reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@Resist_05 - Pelham
This is a seriously interesting take… https://t.co/sSp7ERT4aP
Video Transcript AI Summary
I fully support the right of self-defense, whether it's in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, the United States, or Britain. If someone from another country came and threatened my land and family, I would defend my country too. However, I won't ignore the fact that the United States government is the biggest terrorist on the planet. Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, which reminds me of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress rejecting apartheid. For Israel to be a true partner in peace, it needs to abandon its ideology of Zionism and treat all people equally. Only then can we expect Hamas to acknowledge Israel. Until then, I see no difference between Hamas and Nelson Mandela's stance on apartheid.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Absolutely 100% without reservation. I support the right of self defense without any doubt. I would be involved myself in violent resistance if I were a citizen of Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan. And if I were a citizen of the United States or Britain and someone from halfway around the world came into my country and started stealing my land and killing my family, guess what? I would defend my country as well.
So I absolutely 100% defend the right of self defense, and I will never shy away from that. I will not join the long list of embarrassments who condemned terrorism while forgetting to acknowledge that the biggest terrorist on the planet is the United States government. Hamas doesn't recognize the right of Israel to exist. You know what that sounds like to me? That sounds like the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela refusing to accept apartheid and recognize apartheid.
I say that Israel, if it wants to be a genuine partner in any kind of peace, needs to destroy its whole ideology of Zionism. Zionism that makes other people goyim who do not deserve to be in the holy land. That's the real problem. Accept it. Israel will embrace every people, including Palestinians equally, human rights respected across the board, then I would challenge Hamas to change its charter and say we will acknowledge Israel.
But until that time, I see no difference between Nelson Mandela and Hamas in refusing to accept apartheid, or the Zionist Israeli state.
@CatchUpFeed - Catch Up
Who’s in the right? https://t.co/yeOwxUtcn1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 confronts Speaker 0 about their doorbell camera, expressing concern over the recording of their comings and goings without permission. Speaker 0 insists it is just a doorbell and not recording them specifically. Speaker 1 argues that the camera invades their privacy, but Speaker 0 claims it is for safety. Speaker 1 questions how they know when the camera is recording, and Speaker 0 explains it is triggered by movement. Speaker 1 argues that it still invades their privacy and threatens to gather neighbors to petition for its removal. The conversation ends with Speaker 1's frustration over being recorded.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Right there, Laura.
Speaker 1: This this thing, it records. Is that right?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You're recording the entire neighborhood. And every morning, you're recording me coming in and out of my property, and I have not given you permission to record me.
Speaker 0: No. I'm not recording you. This is this is a doorbell.
Speaker 1: Do not like. I do not like.
Speaker 0: This is a doorbell.
Speaker 1: This is an invasion of privacy. That's what this is.
Speaker 0: No. No. No. No. This is my doorbell.
No. No. It's my doorbell.
Speaker 1: Yes. It's a doorbell, but a normal doorbell just has a bell. This has a camera. This thing here is a camera. Am I not correct?
Right. And is this This it is recording 24 hours a day. Is it not?
Speaker 0: Yeah. But, like, it's like it's like it's like a safety record.
Speaker 1: My house, and you shouldn't be recording the house.
Speaker 0: Recording your house. Your house is just there. Your house is just there.
Speaker 1: When I come in and out of my house. You are recording me, and you have not got my permission.
Speaker 0: This is an information. It's not recording you. It's recording you right now because you're by my house.
Speaker 1: And when I come out of my house
Speaker 0: because you buy my house. But, like, what I'm saying recording
Speaker 1: when I walk out my house or walk into my house?
Speaker 0: It's not it's not recording you there.
Speaker 1: Oh, really? But it can see me.
Speaker 0: Yeah? Triggered the if you triggered the sensor recording.
Speaker 1: How do you know it's not recording when when I haven't or somebody hasn't pressed the doorbell or when when somebody does press the doorbell, it records everything. And I could be standing there when somebody has pressed the doorbell. Is that not right?
Speaker 0: Well, yeah, it's right. But I'm saying, like, that's just your
Speaker 1: It's invading it's invading my privacy. It's invading my space, that is not correct. That has to be against the law.
