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.

So while the rest of the country is told to beware, be cautious of the Trans Tifas, the radical left, the lone gunman with the impossible rifle, Well, the killer, just as I originally thought, was point blank and amongst us the entire time, but more importantly amongst Charlie Kirk in his inner circle. And that's how the nefarious ways of the Mossad of Israel control the narrative.

Speaker A: The moral concern is that if you can remove the human element, you can use AI or autonomous targeting on individuals, and that could absolve us of the moral conundrum by making it seem like a mistake or that humans weren’t involved because it was AI or a company like Palantir. This worry is top of mind after the Min Minab girls school strike, and whether AI machine-assisted targeting played any role. Speaker B: In some ongoing wars, targeting decisions have been made by machines with no human sign-off. There are examples where the end-stage decision is simply identify and kill, with input data fed in but no human vetting at the final moment. This is a profound change and highly distressing. The analogy is like pager attacks where bombs are triggered with little certainty about who is affected, which many would label an act of terror. There is knowledge of both the use of autonomous weapons and mass surveillance as problematic points that have affected contracting and debates with a major AI company and the administration. Speaker A: In the specific case of the bombing of the girls’ school attached to the Iranian military base, today’s inquiries suggested that AI is involved, but a human pressed play in this particular instance. The key question becomes where the targeting coordinates came from and who supplied them to the United States military. Signals intelligence from Iran is often translated by Israel, a partner in this venture, and there are competing aims: Israel seeks total destruction of Iran, while the United States appears to want to disengage. There is speculation, not confirmation, about attempts to target Iran’s leaders or their officers’ families, which would have far-reaching consequences. The possibility of actions that cross a diplomatic line is a concern, especially given different endgames between the partners. Speaker C: If Israel is trying to push the United States to withdraw from the region, then the technology born and used in Israel—Palantir Maven software linked to DataMiner for tracking and social-media cross-checking—could lead to targeting in the U.S. itself. The greatest fear is that social media data could be used to identify who to track or target, raising the question of the next worst-case scenario in a context where war accelerates social change and can harden attitudes toward brutality and silencing dissent. War tends to make populations more tolerant of atrocities and less tolerant of opposing views, and the endgame could include governance by technology to suppress opposition rather than improve citizens’ lives. Speaker B: War changes societies faster than anything else, and it can produce a range of effects, from shifts in national attitudes to the justification of harsh measures during conflict. The discussion notes the risk of rule by technology and the possibility that the public could become disillusioned or undermined if their political system fails to address their concerns. The conversation also touched on the broader implications for democratic norms and the potential for technology-driven control. (Note: The transcript contains an advertising segment about a probiotic product, which has been omitted from this summary as promotional content.)

Charlie Kirk addresses perspectives on political assassinations, including JFK’s. In the JFK files, Mossad is mentioned, but not tied to involvement; the best reading is “who wanted JFK dead the most,” with Israel frequently cited, yet Lyndon Baines Johnson, parts of the U.S. government, and the Cubans also implicated. There were “like, 15 or 20 things that happened that day that were inexcusable,” such as changing the parade route, JFK riding in an open-air convertible, LBJ not riding alongside him, the vehicle slowing down as it passed the Texas School Book Depository. The question emphasized is not only who did it, but that more than one person did it; acknowledging that could reveal government lies about JFK, leading to a broader skepticism about future government trust. Another participant comments that Charlie Kirk reminded viewers of common sense and not accepting force-fed narratives or “BS crap” from the government regarding a single gunman; the discussion notes “multiple people were involved” and “a lot of strange things occurred” that day. This aligns with a broader critique of government psychological operations: MK Ultra, Mockingbird, and Mockingbird II. The first government surveillance on the people after JFK’s assassination is described as Mockingbird I, designed to convince there was nothing to see despite much to see, with Mockingbird II deployed again to convince people that questions about Kirk’s narrative are crazy and to suggest there may be Turning Point USA employees engaged in an obvious cover-up. Frank Turek is cited as saying it’s crazy to imply betrayal by trusted individuals, though the historical note mentions Jesus Christ as a betrayal example; the discussion asserts JFK personally selected LBJ as vice president, and that LBJ was clearly implicated in JFK’s assassination. Charlie is said to be open to the idea that Mossad may have been involved, and he asserts that parts of the U.S. government and the Cubans were involved; he asks for more argument regarding Mossad. He suggests JFK’s assassination was plausible to involve multiple actors and notes that the question of “who wanted JFK dead the most” should be pursued further, including in examining who would want Charlie Kirk dead and why. The dialogue then moves to the political fast lane, with three motives for those who might want him dead: money, secrets, and power. He says he refused money, implying he knows his secrets; his youth political organization has gained influence. The discussion speculates on global implications, naming France, Israel, the U.S. government, and Egypt as mentioned in connection with the investigation. The McCrone couple are described as having paid for an assassination threat, and, notably, neither the Pentagon nor the White House or intelligence agencies nor the Elysee Palace dispute that narrative; the FBI is now listed as not denying that threat.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

