reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A European state leader asked the speaker to stop talking about COVID vaccines, but the speaker refused. The speaker then questioned why the leader was paid $12 million a year by Vanguard, despite having no knowledge or involvement in medicine. The speaker suggested that Vanguard and Pfizer pay the leader to promote their drugs, mentioning that Vanguard is an investor in China's Sinopharm.

Secretary Yellen issued $18 billion in special drawing rights to Putin without addressing helping poor countries with vaccines. Most of the funds went to wealthy nations, leaving small countries with little. No response was given by Yellen or the IMF. The lack of transparency raises questions. Translation: Secretary Yellen gave Putin $18 billion without helping poor countries with vaccines. Most funds went to wealthy nations, leaving small countries with little. No response from Yellen or the IMF raises questions.

We have an abundance of money for funding war machinery and foreign aid, like $8 billion to Ukraine. We also support Ukrainian businesses and banks with taxpayer funds. Humanitarian aid often ends up in corrupt hands due to lack of oversight.

During the pandemic in the United States, wealth moved upward with the number of billionaires increasing significantly. The Central Bank injected $5 trillion directly into the economy, benefiting big companies while small businesses suffered. This led to job losses and a shift in market share towards larger corporations. The imbalance in wealth distribution became more pronounced as a result of these actions.

Gates allegedly has incestuous and financially corrupt entanglements with Anthony Fauci dating back twenty years. The transcript claims Gates pays Fauci, and they have “all kinds of really corrupt financial entanglements.” It describes Gates bringing Fauci to his $189,000,000 house in Seattle in 2000, sitting him down, and saying he wants to form a partnership. Fauci’s account is that Fauci would develop the drugs and pass them on to drug companies like Merck, Sanofi, Gilead, and Johnson and Johnson. Gates would then guarantee markets in Africa through his control of WHO. It is asserted that those companies don’t want to give vaccines to Africa because it’s uncertain, with Botswana reportedly wanting them this year and not next year, and Gates, by controlling WHO, allegedly controls those countries because WHO pays for health ministries and supplies all HIV medications, forcing these countries to do what WHO tells them to do. The claim is that Gates can require those companies and countries to buy the vaccines and that he is invested in the companies. The transcript also states Gates has investments in tobacco companies, processed foods, Coca Cola, Cargill, Monsanto, Philip Morris, Kraft, and cheese. It alleges he has stakes in virtually all oil companies, portraying him as not caring about climate or public health but about control. It asserts Gates appeared daily on TV as a public health expert. According to the speaker, Gates’s message was that people should shut down, lock down, wear a mask, and that it would never end until they took the vaccine he was making for them.

The pandemic created 40 new big pharma billionaires. Companies like Moderna and Pfizer profited $1,000 per second from the COVID vaccine. Over 2/3 of congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies in 2020. Pfizer made $100 billion in profit in 2022, funded by the public. The system benefits from crises, leading to perpetual emergencies for ordinary people, separate from the elite's interests.

The speaker brings up the fact that the pandemic created many new billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry. They mention that pharmaceutical companies funded the 2020 election and made huge profits, with Pfizer alone making $100 billion. They also highlight that the public funded the development of vaccines but did not benefit from the profits. The speaker questions the economic system where companies benefit from crises, leading to perpetual crises that serve the interests of the elite rather than ordinary people.

The Biden administration plans to expand the World Bank to compete with China's influence in third world countries. China has been outpacing the World Bank in lending money to these countries, and the US wants to catch up. However, these loans often go unpaid, resulting in billions of dollars being written off. Chinese banks have started reducing their lending due to the lack of repayment. Despite US taxpayers having no choice but to contribute to the World Bank, more trillions of dollars are expected to be given to international organizations like it. The speaker suggests that the US should withdraw from the World Bank, IMF, and United Nations, as they believe these organizations exploit American wealth for woke ideology and benefit a small donor class and third world dictators.

Speaker 0 argues that when other countries contribute less, it is justified to say they should contribute more. They point to enormous Russian funds in foreign bank accounts, asking, “how much is that? 200,000,000,000,” noting that these are all Russian money abroad that is effectively frozen. It is not described as coming from impoverished Russians; rather, these funds come from Putin’s friends, the oligarchs who own billions. The SP (Socialistische Partij) has already, two years ago, said to use that money to support Ukraine. Using the funds to aid Ukraine would benefit Ukraine and affect Russia.

During Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, she allegedly directed $3.1 billion to Haiti. Her brother, Tony Rodham, who sat on the board of a mining company, obtained one of only two gold exploitation permits issued by the government in over 50 years. The permit granted them a mining rate of 2.5%, which is half the standard rate, causing dissatisfaction among the Haitian Congress. For more details, please check the link provided in the comment section.