Speaker 0: Well, it's not against the law because it's it's a safety feature.
Speaker 1: What if
Speaker 0: you don't have anything to happen? I'm at
Speaker 1: your Labor, whether I like the idea of being recorded. Don't you think you should have asked me? This is my place. Recording? I mean, you don't have permission.
Speaker 0: But the thing is though yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't want you to record me.
Speaker 0: No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. The thing is, like, I don't need your permission because it's, like, You're just there. As in, like, I've not installed it to purchase just to film you.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. Let me set up a tripod right in front of your door. And if you happen to come out of it, oh, well, you're just there. Right? Yes.
Speaker 0: If you're putting it in front of my door, like, I'm not putting it in front of your door. It's by my Sure.
Speaker 1: No. This is in front of my door. Okay. You might be
Speaker 0: just walking right
Speaker 1: away, but you are in
Speaker 0: front of
Speaker 1: the door. You are invading my privacy. I do not like it. I want you to remove it.
Speaker 0: Well, I will
Speaker 1: get a petition to get it removed.
Speaker 0: A petition?
Speaker 1: Yes. I will get all the neighbors and ask them.
Speaker 0: Your head just fell off, love.
Speaker 1: Oh, really? You see? And now you've recorded that. That's just
Speaker 0: wrong.
@Gentilenewsnet - Gentile News Network™
Looks like everyone got their equivalent talking points. https://t.co/wxKN0yd6aY
@NoCapFights - Wild content
Thoughts? https://t.co/DKcYwG0FIm
Video Transcript AI Summary
I am recording you because you are on my property. Please stop recording me and my license plates. My husband is a lawyer, so you can't share this video. Can you move away from my car? It's not a big deal. I won't put it back either. Thank you.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Can I help you? Hi. How are you? Oh, no. Thanks for charging my car.
Are you recording me right now? Is that why your phone's look like that? I am recording you because you're on my property, and I'm sorry that your car is about to die. But Okay. So you have to stop recording me and stop recording my plates.
My husband is an attorney, so you're not gonna put this video anywhere. So I'm not sure what you're doing with your phone. I'll be done in, like, 20 minutes. It's really not that big of a deal. Can you back away from my car, please?
In my driveway. I understand that, but can you back away from my car, please? I'm sorry. It worked just fine. I didn't even know yourself.
I'm not putting it back either.
@unbasedsavage - Unbased🧛🏿
We really got both povs 😭 https://t.co/yYwmLcdGIU
Video Transcript AI Summary
That was insane! A bird at 70 mph? Unbelievable!
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That was the craziest fucking thing that ever happened. 70 miles fucking per hour, a fucking bird. The fuck, dude?
@JScottHolt47 - JScott Memes
The choice has never been clearer! https://t.co/ukVuZpQ5Ci
Video Transcript AI Summary
If border policies were stricter, my daughter would still be here. It's been tough without her, but she's always in my thoughts. This issue isn't about a wall, it's about people's lives. We need to seal the border, stop the invasion, and send illegal aliens back home quickly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If we had stricter border policies, my daughter would It's everyday thinking, you know, that I can call. I mean, I can't. A 1000 lives have made me colder, It's now a very, very hard time for me and my family. I'm here without you, baby, but you're still on my long baby. Are you still with me in my dreams?
And tonight, it's Nobody ever wants to see it. You're talking about the way I found her. Nobody The master keep falling as the people This issue is about a vanity project for this president. And And and and he talks about this wall. I always say, let me know how high it is.
If it's 25 feet, then I'll invest in the 30 foot ladder factory. And on day 1, we will seal the border, stop the invasion, and send the illegal aliens back home, and we'll do it very quick.
@LAguy310 - LAguy
Video for one angle another one coming https://t.co/wZmvEiu55X
Video Transcript AI Summary
The outside appears empty, lacking any visible writing that seems expected. I'll check the other side for a clearer view.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's the outside. I don't see any of the, the writing. It feels like it should have been there. I'm gonna go to the other side and try to get a better view, but it's empty. Well, that car just pulled out.
