reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The Republican party has become the party of peace, against censorship and surveillance, for free speech, on the side of children, against toxins, and for regenerative and organic farming, farm markets, and healthy food. This is a complete inversion, but most Democrats don't see it because they are preoccupied with fear of Donald Trump. Most of the defamations and perjuries applied to Donald Trump are untrue. If you watch ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, you're going to think that Donald Trump is a criminal, dictator, and monster.

I watched the presidential debate and was surprised by the media's shock over Joe Biden's mental state. This isn't new information; I've known since 2019 that his family was concerned about his dementia. Despite this, he became the nominee and president, with many aware of his struggles. The media acts as gatekeepers, presenting a distorted reality while claiming to protect democracy. They seem to ignore the will of the people, pushing for a new candidate because they believe Biden can't win against his opponent. This raises questions about their definition of democracy, as it appears to prioritize the desires of a few over the majority's choice. True democracy means representing the people's will over time, not just catering to a select group.

Americans are heavily propagandized, often unaware of it. Unlike people in China or the Soviet Union, many believe they are receiving the truth from cable news. The striking similarity in narratives from figures like Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow raises questions. Those who speak the truth about wars, like Julian Assange, face consequences, while those who lie are rewarded. Observing the Democratic Party's shift, the speaker recalls the 2016 convention's passionate dissent compared to the recent, compliant atmosphere. Delegates seemed indifferent to the party's undemocratic actions, focusing instead on superficial issues. The speaker expresses disappointment in the party's embrace of billionaires and a lack of genuine discussion on critical topics like abortion, which has become overly celebratory rather than a serious concern.

There are Americans influenced by propaganda, similar to the support for Trump in 2016. It’s important to consider whether these individuals should face civil or criminal charges as a potential deterrent.

I've spent my whole life in the media, but now I realize that the media is part of the control apparatus. I regret defending the Iraq war and not being more skeptical. When someone makes a claim, the important question is whether it's true or not. I participated in a culture that dismissed anyone who thought outside the prescribed lanes as crazy or a conspiracy theorist, and I'm ashamed of that. The media's purpose is not to inform, but to serve the small group of people who run the world. We should treat them with contempt because they have earned it.

There are Americans influenced by propaganda, similar to the support for Trump in 2016. It’s worth considering whether these individuals should face civil or criminal charges as a potential deterrent.

The speaker highlights how the public is manipulated by governments and news outlets controlled by the wealthy elite. The military empire exists to protect their capital, not us. The media portrays itself as our savior from terrorism, but it mostly spreads propaganda. Independent news sources like RT and Telesor are crucial for alternative perspectives. The term "fake news" is used to discredit organizations like WikiLeaks that provide factual information. The speaker believes it's wrong to rely solely on mainstream media like MSNBC or Fox. They mention a conspiracy involving Helen Nolan and the White House, emphasizing that disinformation and biased news are common.

A video showed 100 people all saying President Biden is sharp as a tack, questioning if they were told to say that. The speaker points out that if asked about Elon Musk, people would have varied responses, but here they all repeated the same words. This lack of diverse opinions highlights a lack of honest media and a lack of checks and balances on power.

The speaker highlights how the public is manipulated by governments and news outlets controlled by the wealthy elite. The military empire is focused on protecting their capital, not the people. The media's role is to convince us they are saving us from terrorism, but without independent sources, we receive propaganda. Access to alternative news like RT and Telesor is crucial for diverse perspectives. The term "fake news" is used to discredit organizations like WikiLeaks that provide factual information. Disinformation and biased news are common, with PR firms hired to spin events. The speaker mentions a conspiracy involving Helen Nolan and the White House, emphasizing that the public is often deceived.

"99% of the media is run by a single group of people, and that 1% that is not That's crazy." "A complete, like, ethnic Yeah. Monopoly, an ethnical monopoly." "They know exactly what they're doing." "through the media, do you have a lot of social control?" "I really believe our democs is the illusion of choice." "Republicans and Democrats. They all they all work for the same freaking people." "it's the illusion of opinion." "left one CNN, right wing Fox News, run by the same people." "They have you arguing over this, like, small stuff." "they all want you to agree on Israel." "there are certain things they want you to agree on, then you have to argue on it." "It's the illusion of opinion. Democracy, illusion of choice. The media, illusion of opinion."

The Republican party has become the party of peace, against censorship and surveillance, for free speech, on the side of children, and against toxins, regenerative farming, organic agriculture, farm markets, and healthy food. Democrats don't see this inversion because they are preoccupied with fear of Donald Trump. Most defamations and perjuries applied to Donald Trump are untrue. If you watch ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, you're going to think that Donald Trump is a criminal, dictator, and monster.