There’s a theory that 'he got shot with a palm pistol from the side or that there was a guy giving hand signals to kill Kirk in front of the livestream.' The event was livestreamed, and the speaker says their 'master plan in front of an audience of thousands that are all filming in front of a livestream was to have the shot caller next to Kill him. Kill him now. Take the shot now.' They question whether the thousands in attendance would 'recall I hope no one notices this,' asking, 'like, that was their plan?' The plan allegedly included 'a palm pistol like this' and to choreograph it 'in front of all the cameras' to be 'kill him. Kill him.' The speaker adds, 'the level of retardation' and notes 'schizos' as context for why 'no one wants to say it.'

Speaker 0 argues about K Ultra, saying they were sued and denied its existence, then said it exists but isn’t used anymore, and expresses disbelief in the denial. He claims a kid with access to guns or some knowledge was programmed, stating that Christy Noem, Cash Patel, Bongino, and others are reporting facts as they know them, while those who knew the truth are buried, burned, or dead, and suggests they are likely dead. He asserts this is what happens in Washington, says it’s too deep, and wishes for firing everyone to restart, but security concerns prevent that because dangerous people or terrorists could be let go. He says Cash Patel and Bongino are having a hard time due to this, and that he doesn’t care which side, but at their level that’s what happened. He claims the CIA said they don’t have this thing, then brought in, in court of law, that they have it but don’t use it anymore, and suggests somebody is using it and knows to contact these people. He recalls the American Taliban case and asserts that the kid in that case was programmed, noting that nobody talks about it anymore and suggesting it involved American parents and a Greek church. He describes Knoxville crime scenes with local police blocking off scenes, tarps, and keeping people away, and mentions his own sponsorship of legislation on cremation, implying laws may have been violated by quick cremation of the body, possibly eleven days after death, and that if an investigation was ongoing there would be rules about disposal of the body. He adds that he called a marine sniper who said he could have made the shot with iron sights without a scope and that the team got lucky; he references biblical notions about divine awareness of sparrows and hairs on heads, suggesting the sniper might believe it. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 is alleging that Thomas Crooks was groomed by some dark intel program, MK Ultra or otherwise, to commit an assassination on that day. Speaker 0 responds affirmatively, saying he has said so all along and is glad Tucker Carlson’s credibility has brought it out, noting that he often yells this stuff and is disregarded, but urges looking at history, the deep state, and the current state of the country. He claims 12% of the population voting leaves them vulnerable and that there are few people in position who could damage them like Trump, saying they are not after Trump but after “us,” and that Trump is standing in their way.

Speaker 0: In February and March 2026, I'll be back on the road in Hull, Gateshead, Derby, and Colchester. 2026 is when they want to cross the line as fast as they can into an AI controlled humanity. We stand up now or we regret it forever. That's four dates. Speaker 0: I recorded an edition of a show for iconic.com called Legacy, relating the content of my books to today. A central concept is what I labeled in the 1990s as problem reaction solution, also known as a false flag. The idea is to create a situation—war, terrorist attack, banking collapse, or something similar—then present the version of the problem you want the public to believe to provoke outrage and urgency. Then you covertly create the problem, evoke a public reaction, and openly offer the solutions you’ve already prepared. Speaker 0: Nine-Eleven is given as a classic example: attack on New York and Washington, blame Arab terrorists, claim Osama bin Laden and the Taliban orchestrated it. The reaction is “do something,” followed by the invasions of Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries. In response to Bondi Beach, the point is made that representatives may not truly represent the people, and a global network I call the global cult drives dystopia through digital AI means, operating through governments, intelligence agencies, and militaries worldwide. Even leaders such as presidents or prime ministers may not serve their nations’ people but the global cult’s interests. Speaker 0: One center of this global cult’s operations is Israel, established in 1948 for that purpose. The claim is that leadership claiming to represent Jewish people operates for the global cult rather than Jewish communities, and may even sacrifice Jewish lives to advance its aims through problem reaction solution. The Gaza crisis since October 7 is described as the world’s large-scale trauma, with statements about the Israeli government’s psychopathy and a super psychopathology characterized by a complete lack of empathy and deletion of compassion. The question is whether such leaders can truly have compassion for fellow Jews if they are driven by a broader agenda. Speaker 0: Regarding October 7, the Gaza border fence is described as the world’s most defended border, with sensors so sensitive that even a small animal would be detected. Yet Hamas breached the fence in multiple places, and there were reports of a stand-down by the Israeli defense forces, allowing the cross-border assault and hostage-taking. The outcome, it’s claimed, was used by Netanyahu to justify mass slaughter and destruction in Gaza, with talk of plans to take over land and expel Palestinians. The narrative then shifts to global perception, with some Christian Zionists wavering in support due to Gaza atrocities, and Israel allegedly funding influence campaigns to restore its global image, including money to American politicians and media interests. Speaker 0: When a new attack—Bondi Beach in Australia—occurs, Netanyahu publicly notes a Jewish man disarmed one of the attackers (though a Muslim did so), before retracting. This is presented as part of a pattern: calls to crack down on anti-Semitism, equating anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel and Zionism. The claim is that the only beneficiary is those who use such events to justify censorship and control of information, while the victims, including Jewish people who died or were injured, gain nothing. Speaker 0: The discussion reiterates that mind-control techniques exist and could drive individuals to commit mass violence without full awareness, referencing mind-control concepts like Manchurian candidates. The speaker urges asking “who benefits?” and considering elements of problem reaction solution and false flags in analyzing events, recognizing that appearances of representation do not guarantee genuine representation. For readers interested in more, the speaker directs to their books and content.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers: - Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened. - After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision? - The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching. - Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored? - Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden? - Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed? - The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action. - Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar. - The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling. - The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift. - The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA. Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.

