reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Sonia Elijah’s book, three eleven viral takeover, is described as a deep forensic investigation into the COVID era, built from years of FOIA requests, leaked documents, timelines, interviews, and scientific literature to examine unanswered questions from the period. The host, Clayton, frames the discussion around why the pandemic happened, how it happened, and which power structures created populations that largely complied with lockdowns. Elijah explains that March 11, 2020, marked more than a health response; it was a global reset. She compares it to 9/11, arguing that while 9/11 led to citizen surveillance, three eleven led to citizen compliance with the state, with mass lockdowns and surrender of civil liberties. She characterizes the day as a turning point into a new era. The book argues that COVID marked a shift from a post-9/11 surveillance state to direct citizen compliance, facilitated by weaponized fear. In the UK, messaging campaigns spent hundreds of millions of pounds to tell people that “if you go out, you’re going to kill grandma” or “you’ll die,” which helped create a climate of fear. Elijah cites hypocrisy in leadership during lockdowns, noting Boris Johnson at parties and senior New York public health officials at drug-fueled gatherings, while ordinary citizens faced harsh restrictions. The narrative includes stories such as a family member being pressured to isolate a non-COVID patient and care-home policies that contributed to elderly deaths. Elijah discusses the personal toll of the lockdowns, including experiences with hospital visiting restrictions during a family member’s stroke and the broader trauma seen in children and mental health. She cites a child psychologist and the emergence of “COVID anxiety syndrome” as diagnoses, noting that the public messaging and fear-based coercion affected behavior and well-being. The book emphasizes the role of censorship and the disinformation apparatus after three eleven. Elijah highlights a machinery of censorship, including the World Health Organization’s influence on what was deemed scientific, and the suppression of the lab-leak theory and early vaccine harms discussions. She points to the Trusted News Initiative, coordinated by BBC leadership, which she claims enabled big tech to downrank or remove dissenting voices, including doctors and scientists who advocated for early treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The narrative includes examples of vaccine-injury discourse being shut down, with veteran platforms and media networks flagging or removing related content. Elijah details the epidemiological and testing framework that supported lockdowns, focusing on the PCR test’s use, high cycle thresholds, and the rapid antigen tests from Innova Medical Group. She argues these tests, funded through substantial procurement schemes and criticized by the FDA, helped justify continued restrictions. She discusses a “VIP lanes” procurement environment in the UK and the role of Innova and related networks in driving large-scale testing and surveillance. A major thread is the diffuse network surrounding gain-of-function research and the origins debate. Elijah discusses EcoHealth Alliance, the DEFUSE proposal, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, noting that Fauci’s NIAID funded related work after a DoD rejection. She references emails and FOIA material showing that a core group of scientists coordinated a public narrative that favored a zoonotic origin while privately wrestling with lab-leak possibilities. The Great Barrington Declaration is described as a focal point of dissent that was aggressively attacked; Francis Collins reportedly questioned “these three fringe epidemiologists,” leading to professional repercussions for Kalodorf and others. Elijah’s closing argument positions COVID as a planned, coordinated effort toward a global biosecurity state, with ambitions including digital IDs and alignment with Agenda 2030. She cites NATO involvement in disinformation policy as evidence of state and military coordination, and she frames the book as a road map to prevent future similar actions. Her aim is to empower readers with knowledge and truth as antidotes to potential future crises. The book, she says, is written to chronicle these events for humanity, hoping that awareness will reduce fear and increase vigilance.