@LAguy310 - LAguy
This is the very best angle you can get https://t.co/qdgGJ9Nwgk
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm parked illegally on this bridge, but that's okay. There's a dog here, which usually means a person is nearby. I see a "help" sign and a hole in the fence that leads into the yard. I'm unsure if this is a prank by kids or something more serious. I'll take some photos, but I hope it's just kids messing around. This area is exposed, and anyone writing on the wall is visible. It seems like a harmless prank, but I can't be sure. I'll document what I see.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm illegally parked on this bridge, but that's just fine that the cops come. Here is there's a dog. If there's a dog, there's a person. Okay.
There's the help sign right there. The big help. I mean, I honestly don't know if this is just kids fooling around or something real, but, you can get into the yard through there because there's a hole in the fence right there And here, something written right there. I mean, I'll take some photos. But I just like to believe it's just a prank.
It's just a bunch of kids messing around. Because this is, like, this is the street. And over there is where I took my first video where you can kinda see there's a hole, but all this is exposed. I mean, if you're writing that, everybody sees you. I mean, it says out there too, but I don't know.
It seems to me like it's just a bunch of kids playing a prank going in through that hole right there. I mean, I don't know. Maybe it's not. I hope it is, I guess. But this is what it looks like, and I'll take some more photos and stuff.
@Chaotic6033 - Chaotic603
Just my 2 cents.. https://t.co/L28zf50n8r
Video Transcript AI Summary
The awakening process involves recognizing global lies, confronting personal traumas, and detaching from those still "in the matrix." A key aspect is doing it alone and focusing on personal emotional reactions.
Pay attention to what hurts you, who you lose, and how you react to new information. Identify triggers, understand your emotions, and learn how to manage them.
Mastering your emotions prevents others from controlling you. This emotional sovereignty makes you a "dangerous person."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is a goal to this whole awakening process. Yes. There is a whole lot to it. Waking up to what's going on in the world, the lies that we were told, realizing the people that we once idolized are not who we thought they were at all. And then there's the reaching in the dark corners of yourself, all your traumas, dealing with them finally.
And then there's realizing that the people that you love are still caught in the matrix, and you just can't play along anymore. But the one thing that stays through the whole process is you do it alone. That's the point of this whole thing. You pay attention to the way the things make you feel. The things that hurt you, the people you lose in your life, how you react to the information that you find out.
Those are the things you gotta pay attention to. What triggers you, what emotions you go through, and how to deal with them. Because once you go through it all and something else happens, you know exactly what emotion you're about to go through, and you can decide whether it affects you or not. See, that's the key. Once you are the ruler of your emotions, that means nobody else can be.
Think about that because that makes you a very dangerous person. Stay safe.
@KathleenWinche3 - Kathleen Winchell ❤️🤍💙🇺🇸🇺🇸
What’s your take on this situation? https://t.co/PfiuKn83jg
Video Transcript AI Summary
A family was allegedly removed from a Delta Airlines flight from Hawaii to Los Angeles due to overbooking. Brian Sheer and his wife, Britney, were traveling with their infant son and daughter. They had purchased a seat for their teenage son, who took an earlier flight, and used it for their two-year-old.
The airline allegedly used this seat switch as justification to reassign the seat to a standby passenger. A flight attendant suggested the infant sit on a parent's lap. The family was stranded at midnight, and an airline employee allegedly told them they were on their own and that there were passengers waiting for their seats. A flight attendant allegedly threatened that the parents would be arrested and their kids would be taken away if they didn't give up their seats.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It happened again. A family booted off an overbooked flight to make room for other passengers. What are we supposed to do once we're off this plane? And get this, a flight attendant actually said their kids would be taken away if they didn't surrender their seats. So there is gonna be a federal offense, and then you and your wife will be in jail, and your kids will be It happened on board a Delta Airlines flight from Hawaii to Los Angeles.
Brian Sheer and his wife, Britney, were returning from vacation with their infant son and daughter when they were told to give up one the seats. Brian had actually bought a seat for his teenage son. The teenager took an earlier flight. The family used that seat for their two year old. Apparently, that switch gave the airline an excuse to take the seat back and give it to a standby passenger.