"I don't know who did this. And I sure hope that it was not from the left that would be better." "But it doesn't matter because the first Trump assassination also was not from the left." "It was just a guy who was going to also had Biden on his target list." "And it's been made in the ideology of this far right that you're seeing online." "It's part of a line, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump assassination, how Charlie Kirk," "It doesn't matter that it wasn't from the left because that part has been erased in the common litany of grievances." "Absolutely." "I mean, it's just it's just about the, momentum of violence. Right?" "If one side keeps punching, that's bad, that's really bad." "But it's much worse when one side punches, the other punches back." "That causes an escalation."

The speaker argues that “certain nefarious characters within the FBI and Department of War” helped assassinate Charlie Kirk and cover it up, and says they will present “correlated events” and “receipts.” They describe Stu Peters as an early proponent of an “exploding microphone theory,” and say they investigated further. The speaker’s first focus is an explosives procurement involving Acura Energetic Systems (AES). They say AES makes explosives and has government contracts, but highlight alleged anomalies tied to timing around Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They claim an AES contract had a procurement period from May 1 through August 2025, ending about eight months later “right before Charlie Kirk’s assassination.” The speaker says the contract was signed April 22, one month after Steven Feinberg took office, adding that Feinberg owned Cerberus, which the speaker says has CIA agents working for him and other intelligence personnel, and also owns DynCorp and special operations units “on how to detonate tiny explosives.” The speaker claims the AES contract used a simplified acquisition procedure (SAP) to streamline procurement, and they state the contract amount was “440,000, some odd change.” They allege there was only one bidder, and that in Federal Business Opportunities it was labeled “not applicable,” meaning it was never posted on SAM.gov even though they say SAPs are posted there. They also claim the contract was for “extra small, tiny explosives,” and that the speaker reviewed decades of online procurements and found nothing similar besides this one time. They further claim that the Department of the Navy made the contract, received devices, and that AES exploded “exactly one month after Charlie Kirk is assassinated.” The speaker states a CSB investigative report identifies the explosion timing as around 7.47 a.m., after the third shift ended around 7 a.m. and the first shift began. They claim the plant operated 24 hours per day with three shifts and that the explosion detonated about 23,000 tons of explosives, felt “from like miles away,” described as like an earthquake. They state all 16 people in the building died, and multiple people outside or in other buildings were severely injured. They also say the building made PETN and claim the company’s facility contained PETN. The speaker describes the post-explosion response as inconsistent. They say the Humphreys County Sheriff (Tennessee) stated it would take a long time to rule out “nefarious play,” while within two weeks, the ATF said it was an accident involving mixtures mishandled on the ground floor and a spark. The speaker claims AES’s building was “literally leveled.” They say OSHA closed its April 2026 investigation with 56 violations and that AES had “tons” of violations for decades. They add that OSHA closure did not stop government procurement from AES, and that press coverage “got under that rug.” They state AES has wrongful death lawsuits and should be unable to bid on federal contracts, yet they claim AES received its biggest contract “just a few weeks after Charlie Kirk’s assassination,” and in January 2026 received another largest contract valued at $377 million. They say they are not claiming bribery directly, but assert the situation “looks” like something was arranged. The speaker also references other procurements they plan to investigate, including FBI-related aerial surveillance in Arizona and an FBI procurement for truck beds from an automotive shop near UVU. They conclude by saying they believe “someone in the Department of War ordered the contract” and that FBI/ATF were part of a cover-up. They mention Senator Jamie Raskin discussing Kash Patel having “slush funds” paying $8,000 every two weeks to executive advisors, and say they want to check the timing of those payments.