Speaker 0 outlines how manipulation operates and four simple ways to protect yourself, noting it is pervasive in deception and will also discuss the “purring war” surrounding Trump. A time-saving tip is to use the word “So” or “That’s all you have to say,” letting Mark Levine fill in, with “Nazi” repeated in response. The speaker emphasizes game theory: treat others as they treat you, including groups like signists, who censor those they deem antisemitic. People should be excluded from power if they meddle in others’ lives. He gives examples about racism and hiring, mentioning Amish people and Coca Cola, suggesting social backlash from lip-tart critics. He asserts Monsanto’s history of slave ownership (Sephardi Jews as slave traders) and claims a broader point about who is reminded about slave-owning founders while not highlighting Jewish slave owners. He references Intuition Machine and vows to complement it regarding manipulation. Identity and perception are discussed: you have an identity you believe in, formed from background, family, and nation, and you ground your views on what you directly know through feeling, hearing, and seeing; physical causation and genuine human interaction round out three grounding pillars. Reasoning often relies on hearsay—information passed through others—which can create a grounding gap; as data moves through many steps, each step can be manipulated by those aiming to distort thinking. The four manipulation methods are described as follows: - Filtering: presenting only part of the picture (e.g., one war side’s crimes reported, climate data showing warming globally but not locally) and using imagery that frames dictators or enemies in a particular way, with crafted scenes to provoke a specific response. - Presence of actors: conversations that seem honest but involve actors such as Ben Shapiro or Greta, implying that what you hear may be staged; Greta’s honesty is acknowledged but interactions may be manipulated. - Slogans and identity tactics: slogans like MAGA tie to policy implications and identity, enabling manipulation by aligning beliefs with a brand; also, fallacies and de-emphasizing evidence through various tricks. - Other tactics: ad hominem attacks, false authorities, poisoning the well, weaponizing identity (e.g., American identity or Patriot Act), social-proof coercion (being excluded from family events without vaccination), filter bubbles, paid demonstrators, and slow escalation tactics (foot in the door to gradual war). To protect yourself, he advises checking whether data are genuine and complete, identifying red flags, and distinguishing real causation from correlation. He suggests asking whether data were constructed, whether there are missing data, and whether the actor is genuine or merely performing. He stresses staying close to direct experience and engaging with people you disagree with to test dogma. He also mentions several contemporary geopolitical topics and individuals to illustrate the manipulation and political dynamics, including discussions on the Purim War narrative, Trump’s alliances and criticisms, and various military developments in the Middle East, Europe, and the U.S. Toward conclusions, the defense is to assess data authenticity, identify red herrings, determine whether the scene is theater or genuine, and consider who is speaking and whether they are an actor. The talk ends with a note about posting a cat video on Substack or X.

Public health officials during the pandemic acted more like dictators than scientists, suppressing credible dissent. Early on, they dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as conspiracy, only recently acknowledging its plausibility. Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Sunita Gupta from Oxford, and I proposed a focused protection strategy in October 2020, which was labeled fringe by then NIH director Francis Collins, despite support from thousands of professionals. Government agencies collaborated with social media to control the narrative around COVID science, creating a false sense of consensus. The public deserves answers about the basis for school closures, whether the harms of policies were adequately considered, and why natural immunity and vaccine transmission failures were overlooked in mandates.

We've experienced a fifth-generation propaganda war orchestrated by the US security state, which took control of the pandemic response and defied established public health protocols. Despite prior knowledge, the public health infrastructure was terrorized into implementing policies like lockdowns and mask mandates, which were previously deemed ineffective. This propaganda war targeted not only the public but also the public health establishment itself. People like Rochelle Walensky were threatened into compliance. The motivations behind this were to cover up the US's role in creating the virus, shift blame to China, and promote large pharmaceutical companies. Irrational policies were implemented despite easily observable evidence, such as the disproportionate risk to older individuals. The pandemic response became a scam propagated through the public health establishment through manipulation and threats.

Mark Zuckerberg stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress mentions of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. He expressed being stunned by this order from the federal government to deny facts. According to the speaker, they sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy. The speaker claims they were the first target, with Facebook being told to remove them from Instagram, which Facebook did. The speaker asserts they had almost a million followers and posted no vaccine misinformation, challenging Facebook to identify any factual errors in their posts, which were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications.

Mark Zuckerberg confirmed the Biden-Harris administration censored Americans and interfered in the last election. He stated in a letter to Congress that the Biden-Harris team pressured them to censor content, including humor and satire, related to COVID-19. The Biden administration understands that satire and humor are effective methods of breaking brainwashing because humor suspends counterargumentation. When things are presented humorously, people are less resistant. The censoring of satire and overt humor suggests an attempt to demoralize and brainwash the population. The military and intelligence world is obsessed with stopping the rise of funny, subversive memes and are training people on myths, narratives, and memes for political warfare in the information age. Military intelligence is censoring subversive memes that challenge their narratives. A massive demoralization effort was underway using COVID-19, and the Biden administration wanted people to suffer by targeting their sense of humor.

I don't care if it's a small business or a large corporation; when the government threatens you, you should take it seriously. Blame the government for the issues we're facing. Those upset about free speech now are just mad they can't control the narrative anymore. For years, they've spread misinformation and now they're worried about others doing the same. It's not about the danger of misinformation; it's about losing control. They were wrong about everything and forced compliance, and now they resent others having the same freedom. It's absurd to pretend their concerns are about safety when it's really about power.