Speaker 0: Just recent report, it's not proven, but the surveillance enough suggests 300,000 people have already died from just this cut off, this hard cut of USAID. So there's food rotting in boats, in warehouses. There is this this this will fuck you off. This will not you will not be happy. No American will. But there is, I think it's 50,000 tons of food that are stored in Djibouti, South Africa, Dubai, and wait for it, Houston, Texas. And that is rotting rather than going to Gaza, rather than going to Sudan because the people who know the codes are for the warehouse, the the the are fired. They're gone. And so this I don't know. I just it's and what do you think? What what what is what is that? That's that's now America, is it? Speaker 1: Well, they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: Right? This is the problem. The problem is, for sure, there have been a lot of organizations that do tremendous good all throughout the world. Also, for sure, it was a money laundering operation. For sure, there was no oversight. For sure, billions of dollars are missing. In fact, trillions that are unaccounted for, that were sent off into various they they they don't even know where because there's no receipts. The way Elon Musk described it, he said if any of this was done by a public company, the company would be delisted and the executives would be imprisoned. But in The United States, this is standard. When Biden left office, when it was clear that Trump won in the seventy three days, they spent $93,000,000,000 from the Department of Energy on just radical loans, just throwing money into places. Right. And there's no no oversight, no receipts. Like, the the whole thing is it's there's a lot of fraud, a lot of money laundering.

The discussion centers on Samantha Power’s background and her role as U.S. diplomat and former administrator of USAID, described as a “soft power” instrument. The conversation references an interview with Power and claims that USAID was “functionally shut down” and that “14 million lives will be lost,” while also asserting—using claims about “real-world data” and “UNAIDS SAMRC data”—that mortality declined, there were “zero excess deaths,” and “100,000 fewer new HIV infections in 2025 versus 2024.” They argue that if AIDS outcomes improved after USAID cuts, then USAID would not be responsible for deaths caused by AIDS. Speakers discuss specific examples of alleged aid failures and disputed death tolls, including claims about USAID funding and delivery issues in global health interventions, and complaints about “no one audited the programs.” They reference alleged logistics and delivery shortfalls, including a claim that a $10 billion medical supply contract delivered only 7% of supplies, asking where the remaining 93% went. They also cite claims involving Chemonics and describe USAID as failing to deliver fully on diesel fuel and medical supplies needed for transport to remote areas. The transcript repeatedly connects USAID programming to covert influence, regime-change facilitation, and intelligence operations. The conversation claims that USAID and its academic and contractor ecosystem have been involved in “covert regime change” and arms-related activities, including an account that USAID-linked Harvard University partners and fellows were involved in covert plots and arms exports. Speakers frame USAID’s health activities as “soft power fronts,” while arguing that academic modeling and studies are not based on door-to-door verification or real delivery outcomes. A major thread concerns claims about HIV programming being used as cover for covert operations. The transcript alleges that USAID internal documents described an HIV-related Cuba project as “the perfect excuse” for a covert regime change operation, including claims that young travelers posed as tourists, scouted political activists, and created HIV prevention workshops tied to covert political goals. The discussion asks how often similar patterns occurred in multiple conflict regions, repeatedly asserting that USAID ran comparable “perfect excuse” HIV clinics during active civil wars, and demands a categorical denial that such a thing occurred anywhere beyond the example. Speakers also discuss alleged contradictions in messaging about “gendered violence” and “misinformation,” focusing on how categories are framed and whether threats are treated as violence. They argue about whether online threats constitute violence and whether separate labeling implies recognition of different kinds of harm. The conversation discusses childhood and health impacts, including a claim that projections anticipate increased child deaths after USAID dismantlement, and references an assertion that 2025 was the first year in decades with increased child mortality under five, framing this as part of the “destruction of USAID” story. Another theme is the relationship between health funding and infectious disease preparedness. Speakers bring up Ebola and argue about whether USAID is relevant to preparedness and whether its dismantlement reduced response capability. They also focus on COVID-19, asserting that USAID funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology with “tens of millions of dollars,” describing this as relevant to COVID origins and asserting that there is censoring or “censorship shops” hiring efforts to suppress claims about COVID origins. A separate thread addresses energy, electricity access, and electrification policy. The transcript claims USAID “through its Power Africa” involved forcing high-cost energy and restricting cheap carbon-based fuels, and it references a claim that USAID connected “about 150 million people to electricity,” adding that much of it would not have connected to the grid in their lifetime. The discussion also covers a debate about “hard power” versus “soft power,” with claims that terminating USAID removed “life-saving programs” and “life betterment programs” abruptly, and that this undermined America’s trust. It also discusses the idea that USAID’s work could be replicated through other U.S. agencies, with claims that health programs could be handled by HHS instead. The transcript concludes with questions about Iran nuclear negotiations and how different administrations’ “maximum pressure” strategies relate to policy outcomes. It then shifts into a separate, longer segment addressing behavioral economics and information control. Speakers claim Cass Sunstein—described as Samantha Power’s husband and a Harvard professor—authored ideas related to managing conspiracy theories. The transcript argues that Sunstein’s work informs modern information-control strategies and connects these to USAID’s alleged “cognitive infiltration” and “counter disinformation” efforts. The segment ends with social banter and plans for future streaming and personal messages among the participants.