Speaker 0: Hey, yo. Stop scrolling for one second for me. Give me just one second. Look, we were not there to figure out who killed Kennedy. We were not there to figure out who killed King, but we did figure out one thing. That this dude right here look. This guy right here running, you see him running? That is the guy that took out Kurt. That's the guy. That's him right there. Speaker 1: If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech. And we're not gonna let that be justified.

Hey, yo. Stop scrolling for one second for me. Give me just one second. Look, we were not there to figure out who killed Kennedy. We were not there to figure out who killed King, but we did figure out one thing. That this dude right here look. This guy right here running, you see him running? That is the guy that took out Kurt. That's the guy. That's him right there. If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech, and we're not gonna let that be justified.

The first participant asks the second to identify who did each major event. For MLK Jr., the second participant says, “That was a CI operation because they considered him a dangerous communist. And but the FBI was bugging the, in churches where he was giving some of his speeches in churches. They were bugging the podiums and following him around. He was a top target, for elimination.” For JFK, the second participant states, “I think that was a CI hit. They they may have employed some mafia connections to carry it out because that was their mafia assassination program.” Concerning LBJ, the first participant notes, “LBJ was very involved in all that in Dallas. So,” and the second participant adds, “he an evil man.” The first participant affirms, “He was an evil man.” Turning to Pearl Harbor, the second participant claims, “They knew the attack was coming was coming. They knew where it was gonna happen in Pearl Harbor and when. And they they told no one, and they let it happen on purpose. That that's from the commander of the Pacific Fleet. I would say that's a pretty pretty credible witness.” He continues, “So, yeah, that that was a false admitted that. They admitted they had the and they heard it was gonna happen. And, you how know, else were you gonna get Americans to be on the side of this war that had nothing to do with us?” This leads to the discussion of 9/11. The second participant says, “My opinion. As a criminal investigator, as a former CI officer, nine eleven was not the act of a bunch of poorly flight trained terrorists that executed an unbelievably meticulous, piloting of those aircraft, even even pilots. There's there's pilots for nine eleven truth now, and they say, we could not have done that. Not possible.” He adds, “And then we go to the passport issue, and we go to the Tower 7, which was a controlled demolition.” The second participant further asserts, “You talk to any structural engineer, and and and I I have. And the fact I think George w Bush blacked out. I think it was 40 pages of the 09/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. So what wait a minute. This report was supposed to be for the American people on what happened, and you blacked all these pages out? What in the world?” He continues, “I do not think that it was a bunch of un poorly trained or untrained terrorists that did it. I think there was another source behind it. I think it was intentional, and I'm going just from a a criminal invest investigative perspective just looking at the evidence, what evidence we have, that that was an intentional act, And it would fall right into the MO that you and I are talking about.” He concludes that the event was “Horrible” and emphasizes that “the shadow government deep state or especially the CIA. It does not matter. Their pawns on their chessboard, they don't care that three thousand people were horribly killed that day, but it achieved the aim of gutting the US constitution, bringing in the horrific Patriot Act Mhmm. Giving the CIA unthinkable authority for secret prison prisons and torture beyond waterboarding and and secret renditions and all of that, the FBI, the ability to to, spy on Americans came out of the Patriot Act. So it was the perfect national security state, energizer that the Patriot Act was, and 70 of the congressmen and senators that read the Patriot Act didn't even read it. They just signed off on it without even reading the bill.”

Speaker discusses Fed operations and JFK shooting, stating 'there are often decoys, even decoy sounds' and that 'it is totally plausible' there were multiple people who knew who would take the shot. They say 'a rifle was fired to muffle the sound of a smaller gun,' and, considering the trajectory, that the shot 'kinda had to come from the front of Charlie.' This is 'my well informed opinion' and suggests 'we are looking for a person that was a lot closer to Charlie and likely in the audience.' The speaker claims this explains why footage behind Charlie's head is hidden, calling it 'crucial first and foremost.' They claim 'the person who took the cameras down was absolutely not instructed to do so by law enforcement' Question 'why grab the one behind his head first?' They note a 'remarkable blind spot on the left of Charlie' and ask for footage accordingly.