In September, media outlets falsely labeled me a sex criminal without naming accusers. This was the culmination of a years-long campaign to silence my dissenting views on major geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. My critiques, while not pro-Russia, questioned Western involvement. This led to accusations of being a Chinese propagandist by a US government-linked organization. Subsequently, the UK government, connected to the CIA, pressured social media to censor and demonetize me. This coordinated attack, involving organizations funded by Big Pharma and government, reveals the suppression of independent media and dissenting voices. The open contest of ideas is a sham, with governments actively working to silence opposition, even using taxpayer money against their own citizens. My experience exposes the fragility of free speech and the lengths to which powerful entities will go to maintain control. The fight continues, and the stakes are high.

I told someone that President Biden is more dangerous to the republic than Trump. Biden did something unprecedented, a court found he was censoring his opponents. No court has found Trump guilty of trying to steal the election or inciting insurrection, regardless of evidence. Biden censored me, and I won the suit, so this is a fact. Facebook admitted my posts were factually correct. They invented the term "malinformation" to describe my posts. This is factually correct information that is inconvenient for the government.

We demonize and then use the wrap up smear tactic in politics. This involves smearing someone with falsehoods, getting it reported in the press, and then using that as validation. It's a tactic that is self-evident.

I fell for the propaganda and got double vaccinated, only to realize I was misled about ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, masks, and social distancing. I faced censorship, slander, and conspiracy accusations for speaking out. Wikipedia is controlled by intelligence agencies, labeling controversial topics as conspiracy theories.

I'd bet my career that strategies to influence compliance are meticulously planned and executed. One telltale sign of a psychological operation is the need to silence dissenting voices. If questioning is stifled and people are publicly shamed for sharing information, especially when they aren't making outlandish claims, it's a psyop. Throughout history, silencing or shaming individuals has been a hallmark of psyops. Look at Harvard and Stanford doctors being deplatformed for their views. The Great Barrington Declaration is another example where experts were silenced and treated as fringe, with documented strategies to discredit them. Even the government contacted social media platforms to remove people. Hopefully, we've learned from the last few years and recognize these tactics.

The government crossed a bright red line when it suppressed scientific and policy discussions during COVID, treating dissenting voices as akin to those of international terrorists. This suppression is wrong; free speech, allowing debate among scientists, policymakers, and the public, is a fundamental American norm. The government's actions prevented this debate, leading to harmful lockdown policies, vaccine mandates, job losses, prolonged school closures, and economic devastation. This censorship, ironically, cost lives. Contrary to claims that free speech is dangerous during a pandemic, upholding the First Amendment would have saved lives and reduced the damage and destruction we experienced.

Speaker 0: There were four drugs that were being tested for Ebola. Remdesivir killed more people than placebo, and the data safety monitoring board had actually stopped the study where literally fifty three percent of Speaker 1: the patients died in the failed Ebola trial and was repurposed. It was a failed Ebola drug because it caused more harm than good in Ebola trials. It was still unpatent. It was Tony Fauci's drug of choice. The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci because his NIH put out protocols that if the hospital systems adhered to, they got bonuses, big bonuses, lots of money, $3,000 per for putting an IV in of remdesivir. Boom. $3,000. But guess what? On top of the entire hospital stay, a 20% bonus, that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Speaker 0: The data was so overwhelming that remdesivir killed patients more so than placebo. The drug had to be stopped, and this was published in the New England Journal in the 2019. Speaker 2: What happened during COVID could not have happened without propaganda and censorship. And how do we overcome that propaganda and censorship? It's primarily through people not being willing to shut up.

Mark Zuckerberg allegedly stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress discussion of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. The speaker claims to have sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy, and the speaker was their first target. Facebook was allegedly told to remove the speaker from Instagram, which they did, despite the speaker's claim that all vaccine-related posts were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications. According to the speaker, Facebook told the White House that the information was not misinformation, but the White House called it "malinformation"—factually true information inconvenient for the government. The speaker asserts that numerous individuals, including O.J. Botticello, Marty Makary, Dr. Oz, and Vinay Prasad, were also censored.