The speaker highlights how the public is manipulated by governments and news outlets controlled by the wealthy elite. The military empire exists to protect their capital, not us. The media portrays themselves as saviors from terrorism, but they mostly spread propaganda. Independent news sources like RT and Telesor are crucial for alternative perspectives. The term "fake news" is used to discredit organizations like WikiLeaks that provide factual information. The speaker believes it's wrong to rely solely on mainstream media like MSNBC or Fox. They mention a conspiracy involving Helen Nolan and the White House, emphasizing that disinformation and biased news are common.

Joe Biden's recent press conference was nothing more than a scripted act, with questions and answers pre-planned by news executives and Biden's handlers. It was like watching a poorly acted play, where only the naive audience claps at the end. The parent companies behind the White House press correspondents, such as Time Warner, Comcast, Disney, and Amazon, are using the Biden presidency for their own financial gain and ideological agenda. It feels like the American people are living in their own version of "The Truman Show," where everything is orchestrated for profit.

The speakers discuss biases in news networks, specifically Fox News and MSNBC. They argue that both networks serve as mouthpieces for their owners and lack genuine journalism. The conversation touches on the need for personal responsibility in choosing reliable news sources. The speakers mention specific examples, such as MSNBC's treatment of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, and criticize the network's lack of support for genuine American heroes. They also mention the false equivalency between the biases of Fox News and MSNBC. The conversation concludes with a call for systemic changes in politics and the removal of money from the political system.

The discussion centers on the ongoing tensions with Iran, the potential for American military involvement, and the role of media and ideology in shaping public perception. The speakers express a critical view of how the situation is being managed and portrayed. Key points about the Iran situation: - President Trump publicly claimed “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but the panel notes Israel’s public interest in a broader outcome, specifically regime change in Iran, which would require boots on the ground rather than air strikes. - It is argued that air strikes alone cannot achieve regime change; the Israeli military, even with about 170,000 active-duty soldiers plus reservists, would need American boots on the ground to accomplish such aims against a larger Iranian army. - Senators, including Richard Blumenthal, warned about the risk to American lives in potentially deploying ground troops in Iran, citing a path toward American ground forces. - The new National Defense Authorization Act renewal could lead to an involuntary draft by year’s end, a concern raised by Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute who argues it treats citizens as owned by the government. - There is tension between Trump’s public push for a quick end to conflict and Netanyahu’s government talking about a larger, more prolonged objective in the region, including a potential demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza’s situation. - Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini issued a televised statement threatening to shut the Strait of Hormuz until the United States begs and vowing vengeance for martyrs, signaling that the conflict could continue or escalate beyond initial claims of victory. - The panel highlights potential escalation, including the possibility of nuclear weapons discussion by Trump and concerns about who controls the war, given factions within Iran and differing US-Israeli goals. Tucker Carlson’s analysis and warnings: - Carlson is presented as having warned that a war with Iran would be hard due to Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal aimed at US bases and allies’ infrastructure, and that it would push Iran closer to China and Russia, potentially undermining the US. - Carlson emphasizes the lack of a clear, publicly articulated endgame or exit strategy for the war, arguing that diplomacy has deteriorated and that the US appears discredited in its ability to negotiate peace. - He discusses the governance of Israel and the idea that some Israeli leaders advocate for extreme measures, referencing “Amalek” language used by Netanyahu to describe enemies, which Carlson characterizes as dangerous and incompatible with Western civilization’s values. - Carlson argues that American interests and Israeli strategic aims diverge, and questions why Israel is the partner with decision-making authority in such a conflict. He notes the US’s reliance on Israel for intelligence (with Israel translating SIGINT) and suggests that Israel’s endgame may be to erode American influence in the region. - He also suggests the war is being used to advance a broader political and ideological project, including America’s pivot away from foreign entanglements; he asserts that certain power centers in the US and in media and defense circles benefit from perpetual conflict. - Carlson discusses the moral framework around targeting and civilian casualties, asserting that there is concern over the ethical implications of autonomous targeting and the potential for AI to play a role in warfare decisions. - He notes the possibility that AI involvement in targeting decisions exists in other conflicts, though in the Iran situation, he mentions that a human pressed play in the specific case of an attack (the school near an Iranian base), while coordinates may have come from other sources, possibly shared by Israel. - Carlson discusses media dynamics, describing mainstream outlets as “embedded” with the defense establishment and questioning why there isn’t a robust public discussion about the war’s endgame, exit ramps, or the true costs of war. Media, propaganda, and public discourse: - The panel critiques media coverage as lacking skepticism, with anchors and outlets seemingly aligned with the administration’s war narratives, raising concerns about “access journalism” and the absence of tough questions about goals, timelines, and consequences. - Carlson and participants discuss the use of propaganda—historically, Disney and the Treasury Department in World War II as examples—arguing that today’s propaganda around Iran relies on pop culture and entertainment to normalize or justify intervention without clear justification to the public. - They argue that contemporary media often fails to examine the ethics and consequences of war or to question the necessity and legitimacy of continuing conflict, suggesting a broader risk of technology-enabled control over public opinion and civil discourse. White House dynamics and internal debate: - The guests discuss the possibility of internal disagreement within the White House, noting that while some senior figures had reservations, external pressure, particularly from Netanyahu, may have pushed the administration toward action. - They touch on the strategic ambiguity surrounding US forces in the region, noting that while large-scale ground invasion is unlikely, special forces and other assets may be deployed, with civilian and military costs disproportionately affecting American families. - The conversation also explores concerns about civil liberties, surveillance, and the potential for centralized control of information and warfare technologies to influence domestic politics and social cohesion. Overall, the dialogue presents a multifaceted critique of the handling and propulsion of a potential Iran conflict, emphasizing the risk of escalatory dynamics, the clash of strategic goals between the US and Israel, concerns about democratic consent and media accountability, and the ethical implications of modern warfare technology.