Speaker 0: Nobody knew there'd be a pandemic or an epidemic of this proportion. Speaker 1: There may and likely will come a time in which we have both an airborne disease that is deadly. And in order for us to deal with that effectively, we have to put in place an infrastructure, not just here at home but globally, that allows us to see it quickly, isolate it quickly, respond to it quickly. So that if and when a new strain of flu like the Spanish flu crops up five years from now or a decade from now, we've made the investment, and we're further along to be able to catch it. It is a smart investment for us to make. It's not just insurance. It is knowing that down the road, we're gonna continue to have problems like this, particularly in a globalized world. Speaker 2: The CIA, they really love it when a new president is elected, and he has no background in intelligence or foreign policy. Barack Obama, no experience in foreign policy, no experience in intelligence. The day after an election, the director of the CIA authorizes a president-elect to begin receiving a PDB, a president's daily brief. And so the day after the election, they go with this this 16 page document and they say, Mr. President-elect, wait till you see the cool things we're doing all around the world. And they've sucked him in. They made him one of the guys. And then we get the feedback at the CIA. Oh, the president loved this. The president had a follow-up question on that. Oh, the president said, oh my God, when he read this. Speaker 3: It almost sounds like you're psychologically profiling the president. Speaker 2: Oh, I think that's exactly what they do. Speaker 3: And so they use the tools that they have employed for decades to subvert foreign governments, to subvert their own government. Speaker 4: 02/2008, something unbelievable happened for us in the FBI. We were getting lots of rumors about this high level asset that worked for several intelligence agencies at the same time. He worked for the Saudi Intelligence Service. He worked for the CIA, and he was being developed as a political asset in Chicago, Illinois. He was not even a United States citizen, but it was said that he was a student visa and that he was a a national from another country. In 02/2008, everyone in the intelligence structure found out who he was. It was this individual whose name I don't like to say, who became president in 2008 of The United States. Speaker 1: And I will faithfully execute. Speaker 3: The office of Speaker 2: president of the United States. Speaker 1: The office of president of the United Speaker 4: One of his code names was Renegade. His real name was Barry Sartaro, but he adopted a different name for his political career. When they ran him for president, the cabal, basically, this was the culmination of so many of their plans for so many years. His mission was to destroy The United States from within, one institution at a time. One of the things he did, of course, was he he defunded our military. He brought down he brought down the resources that they got. But then he ordered our military in many, many instances and in various theaters to attack our allies and to defend and supply and help our enemies. That's exactly how he created ICEs. He would say publicly that the military were gonna bomb our our enemies, but then he would have the military actually bomb enemies of ISIS, our allies. He gave ISIS funding and equipment by basically ordering our military to take equipment into a certain theater and then abandon it. And the commanders would say, that's ridiculous. We'd just be handing that stuff over to ISIS. And the president's office would say, don't question orders. Just follow your Speaker 0: order. Forty four and one before that, '43, Bush and Obama. Well, there are pictures of Bush with his arm around eight year old Barack Obama because his stepdaddy, adopted daddy, Lolo Sotoro, had done a lifetime where the business with the Bushes. Wow. Uncle George Herbert Walker, after whom George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush won president, was named, founded Halliburton in 1946 in Oklahoma. And Lolo Sotoro had been international executive vice president for Standard Oil. There there was talk of him being a CIA asshole. Well, yeah. See, he ran the death squads for the Indonesian army. On his own call, anyone could be assassinated. So when George Herbert Walker Bush became head of the CIA under the Ford administration, he just got with his old buddy in the oil business, Lolo Sotoro, and pulled off the hits. See, Barack's grandmother has been acknowledged as being the woman that operated the channels through which CIA money went to the Southwest Pacific. So she introduced her daughter who had just had Barry Barack to Lolo Sotoro, and they got married and Lolo Sotoro adopted Barack Obama. The name was changed to Barry Sotoro. Mhmm. Speaker 0: Now when he went to high school in Hawaii, I know about that high school. I almost sent my oldest son to it. I could afford it, but I didn't think he observed deserved it. Twenty years ago, the tuition was $95,000 a year, not including room and board. When Obama went there, I've talked to two of his classmates. They independently state that the tuition, not including room and board, was 45,000. Now Business Insider reports his income for 2017 at over 200,000,000 net. That's after taxes, deductions, write offs. For this last year, 2018, they've reported it as 570 plus million dollars, and that's after all deductions tax. Right? Speaker 2: Trump doesn't make that net. Speaker 2: All these other ones who thought they were untouchable, now they're gonna have to answer for their actions. In the Obama administration, John Brennan had the Tuesday morning kill list meetings because the tech got sophisticated enough that you could just write up a list of people that you wanna kill that week, and you dish out the assignments. The teams go out. They kill everybody that's on the list, and then they meet next Tuesday and get that kill list. And you just do it week after week. Well, if you're not having to devote armies of targeting analysts, to to finding these guys, if if your computers can find them just based on their, you know, email messaging, text messaging, whatever, metadata. There. Your job's easy. You just fire a missile from the drone or you drop a guy in that does a close in shot, and then you get back Speaker 4: on the helicopter and fly home. Speaker 2: I hate to sound cynical like that, but that's just the way it is. Speaker 5: I think that's, just calling it how it is. What, what year or years was that was Brennan doing that Tuesday morning kill list? Speaker 2: He started in o nine and kept it going. I have no idea if Donald Trump kept it or Joe Biden kept it or revived it, But it was something that they were very proud of in the Obama administration. They were just going out whacking everybody. Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, no nobody dropped more missiles from drones than Obama did. Speaker 2: No. Nobody.