There's a distinction between the political and the psychological that shouldn't be collapsed. About 4% of the population has "dark tetrad" personality characteristics: Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism. These individuals use false cries of victimization to manipulate, seek unwarranted vengeance, and demand self-serving reparations. They infiltrate groups by adopting beliefs as camouflage to elevate their moral status. This has worsened online because evolved strategies for dealing with these types don't work well in that environment. Psychopaths can escape reputational consequences and find like-minded people. These individuals are like the Pharisees, religious pretenders using moral virtue and devotion to further their interests. Social media enables them to organize and hide, pathologizing the culture. Most people agree on almost everything, but these fringe individuals are psychopathological narcissists cloaking themselves in political guise. It is important to distinguish between the political and the psychological.

Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya, a respected epidemiologist, was visibility filtered and placed on a secret blacklist. This blacklist was used to deplatform and reduce visibility for doctors and scientists who shared information contradicting the CDC's narrative. Despite the fact that their information was scientifically valid, they were targeted. Professor Bhattacharya was unaware of being on this blacklist, which is reminiscent of the behavior of the East Germany Stasi.

Isolate yourselves, wear masks, and social distance. Trust the narrative because you've never been lied to. The government and media love you, so keep wearing masks. Social distance and think of your grandparents. Trust the news and government. You're doing a great job complying with the narrative. There's definitely not a psychological operation happening when you're convinced of a reality based on fear that has nothing to do with what's actually happening. We're trying to wake people up because psychologically you've been manipulated. The same number of people died this year as in previous years. You've been psychologically manipulated, but we still love you and you need to wake up.

Government officials allegedly coerced Facebook and Twitter to censor posts via threatening emails, according to the transcript. A Biden White House official, Rob Flaherty, purportedly sent explicit threats to Facebook demanding content removal. High-ranking government officials had a special portal to flag content to senior executives at Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, outsourcing censorship. Universities like Stanford and the University of Washington were allegedly used to flag "wrong think," which then led to government pressure on social media companies. The speaker asserts this network, like the "story of COVID," was about power and control, with entities exceeding their authority. The OSHA vaccine mandate is cited as an example of an agency overstepping its original purpose.

In September, media outlets falsely labeled me a sex criminal without naming accusers. This was the culmination of a multi-year campaign to silence my dissenting views on geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. Governments and intelligence agencies, including the US and UK, orchestrated attacks, falsely labeling me a Chinese propagandist and coordinating censorship efforts through organizations like Coda Story, which has ties to the CIA. My critiques, informed by academic sources, presented alternative perspectives on mainstream narratives, exposing the homogenized views of powerful institutions. This coordinated attack, which even involved Moderna tracking my content, reveals the lengths to which powerful interests go to suppress dissent. The accusations were made anonymously, and my own government contacted online providers to demonetize and censor me. This shows that independent media is a threat to those in power, and the open contest of ideas is a sham. The ongoing attacks are terrifying but also reveal the struggle for control over information.

To brainwash people, wrap a dark agenda in a trendy cause to manipulate the masses. By framing good people as bad through media manipulation, real debate on societal progression is hindered. This tactic keeps us stuck in easily swayed trends, preventing meaningful discussions on moving forward.

This video discusses a government scandal involving the censorship of social media posts during the 2020 elections and the COVID-19 pandemic. The speaker highlights deceptive framing devices used by the Washington Post to downplay the scandal. The so-called "academics" involved in the censorship were actually government cutouts, working closely with the Department of Homeland Security. They colluded with tech platforms to flag and remove posts, using tactics like delegitimization and pressuring companies through regulatory threats. The speaker exposes the close relationship between these academics and the government, as well as their revolving door positions. The censorship efforts targeted millions of posts and narratives, effectively silencing discussions on election integrity and COVID-19.

Before the 2020 election, a coordinated censorship campaign was launched. This involved the Department of Homeland Security, NATO, and the DNC, leveraging institutions like Stanford University, the University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council—many with ties to the Pentagon. These groups, many staffed by former intelligence officials, worked together to suppress discussion questioning the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. They used a multi-step plan to pressure social media companies into adopting a new policy banning content undermining public confidence in the election process. This involved threats of government action and leveraging media allies. Millions of posts across multiple platforms were censored or suppressed. The goal was to prevent questions about the election outcome, anticipating a potential crisis if initial results appeared to favor Trump before shifting to Biden.

Censorship has always been done by those who aren't the good guys. They've been silencing arguments for a long time, claiming it's for the greater good. They use virtue as a weapon, always in the pursuit of tyranny. Anyone trying to silence one side of an argument, be it about COVID-19, immigration, or anything else, is evil and seeks to control people's minds.