A flight attendant actually suggested they take their infant son out of his car seat and sit on mom or dad's lap for the duration of the flight. It was midnight and the family was stranded. I got two infants and one. Have to stay. There's no more flights.
Who is this? Do you sleep in the airport? No. No. At this point, you guys are on your own.
Yep. She actually said, you guys are on your own. And as we're leaving the plane, there's four or five passengers there waiting for our seat. The bottom line is they oversold the flight.
@ErrolWebber - Errol Webber
This needs to be said. https://t.co/S2qZpXurJf
Video Transcript AI Summary
Certain "ghetto blacks" ruin social events because they are confrontational, unable to live in peace, and constantly looking for conflict. They are always asking "who said what about who?" and looking for weapons. At a recent party, some "Shaquafala or some Pookie Ray Ray" stirred up trouble. It is inevitable that when a group of these types of "ghetto blacks" get together, they will always mess up the fun for everybody.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Who invited these jigaboos? I'm sorry but you really can't take certain, you know, folk places. Sometimes you just can't take them nowhere nice you can't have a good time with certain black people and nobody wants to say that part out loud because immediately it's like you're racist it's respectability politics it's it's all of these How about no? It's just that ghetto blacks have a tendency to ruin all the fun. They're confrontational, they're constantly living in this sort of state of fight or flight, they can't settle, they can't live in peace, they're always like who said what about who?
Where's my gun? Where's my this? Where's my that? Let me get to shooting in the It was supposed to be a party where you just go, have some little food, have some little drinks, have a little music, have a good time. Some Shaquafala or some Pookie Ray Ray decided to, you know, stir the pot, I guess.
It's inevitable whenever you get a group of these types of ghetto blacks in one place. They always got to mess up the fun for everybody. You can't take them no Sorry, but nobody else wants to say it.
@ChrisBarber1975 - Chris Barber (Big Red)
Truth spoken 👏 https://t.co/h8PlUSBbVC
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's just one ant, but if you let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up. Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one, and if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life. It's not about food; it's about keeping those ants in line. You let one ant stand up to them, and they might all stand up. Individually, we feel helpless, lonely, often frightened. Together, nothing can stop us. No tyrant can rule us. No dictator can demand from us subservience. Together, we're powerful.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Someone told me to watch this clip. It was that ant that stood up to me. Yeah. But we can forget about him. Yeah.
It was just one ant. Oh, one ant. Yeah. You're right. It's just one ant.
Yeah, boss. They're puny. Puny? Say, let's pretend this brain is a puny little ant. Did that hurt?
Nope. Well, how about this one? Are you kidding? How about this? Wow.
They put this on a children's film. You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life. It's not about food. It's about keeping those ants in line.
I would show this clip in my class. You let one ant stand up to them, and they might all stand up. You see the power of solidarity, the power of all of us together? Individually, we feel helpless, lonely, often frightened. Together, nothing can stop us.
No tyrant can rule us. No dictator can demand from us subservience. Together, we're powerful.
@MYLUNCHBREAK_ - MY LUNCH BREAK
Someone's lying. https://t.co/EdOqQBgcTh
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims that mainstream history is a lie, particularly regarding the "Great Fires" of the 1800s. They argue that the reported death tolls are impossibly low considering the number of buildings destroyed.
Specifically, the speaker cites the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, where 17,500 buildings burned but only a tiny percentage of the population supposedly died. They suggest the city was either empty or the death toll was suppressed, and that the fires were actually planned demolitions of old-world buildings using bombs and explosives.