The speakers discuss the attempted assassination of Trump, questioning why the would-be assassin had no social media footprint and a professionally scrubbed house. They find it suspicious that CNN streamed the rally live and that the Secret Service deemed the roof he was on unsafe, while snipers occupied a steeper roof. They speculate it could have been a coordinated assassination attempt, with the shooter intended to be killed afterward. They highlight the suspect's young age and the possibility of radicalization or manipulation. The speakers are concerned about the lack of information released and the absence of a formal report. They mention leaked cell phone records showing a phone traveling from outside the FBI offices in DC to where the suspect lived. They find it odd that the suspect had multiple phones and no cutlery in his house. They suggest the suspect could have been under the influence of psychotropic drugs or hypnosis, referencing MK Ultra and Jolly West's experiments.

Speaker 0: He delivered a speech at Riverside Church on 04/04/1967, a year to the date before he was assassinated. And that was a powerful anti war speech that he delivered. Speaker 1: What would you say was the significance of that particular speech? Speaker 0: The real significance was that it put him, his footprints heavily into the anti war movement for the first time. And he termed The United States the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. And so he was rising as a severe principal critic of the government in that speech. Another negative significance is that he was attacked from all sides. He was called a traitor by mainstream media. Millions of dollars were withdrawn from his organization, Southern Christian Leadership Conference. So he lost a great deal by taking that position. All of that is significant. Speaker 1: What do think was the primary motivation behind the killing? Speaker 0: I think assassinations, political assassinations are a last resort, as a rule. But I think in terms of The United States from what I've observed and throughout its history, and there have been assassinations other than those in the sixties, remember, I think it's a last resort. I think if they can, if a person is troublesome to them and potentially can develop a following, I think they have to stop him. Now they can do that by rendering him unemployable, by having him set up in some kind of a scandal or sexual activity that destroys his credit or her credibility. They can buy him off by giving him a job or position. There are a variety of techniques by blacking them out in terms of the media. And so if they can't control any other way, and the person is that critical in terms of potentially mobilizing people, that's when political assassinations take place. Assassination is the last resort. Martin King was assassinated not only because he was bringing enormous thought to the whole Vietnam War effort opposing it and the corporate militarists of the society, the weapons providers, energy providers, all of that were going to lose huge fortunes of money if that war ended. So it was not only that but it was the fact that he was going to bring half a million people to Washington in the Poor People's March. And the military believed that they would see their mission as a failure because they would go to the congress, try to get them to change the the priorities for public funding from from the military, take some money from the military, and bring it into social services programs, and they wouldn't be successful. And that would that would radicalize the group to such a point where they might have a revolution on the streets of Washington with masses they couldn't control. They didn't have the troops. Westmoreland wanted 200,000 more in Vietnam. They didn't have those. They certainly didn't have the troops to put down that kind of revolution on the streets. So they had to kill King, make sure he didn't bring that kind of dynamic into Washington.

