the ideological undergird of the Democrat party, and Kamala Harris is a continuation of that. Speaker 1 asks if people will continue to pretend that Kamala Harris is not influenced by communist ideology or choose not to be the idiot they think you are. Speaker 2 claims Chicago has produced more outstanding communist leaders than any other place.

The speaker contends lies persist, directing attention to Rupert Murdoch. "These lies continue tonight." "Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight now that he's seen how he is perverted and slimed the truth and from letting him go on again and again and again." "Not because their views deserve such opprobrium, but because our democracy depends on it." The speaker frames these remarks as defending democracy and accountability, urging Murdoch to intervene to curb Carlson's appearances. The statements are presented as a critique of media influence and the integrity of public discourse.

The speaker challenges the historical narrative around Nazi extermination methods by asserting several counterclaims about the evidence and the revisions of the story over time. They claim that the carbon monoxide used at Treblinka allegedly came from a diesel engine, but argue that diesel engines do not produce enough carbon monoxide to kill people, implying that the story had to be changed. They note that Yad Vashem discussed this in 2019, but contend that the debunking of the diesel-engine theory occurred in the 1980s, and that the Nitzkor project responded by stating it was “just a 500 BHP engine from a captured Soviet tank,” accusing others of moving the goalposts whenever caught. The speaker then shifts to Zyklon B, asserting that it “was not meant to kill people, it was meant to kill bugs and keep the prisoners healthy and alive because they needed them,” portraying the chemical as primarily a pest-control agent rather than a genocide tool. Turning to Auschwitz, the speaker references a sympathetic photograph, then discusses propaganda about the number of victims. They state, “originally, the propaganda about Auschwitz was that five point five million were killed at Auschwitz,” and clarify that when they refer to Auschwitz, they are not talking about Birkenau but the initial Auschwitz gas chamber. Overall, the speaker presents a pattern of alleged revision and reinterpretation of Nazi-era facts, arguing that the narrative shifts whenever it is challenged, and contrasting widely cited figures and purposes with claimed alternative explanations. The emphasis throughout is on questioning the established account of how mass murder was carried out at Treblinka and Auschwitz and on attributing changes in the historical narrative to deliberate adjustments rather than new evidence.

A recurring historical pattern is presented: Jews have repeatedly faced expulsion and exclusion across civilizations. The first speaker traces this motif through time, noting that a pattern emerges in which Jews “fled” and “hosted no more,” with December marking a century passing and England issuing an edict that “sent them free.” They reference “1,032 times toll from ancient days to years of old” as a tally of migrations or expulsions recorded in history. The speaker also points to a decisive moment in 1492, noting that “a decree, Spain's Alhambra forced Jews to flee,” highlighting this as a landmark event in the long arc of expulsions. The overall message emphasizes a long historical continuum of Jewish displacement and shifting fates tied to political decrees and social pressures. The second speaker shifts the focus to contemporary experiences of exclusion, presenting a charged argument about schooling and social integration. They question what happens when a child is “thrown out from every single school in the tri state area,” suggesting that at some point “the principal is gonna tell you, it's not the schools.” They claim, “Jews have been thrown out from every single country they ever lived in besides maybe five,” naming places including “New Zealand, Australia, America, maybe another two.” They challenge the listener to identify “one country in the world that they lived, they weren't expelled from.” They then urge a moment of self-reflection, stating, “So at some point, you gotta look at yourself and say, you know what? Maybe it's us. So you become a self hating Jew.” They describe a cumulative history of expulsion, declaring, “Two thousand years of being thrown out of every school,” and conclude that there is an issue to be faced within the community. The third speaker reinforces the theme with a concise assertion: “We are a people that has been kicked out of every place we've ever lived for two thousand years. Every single place.” This reiterates the claim of pervasive displacement across eras and locations, emphasizing the enduring, uniform pattern of expulsion claimed by the speakers.

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, said that the bigger the lie, the faster it will spread. 'Well, somebody has fabricated a monstrous big lie that Israel had something to do with Charlie Kirk's horrific murder.' 'This is insane. It is false. It is outrageous.' The remarks use Goebbels' maxim to label the accusation as propaganda and assert that the claim about Israel's involvement in Charlie Kirk's murder is being spread as a deception. The speaker presents the allegation as sensational and warns against accepting it as truth. No other details are provided in this excerpt. The focus remains on labeling the claim as a lie.

Speaker 0 asserts that they employ deception, including outright lies, misinformation, and disinformation—the intentional use of information to sway the audience.

The speaker warns that “they have taken control of our society” and urges everyone to stand up, from the White House to every American, insisting that surrender is not an option and that time is running out, with a comparison to the urgency seen in Hong Kong. The speaker claims the attack on the capital was carried out by Antifa but was enabled by political figures—McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, and the mayor—who allegedly knew it was coming and were lax on security, allowing Antifa to act before the media picked it up. The speaker criticizes media coverage as disgraceful, referencing an affiliation with Fox for almost seventeen years and asserting that Rupert Murdoch and his sons are driving a merge with the rest of the mainstream media. The assertion is made that this consolidation represents a serious, expanding threat. Attention turns to alleged cyber and information warfare, with the speaker mentioning new information about battleground states where cyber warfare was used. The speaker claims that former FBI director James Comey sold HAMR and Scorecard, a top-secret program, to the Chinese. According to the speaker, HAMR is a program that simulates an iPhone-like app inside the voting network, enabling it to be installed and to modulate voting to favor one candidate over another, rather than by a large margin. The speaker recounts a specific telephone claim: on a Tuesday night at 11:30, they were told that the ISI of Pakistan was in the voting machines in Georgia. They say they informed someone about it. The claim is made that, in Georgia, the two candidates Loeffler and Purdue were ahead, but one hour later, they were behind, suggesting a dramatic and rapid shift attributed to external manipulation. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes urgency, global and domestic conspiracies, and the need to act immediately to counter perceived control over society, media, and the electoral process. The narrative ties together political figures, media influence, alleged clandestine cyber tools, and foreign involvement in U.S. voting systems, presenting a cohesive but controversial account of systemic manipulation and imminent danger.

The speaker repeatedly says, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." They then ask if the phrase should come from Hamas. The speaker asks multiple individuals if they can condemn Hamas and if their organization can condemn Hamas.

The speaker asserts that the phrase "long live the resistance" implies support for Hezbollah and Hamas. They claim these groups describe themselves as "the resistance," and those using the phrase are expressing support for them.

The speaker references a saying: "Tell a lie big enough, loud enough, and long enough, sooner or later people believe it." The speaker attributes the quote to Hitler. The speaker anticipates that the other person thought they were going to say Fauci. The speaker concludes by saying "same difference" and that they are aligned on that point.