The speaker highlights other fires, including the Iroquois Theater fire (600 deaths), the Great Fire of London (6 deaths, 13,200 houses destroyed), the Great Fire of New York (2 deaths, 700 buildings), and fires in Paris, Texas; Toronto, Canada; and Montreal, Canada, all with suspiciously low death counts despite widespread destruction. They suggest the population worldwide was near zero in the early 1800s and that a previous advanced civilization existed before 1776. The speaker believes these fires were deliberate attacks to hide our true history. They cite the Great Fire of Detroit, Phoenix, Miami, and Houston as further examples of this pattern.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of two things is more likely than what they're telling us and more probable mathematically, where all of the buildings are destroyed, yet nobody had an issue getting away. So either there were more people that died than just zero point zero zero eight percent of the population when all of the 17,500 buildings were in flames than we're actually being told about, which would make a lot more sense. But this is not the narrative that we're told. And to clear this up and to give this a much clearer perspective, 1871, where people didn't even have cars yet. They had to ride their horses or run around in order to escape this fire.
The population simply wasn't 300,000 people like we're being told. And these cities were actually empty, and the previous civilization was erased. And it was time, more specifically, a planned time to demolish most of their work. And they just absolutely shredded these 17,500 buildings with massive bombs and explosives to destroy the old world civilization's construction. Buildings that would have given this entire narrative away decades ago, destroying 17,500 buildings before anyone really even started living in Chelaga again.
And this option, in my opinion, seems like the most logical answer. Because why would only 300,000 people already have 17,500 buildings in the place? I think this point alone proves that we are being lied to, that the main stream history is not truthful. Right after this eighteen seventy one fire, they tell us that they just cleaned the whole thing up, and all these other brand new buildings are magically here again. For example, like we discussed in episode 58, the Palmer House was completed just four years after the eighteen seventy one Great Fire.
So we can see that the narrative has a ton of issues and flaws. It is becoming story hour. It's not factual information like we deserve at this point, and these questions that we're asking are just opening the floodgates for the truth to come through. We also have the Temple Building to compare the great fire information to. The Temple Building was the tallest building in Chicago, you know, the building that was owned by the which still meets today.
And it also holds the narrative where the primary designer of the building and the primary representative, both of them, not one, both died during the construction, which we have seen so many times. Where we also know from episode 58 that they moved to the new in 1926 where it's time to take this up a notch and really start to put this whole thing into perspective and also go even deeper than we did in our last episode because there is so much more to this story that we didn't cover yet. When the new building supposedly replaced an even earlier venue on the exact same site. So what happened to the one? It opened in November of nineteen o three when the fire broke out one month later in December of nineteen o three.
One month later? During a performance and caused six hundred and two deaths and ranks as the number one worst theater fire in The United States even to this day. For nearly one hundred years, this fire was the deadliest fire in one building in US history, now being number one. And get this. This theater was supposedly fireproof.
One month after being opened, it burns down. This is incredible. And we have seen this exact story before from our Saint Louis episodes when they say that the fire started due to lighting the curtain on fire. So this curtain starts on fire, and the fire exits were locked or hidden, which sounds like a plan opinion. Even if this wasn't a event.
Let's think logically here. In 1871, during the Chicago fire, when 17,500 stone and brick buildings were magically burned to the ground, even though we know that stone and brick does burn to the ground from house fires, which is why you have stone and brick fireplaces inside your living room. And everyone all over the world remains extremely calm, and your neighbors don't seem to mind either. It doesn't and never will spread to their house or to the basement. It won't make your house look like a bomb went off.
And I guess I should say don't try this at home, but come on. You get the point. Do you think that it's possible that they possibly by chance might not have been able to escape their homes or they were maybe up too high in one of the buildings to escape? Do you think that a group of people may have had some trouble escaping their building? Do you think that possible that more than one of the 17,500 buildings somewhere in Chicago that looked like they were exploded might have crumbled on top of someone?
Or is it even possible that maybe a single issue might have came up anywhere like this theater did where the door was jammed? They say that the Chicago fire started at 08:30PM. Do you think that maybe some people were sleeping and didn't realize there was a fire until it was too late. Were there possibly some individuals that had a broken leg or were disabled? Was there not a hospital with people in it that possibly couldn't escape the smoke?
And if they did, where did everybody go? The fire was supposedly engulfing the roads and spreading to the next building. All 300,000 people would have been burnt to a crisp if the mainstream history tale was true. It would have been one massive bonfire, yet basically everybody survived. My point is how is it mathematically possible that one building kills 600 people, yet 17,500 buildings killed 300 people?