Intel agencies have a significant influence on television broadcasts, Facebook, and Google. Many anchors, including a national security reporter, act as mouthpieces for the Pentagon and the CIA, knowingly spreading lies. This is a common practice, even at CNN. These reporters read government propaganda from intel agencies, and it's frustrating and offensive, regardless of whether one agrees with the lies or not. For instance, when the CIA and Pentagon claimed that Bashar al Assad used poison gas, there was no evidence to support it. Despite this, many people were killed in response.

Joe Biden's recent press conference was nothing more than a scripted act, with questions and answers pre-planned by news executives and Biden's handlers. It felt like watching a poorly acted play, where only the naive audience clapped at the end. The parent companies behind the White House press correspondents, such as Time Warner, Comcast, Disney, and Amazon, are using the Biden presidency for their own financial gain and ideological agenda. It's like the American people are living in their own version of "The Truman Show," where everything is controlled and manipulated.

The media is echoing Kamala Harris's talking points in their accusations against Donald Trump. He highlights the hypocrisy of Liz and Dick Cheney, who advocate for military action but do not volunteer to fight in the wars they promote. This pattern shows that the media acts as a propaganda arm for Kamala Harris, furthering her agenda instead of providing unbiased coverage.

- The discussion opens with claims that President Trump says “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but Israel allegedly wants the war to destroy Iran’s entire government structure, requiring boots on the ground for regime change. It’s argued that air strikes cannot achieve regime change and that Israel’s relatively small army would need U.S. ground forces, given Iran’s larger conventional force, to accomplish its objectives. - Senator Richard Blumenthal is cited as warning about American lives potentially being at risk from deploying ground troops in Iran, following a private White House briefing. - The new National Defense Authorization Act is described as renewing the involuntary draft; by year’s end, an involuntary draft could take place in the United States, pending full congressional approval. Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute is described as expressing strong concern, arguing the draft would treat the government as owning citizens’ bodies, a stance attributed to him as supporting a view that “presumption is that the government owns you.” - The conversation contrasts Trump’s public desire to end the war quickly with Netanyahu’s government, which reportedly envisions a much larger military objective in the region, including a demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza, and a broader aim to remove Hezbollah. The implication is that the United States and Israel may not share the same endgame. - Tucker Carlson is introduced as a guest to discuss these issues and offer predictions about consequences for the American people, including energy disruption, economic impacts, and shifts in U.S. influence in the Persian Gulf. - Carlson responds that he would not credit himself with prescience, but notes predictable consequences: disruption to global energy supplies, effects on the U.S. economy, potential loss of U.S. bases in the Gulf, and a shrinking American empire. He suggests that the war’s true goal may be to weaken the United States and withdraw from the Middle East; he questions whether diplomacy remains viable given the current trajectory. - Carlson discusses Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini’s communique, highlighting threats to shut Hormuz “forever,” vows to avenge martyrs, and calls for all U.S. bases in the region to be closed. He notes that Tehran asserts it will target American bases while claiming it is not an enemy of surrounding countries, though bombs affect neighbors as well. - The exchange notes Trump’s remarks about possibly using nuclear weapons, and Carlson explains Iran’s internal factions, suggesting some seek negotiated settlements while others push for sustained conflict. Carlson emphasizes that Israel’s leadership may be pushing escalation in ways that diverge from U.S. interests and warns about the dangers of a joint operation with Israel, which would blur U.S. sovereignty in war decisions. - A discussion on the use of a term Amalek is explored: Carlson’s guest explains Amalek from the Old Testament as enemies of the Jewish people, with a historical biblical command to annihilate Amalek, including women and children, which the guest notes Christianity rejects; Netanyahu has used the term repeatedly in the conflict context, which Carlson characterizes as alarming and barbaric. - The guests debate how much influence is exerted in the White House, with Carlson noting limited direct advocacy for war among