Speaker 0 introduces the topic of Israel allegedly having influence over the US government and mentions that Israel assassinated JFK, pointing to William Cooper as the source who was also assassinated by Israel. Speaker 0 references Cooper’s book Behold a Pale Horse and notes that Cooper was the first to obtain original footage from a CIA whistleblower showing who shot Kennedy and how they shot Kennedy. He says the media’s clips started at a cropped frame, and that Cooper’s release prompted further questions. Speaker 1 explains that the assassin was the driver in the car with Kennedy, visible in a film with public help. He brings the film, saying it shows the motorcade on Elm Street in front of the Book Depository Building, Kennedy having been shot in the throat, Jacqueline pulling Kennedy toward him in shock, and the driver turning around with a pistol in his left hand, firing over his right shoulder and shooting the president in the head. Speaker 2 asks for a repeat and then the duo watches the film. Speaker 1 identifies the driver as William Greer, noting he was a secret service agent. He describes the weapon as an electrically operated gas-powered assassination pistol built especially for the Central Intelligence Agency, asserting there is no puff of smoke. Speaker 2 questions whether the weapon is indeed a pistol in the lower right corner of the frame. Speaker 1 confirms it is an air-operated pistol (pneumatic) and claims it fired an exploding pellet that injected shellfish toxin into the president’s brain, so that if the pellet’s explosion did not kill him, the toxin would. He states that he read all of this in the documents. Speaker 0 asks what type of weapon was used to assassinate JFK and references the 1963 time frame, saying that intelligence agencies would have such weapons. He then questions whether intelligence agencies could have used such weapons to assassinate Charlie Kirk. He suggests listening to Jack Posobiec and others who are “carrying water for this administration,” implying time will tell.

After finishing the book *Zapping of America*, Speaker 0 says everyone should read it. Speaker 0 claims the book is about Raytheon and the television, stating “Raytheon” created the television, microwave, and cell phone. Speaker 0 then focuses on television radiation hazards, saying Raytheon paid John Osipchuk to study radiation hazards coming off televisions and using this as a reason Speaker 0 does not have a television. Speaker 0 describes “tons of electromagnetic pollution” coming off televisions and compares television broadcast exposure to microwave ovens: “The television broadcast industry irradiates the country of the population by a factor of more than 40,000, greater than the radiation due to microwave ovens,” while also stating there are “a million microwave ovens operating a half hour per day.” Speaker 0 addresses regulation by saying someone might ask whether the government would regulate such radiation, but claims there is no regulation because “the health hazard from such radiations have not been defined” and that “radiation hazards have not known to have been existing.” Speaker 0 further claims the government knew that microwave radiation generated at television frequencies could penetrate deeply into the body and affect the central nervous system, referencing “mk ultra.” Finally, Speaker 0 says Raytheon “decided never to formally publish or distribute this study,” and claims the sequence was that they “create the technology,” “poison the people,” then “tell them it’s safe” so they could sell more. Speaker 0 compares this to “vaccines.”

The speaker discusses a series of alarming claims related to political violence and distrust in U.S. institutions. They reference online activity on social media and a book that appeared prior to what is described as the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The speaker states that the book “was put up, I believe, twenty four hours or within a certain period of time before he was assassinated,” and they recall seeing it but are unsure if there was any follow-up. Turning to broader issues of trust, the speaker asserts that skepticism toward the government, and specifically agencies like the FBI, does not arise from nowhere. They frame this distrust as grounded in “decades of the federal government and elected officials' failures and actually being transparent and honest with the American people.” In their view, there has been a history of corruption within the FBI, described as “corruptness that exists within the Department of the FBI previously,” which they juxtapose with references to “the deep state individuals in various branches of government that have engaged in coups against the American people.” The speaker then suggests a possible topic for discussion, stating, “We can talk about Kennedy if you want,” implying that discussions about government overreach or conspiratorial actions could include the Kennedy assassination as a point of reference. Overall, the points highlighted are: (1) a book about the assassination of Charlie Kirk appearing online shortly before the alleged event, with uncertainty about follow-up; (2) a claim that distrust in government institutions stems from long-standing failures and lack of transparency by federal authorities; (3) allegations of FBI corruption and deep-state actors across branches of government who have engaged in coups against the American people; and (4) an invitation to discuss related topics such as Kennedy.

Speaker claims, "Brother Charlie got murdered, assassinated a few days ago, but the truth is he was assassinated a few years ago." They argue that electing people who demonize their political opponents leads to violence, adding, "So you might have pulled the trigger yourself." The speaker asks, "Who demonize political opponents? Who call political opponents enemies, Hitler, a threat to democracy, who say because we disagree, if you see someone, walk up to them and if they're eating in a restaurant, tell them they're not welcome, get in their face." They warn, "When you start saying stuff like that, calling your political opponents Nazis, fascists, stuff like that. Well, sooner or later, a kook is gonna hear that. A crazy person is going to hear that, and they're going to act on it."