At which point does everyone understand that we are being lied to, and the mainstream history from only a hundred and fifty years ago is a lie. So how can you believe something that the same people are telling us about from over 1,000 ago? And how can we believe anything that we're being told by this group of people that lie constantly? Nearly every single one of these great fires happened in the eighteen hundreds right after the 1776 date, which was when The USA began. The main great fire that predates the 1776 date falls on 01/06 which is the London great fire, which is where The USA originally came from.
And I'm guessing based on all of my research that this date of one is a code and not a real event. Because I'm about to take this thing to a whole another level from this point until the end of the episode, and we are going to destroy their narrative. So I hope you all have your popcorn ready. It's time to make our own history. Here we go.
The great fire of London in one six destroyed 13,200 houses, 87 parish churches, the royal exchange, Guildhall, and Saint Paul's Cathedral, 13,200 houses. So there must have been thousands of casualties. Right? Six people died in the great fire of London, and this is when we know we have found something huge. When we go to New York, where they had the great fire of New York destroying 700 buildings.
And which year was that in again? I forget. Can somebody clear this up for me? Am I right, or am I definitely right that this operation worldwide began in 1776. The great fire of New York happened in 1776, holding only two deaths, covering 700 buildings.
Two people died in the entire great fire of New York. Two, seven hundred buildings, and only two people in 1776. So what's the total at? We have one building in Chicago holding 600 deaths. I have shown three great fires so far, Chicago, New York, and London, with a total of three hundred and eight deaths that have a total of 31,490 buildings destroyed.
This is impossible for 31,490 buildings to be engulfed in flames with basically nobody dying. Three hundred and eight deaths to be exact. If you trusted the narrative before today, this day will be the final day that it is trusted ever again. Because in 1916, Paris, Texas also had a great fire where it destroyed everything in its path besides people because it destroyed 1,440 old world buildings where only three people died, moving the total old world buildings that were destroyed up to 32,930. 32,930 buildings gone.
And could you imagine what these buildings, what these cities looked like with the mainstream narrative admitting that these buildings were all here, and now they're gone. So, again, 32,930 buildings are gone with a total of now only 311 Making this extremely clear that we are being lied to about something. Either the death totals were actually way higher than what we're being told or these cities were basically empty. I've had a lot of people comment that they want me to include Canada and incorporate it into my research, and I can't wait to do that right now. Toronto, Canada, you're up.
You had a great fire in nineteen o four, destroying over 100 old world buildings. We know these were built by a much more advanced previous civilization, buildings that would make zero sense in our fabricated main historical timeline where we are given a massive fire, destroying everything in its path with a total of zero deaths. Nobody, not a single person, not one person inhaled too much smoke for two to ten minutes. In a great fire that took down over 100 buildings in 1852, we are given the great fire of Montreal, Canada, where it left 10,000 people homeless when 57,000 people in 1852 had hundreds of buildings, which isn't logical at all or isn't mathematically probable in itself. If you think that Donkeys Incorporated saddled up in the early half of the eighteen hundreds and knocked out massive cities for only 57,000 people, I think it's time to reconsider what you've been told.
When within a few hours, one quarter of Montreal was destroyed, and yet again, nobody died. Nobody. Destroying almost half of the city's houses. In 1852, they all evacuated perfectly and ran to safety. Everybody, not a single person had an issue?
Do you understand what it would take for a fire to spread from house to house rapidly? We all understand that this fire would be massive. I know I'm being brutally honest, but a lot of people would have died. This would have been extremely catastrophic. This would not be a case of zero death.
In fact, it would have been nowhere near zero deaths, and we all know this. This narrative of zero casualties is simply not the true history of our past, where we are also told that 1,100 houses burned down. Nobody had an issue getting away from these fires, not a single person. Fires that supposedly swept the streets to spread to the next house over and over in 1852. How were they just escaping this situation?