The speaker expresses disbelief that the Department of Energy under the Biden administration disbursed $93 billion in 76 days between President Trump's election and President Biden taking office. The speaker confirms with an interviewee that these funds were given to entities lacking business plans and financials. The speaker characterizes this as "distasteful" and "confidence undermining."

We don't have any extra money to send to Ukraine, considering our massive deficit of over $1.5 trillion. Borrowing money from China to support Ukraine doesn't make sense. We don't have a rainy day fund with trillions of dollars just sitting around. Instead, we would have to borrow the money, which leads to inflation. Since Russia's war in Ukraine began, American taxpayers have already provided $113 billion to Ukraine. We have many issues in our own country that need attention before we borrow more money to fuel a war in another nation.

In the late 1980s, there was a treasury scandal where no one faced punishment. Warren Buffett was brought in to clean up the mess while the culprits escaped. Some of them now hold powerful positions. The current chair of the Federal Reserve, Jerome H. Powell, oversaw the scandal settlement, which is shocking.

We could have used the $165 billion given to Ukraine to build 6 border walls, fix Flint's water system 215 times, give every homeless vet $2 million, and help families impacted by wildfires. HUD says $20 billion could end homelessness in America, but we sent much more. Priorities need to change.

During the 76-day period between President Trump's election and President Biden leaving office, the Department of Energy's loan program office issued $93 billion in loans and commitments. This sum is reportedly over twice the amount disbursed in the previous fifteen years. These funds and commitments were allegedly given to businesses lacking business plans or proof of financial solvency. The Department of Energy purportedly gave taxpayer money to entities with no business plan or financials during this period. An investigation is underway to check each loan and grant for potential theft. The claim is that $93 billion was distributed in those 76 days.

We gave Ukraine $165 billion, enough to build 6 border walls, give every homeless vet $2 million, and help families affected by wildfires. Instead, they received only $700 each. HUD says $20 billion could end homelessness in America, but we spent $165 billion. This could have ended homelessness 8 times over. Our priorities need to change.

The speaker brings up the fact that the pandemic created many new billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry. They mention that pharmaceutical companies funded the 2020 election and made huge profits, with Pfizer alone making $100 billion. They also highlight that the public funded the development of vaccines but didn't receive the profits. The speaker questions the economic system where companies benefit from crises, leading to perpetual crises that serve the interests of the elite rather than ordinary people.

Bill and Melinda Gates announced a $10 billion commitment to research and develop vaccines for the world's poorest countries. This pledge was part of a larger agenda that aimed to increase profits for pharmaceutical companies, give the Gates Foundation more control over global health, and allow Bill Gates to shape the future for billions of people. Gates has been adamant that the world cannot return to normal until a vaccine for COVID-19 is developed, even though there is no scientific basis for this claim. Rushing to develop and distribute an experimental vaccine poses serious risks, including disease enhancement and unknown adverse effects. The Gates Foundation's influence in global health has raised concerns about conflicts of interest and violations of human rights.

Bill Gates donated $5 billion to his own foundation and received a tax write-off for it. This raises questions about the corruption within the government.

We spent $9 billion to resettle around 90,000 Afghan refugees since the fall of Afghanistan, averaging about $100,000 per person, which seems excessive. My question is, why are we providing any funds when we don't even have an embassy or diplomats in Afghanistan? The funds we provide come through partners like UN agencies and NGOs. We could apply that reasoning to all foreign aid, including funds going to foreign adversaries.

The speaker brings up the fact that the pandemic created many new billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry. They mention that pharmaceutical companies funded the 2020 election and made huge profits, with Pfizer alone making $100 billion. They also highlight that the public funded the development of vaccines but didn't benefit from the profits. The speaker questions the economic system where companies benefit from crises, suggesting it perpetuates a divide between the interests of ordinary people and the elite.

Where's the money going? $520 million for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. $40 million to include sedentary migrants. $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social change in Uganda. What about us? $70 million for Purdue to research solutions to developmental challenges. Then, $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique, $9.7 million for UC Berkeley to develop Cambodian youth enterprise skills. $2.3 million to strengthen independent voices in Cambodia, $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center, $14 million to improve public procurement in Serbia, $486 million to strengthen elections, including $21 million for voter turnout in India. It continues: $20 million for fiscal federalism in Nepal, $19 million for biodiversity in Nepal, $1.5 million for voter confidence in Liberia, and $47 million for improving learning outcomes in Asia. This involves hundreds of billions of dollars, and I could continue reading examples all day.

The speaker expresses disbelief that the Department of Energy allegedly spent $93 billion in the 76 days between President Trump's election and President Biden taking office. They clarify that the funds were disbursed as loans to entities lacking business plans or financial records. The speaker characterizes this as "distasteful" and "confidence undermining."