principal policymakers and attributing decisive pressure largely to Netanyahu’s threats. They question why Israel, a client state of the U.S., is allowed to dictate war steps, especially given the strategic importance of Hormuz and American assets in the region. - They discuss the ethical drift in U.S. policy, likening it to adopting the ethics of the Israeli government, and criticize the idea of targeting family members or civilians as a military strategy. They contrast Western civilization’s emphasis on individual moral responsibility with perceived tribal rationales. - The conversation touches on the potential rise of AI-assisted targeting or autonomous weapons: Carlson’s guest confirms that in some conflicts, targeting decisions have been made by machines with no human sign-off, though in the discussed case a human did press play on the attack. The coordinates and data sources for strikes are scrutinized, with suspicion cast on whether Israel supplied SIGINT or coordinates. - The guests warn about the broader societal impact of war on civil liberties, mentioning the increasing surveillance and the risk that technology could be used to suppress dissent or control the population. They discuss how war accelerates social change and potentially normalizes drastic actions or internal coercion. - The media’s role in selling the war is criticized as “propaganda,” with examples of government messaging and pop culture campaigns (including a White House-supported video game-like portrayal of U.S. military power). They debate whether propaganda can be effective without a clear, articulated rationale for war and without public buy-in. - They question the behavior of mainstream outlets and “access journalism,” arguing that reporters often avoid tough questions about how the war ends, the timetable, and the off-ramps, instead reinforcing government narratives. - In closing, Carlson and his co-hosts reflect on the political division surrounding the war, the erosion of trust in media, and the possibility of rebuilding a coalition of ordinary Americans who want effective governance without perpetual conflict or degradation of civil liberties. Carlson emphasizes a longing for a politics centered on improving lives rather than escalating war. - The segment ends with Carlson’s continued critique of media dynamics, the moral implications of the war, and a call for more transparent discussion about the true aims and consequences of extended military engagement in the region.

It's astonishing to see left-wing figures, like Bernie Sanders, claim that Donald Trump is trying to silence independent media. Are they really referring to CBS as independent? CBS even edited an interview with Kamala Harris to make her look better. Alex Soros has also shared claims about an unelected cabal in power, which is ironic considering his family's influence. This moment in history feels very strange. There's been no acknowledgment of the exposed corruption; instead, the focus is on preserving an organization without addressing its failings. The priorities seem misplaced, like funding gender fluid dance programs in Turkey or spending millions on Starbucks cups.

People are brainwashed by Democratic propaganda media. The speaker used to vote Democrat but now sees through the lies. They criticize the media for downplaying threats to Trump and blame Democratic leadership for community issues like crime. The speaker urges people to wake up and stop being blind to the agenda.

The speakers discuss biases in news networks, specifically Fox News and MSNBC. They argue that both networks serve as mouthpieces for their owners and lack genuine journalism. The conversation touches on the need for personal responsibility in choosing reliable news sources. They mention specific examples, such as MSNBC's treatment of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, and criticize the network's lack of support for genuine American heroes. The speakers also debate the false equivalency between the biases of Fox News and MSNBC. They emphasize the importance of removing money from politics and creating new political systems that represent ordinary Americans. They conclude that bickering about which network is worse won't benefit the American people or improve the country's standing in the world.

The biggest threat to America is the media, which is the enemy of the people. Before the Trump-Biden debate, the media promoted Biden and dismissed claims of his senility as right-wing conspiracy theories. After the debate, the media changed its tune, acknowledging Biden's cognitive decline. The media then ushered in Kamala, attempting a coup on Biden, despite no one voting for her to be the Democratic nominee. The media is now fully on board with Kamala, claiming she is ahead in the polls, though the speaker questions the validity of these polls. The media causes racial, familial, and political divide, as well as fear and uncertainty. The media are liars, cappers, frauds, and scammers.