The discussion centers on how the CIA allegedly carries out “false flag” operations and how they are meant to be understood by the public. Speaker 0 brings up the idea that Google searches in Israel occurred before a shooting, specifically searching for the name of the shooter, and asks whether these operations are becoming sloppy. Speaker 0 also asks how false flags “unfold” and how long beforehand they are prepared before being carried out. Speaker 1 says these operations are planned “for months.” They reference the events of 9-11 and argue that “a legitimate criminal investigation was never done there,” disagreeing with the 9-11 report. Speaker 1 describes a CIA planning pattern: operations are said to choose a “boogeyman,” always one person, so that it is framed as not a conspiracy. They claim that if the target can be selected, then authorities can later point to that single individual as the explanation—“There is the boogeyman… We got the boogeyman… No conspiracy, nothing to see here.” Speaker 1 also claims that these chosen individuals are often portrayed as having had “no indication previously” of criminal tendencies, and that, in their view, evidence in later cases supposedly does not align with the official narrative, but is still dismissed because the individual is presented as the “boogeyman.” Speaker 0 then argues there is “very little daylight” between the CIA and Mossad, stating that when “Mossad” is mentioned, it “really” means CIA and MI6. Speaker 1 agrees, claiming the CIA considers Mossad its “chief intelligence asset in the Middle East,” and that they are “woven in” together with “sister organizations” that share intelligence at “massive high-level scale” with high-level clearances. Speaker 1 also describes a “frenemies” element, saying Mossad sometimes targets the CIA to steal information, and concludes they are “joined at the hip.” Speaker 0 asks whether these narratives still work, suggesting mainstream media coverage—citing CNN and Axios—links anti-Semitism to attacks, and they wonder if the “false flagship has sailed.” Speaker 1 responds that the agency conducts psychological studies and understands that the average American is exhausted and mostly receives information from news programs, implying the public is more likely to accept repeated claims without critical thinking. Speaker 1 gives an example from 9-11, saying the Bush administration claimed a paper passport could be recovered despite the plane being incinerated, calling it “stupid… disinformation.” Speaker 0 adds that they believe “nanothermite” and “lava” were involved in the controlled demolition of the towers, contrasting that with paper passports. Speaker 1 says the passport claim was repeated enough for many Americans to accept it and argues that people need critical thinking rather than passive consumption of televised narratives.

Clayton (Speaker 0) asks how false flags materialize and how the shadow government carries out clandestine attacks, citing Bondi Beach in Australia and Brown University, and notes observations like Google searches in Israel before a shooting. He asks Kevin Ship, who spent seventeen years in the CIA, how long these operations are planned. Kevin Ship (Speaker 1) responds that false flag operations are planned for months. He argues that the CIA plans these operations by always choosing a boogeyman, ideally one person, so there can’t be a broader conspiracy discussed. The boogeyman is hit with chemicals or directed energy to derail the mind, then the agency proclaims “we got him” and that there is no conspiracy. He points to Charlie Kirk’s murder as an example, saying, “There is the boogeyman. He did it. We got him. No conspiracy, nothing to see here.” He notes the pattern of a single boogeyman with no prior indication of criminal tendency. Clayton notes that in Australia, months before the attack there were reports of paid actors making threats against Jewish institutions, with Mossad now assisting the investigation and Iran being blamed, suggesting the boogeyman is Iran to push toward war. He asks why Mossad would be involved in this Australian case. Kevin replies that the more arrogant the operators become, the more stupid the disinformation appears. He questions Mossad’s involvement in Australia and asks what Mossad has to do with the Australian government and people. He claims Mossad has no ethics and will do anything to expand Israel’s power, stating Mossad is “whatever it takes.” He describes a frenemies relationship between Mossad and CIA, as they are “joined at the hip” and share intelligence at a high level, though Mossad may sometimes target the CIA to steal information. Clayton shows an individual who claims to have been in Israel on October 7, then appears in Sydney with bloodied selfies, claiming survival of October 7, and asks if this mirrors other false flag patterns where the same people appear at different events. Kevin agrees, citing examples like the same person appearing at completely unrelated events, suggesting manipulation. Clayton asks if false flags still work and if more are coming. Kevin says that the CIA studies how to manipulate Americans through media and disinformation, referencing the “media liaison office” as a division within the CIA that propagandizes and influences U.S. news media. He cites the 9/11 passport claim as an example of disinformation that was repeated to shape public perception, noting that many people accept it despite implausibility. Clayton asks if the CIA studies how to manipulate media budgets and public thinking; Kevin confirms there is a program to control thinking and propagate propaganda with complicit news outlets. They discuss mainstream media’s role in pushing narratives like antisemitism and the role of Mockingbird media. Kevin reiterates that false flags are still effective and that more of them are expected, making their work harder to debunk.