You would think that somebody would have died from inhaling too much smoke. Now this tells us 1,100 houses burned down, but leaves out the buildings. So let's just estimate that it was around the same as Toronto, adding another 100 buildings to that 1,100, moving the total buildings destroyed from these great fires to 34,230 buildings destroyed and only 311 And remember, there are hundreds of great fire narratives that happened in the city near you. The mainstream history is suggesting that we are supposed to believe at this point that 110 buildings have to go down in flames for us to record one death. If this was one death per 22 buildings destroyed in these great fires, we would be at a much more realistic death total of one thousand five hundred and fifty five deaths, which is 1 the amount that we're being told.
When realistically, it should be flipped, we should realistically have less death today per building than they would in the eighteen hundreds since we have cars, phones, proper firefighters, and the rest. To say that zero people in the eighteen hundreds from a great fire that swept through the entire city, leaving the end result looking like massive bombs went off multiple times is mathematically impossible. This is not a realistic narrative at all. And now that we have looked into this, compared it to other situations, shown factual evidence that they are lying in all of this. I wanna give my opinion on what happened.
I think that the population worldwide was basically zero in the early eighteen hundreds, and I'm gonna go into great detail on this in an upcoming episode. The previous civilization's population around the world before 1776, I would say 100 prior to 1776 based on the condition that these buildings were in. It would put it at around a hundred years, realistically. It couldn't have been thousands of years. These buildings would have just been a mess, just from the nature growing all over it and inside.
But I believe the worldwide population in what we call the '15 or 16 hundreds was massive. I believe that the technology was much more advanced than what we have today, And we are giving back a very small percentage of this technology and told that it's brand new. And we all get excited and believe it. We are told that we are advancing when really we're just going around and around, getting the same exact technology as last time or less than the previous civilization. And this is all based on control.
The fact that they wrote these fake stories and made it so blatantly obvious that they are fake, saying that zero peep in massive fires, destroying all of their homes, all of their buildings over and over and over. It really makes me think that they were just waiting for somebody to find this information, like it's some sort of test or some strange game because it really is just so obvious once you see the lie. Now knowing what we know about the great fires, I'm going to cover a few more things. Here we have the great fire of Detroit in eighteen o five, which was twenty nine years after The USA came around, and also twenty nine years after the New York great fire in 1776. Notice, nearly all of these great fires are happening after that date, and they tell us that nearly everything was destroyed.
But yet again, nobody died. Where it starts in the stable again, and yet again, not a single Everything is destroyed. Nobody And this reminds me of the repeating narrative where they tell us that everything was built in a year perfectly over and over and over all over the world by a guy and his donkey riding team with no power tools, no machines, no training. The stone shipping company coordinate the delivery right on time. The mud trails and the rain were never an issue.
The freezing winters, they just told them to get over it and toughen up. And they get the whole building or cathedral done with no issues done in seven months. This kind of stuff is so repetitive in just a different way. These narratives hold patterns, and this is one of them. These fire narratives are all connected, and I don't personally think that they were fires.
I think they were bomb explosives. They were deliberate attacks on the old world buildings to hide our true past, our true history, which is exactly why we are all so confused as to where we are and what we're doing here. I really hope you all enjoyed learning about these great oh, oh, wait. What is this? Detroit only had 600 people during this massive great fire?
What did 600 people need hundreds of buildings for in eighteen o five? Well, the math doesn't lie, and it never will. These 600 people did not build these buildings. And I was gonna end this episode right there, but I just wanna make sure this is not a debate at all and an episode that everyone can remember. 1916 Phoenix, great fire.
80 buildings destroyed, one death. Miami, Florida, nineteen o one, 2300 and 68 buildings gone to the fire. Only seven deaths from thousands of buildings. Only seven deaths. Houston, great fire of nineteen twelve.
The fire claimed zero lives but caused an estimated $7,000,000 in damage to property, equating to $237,000,000 today, and nobody died. I hope you all have a great rest of your day. I'll be back very soon with much more. See you.
@OgWolf55 - Old School Classics aka Turk 🎸🎼🇺🇸
What he said. 👇 https://t.co/O9L4fpaKpt
Video Transcript AI Summary
The chaos in Los Angeles is not organic or random, but a calculated move by the leftist ruling class to protect census-based political control. House seats and electoral votes are based on the number of people counted in a state, including illegal aliens. The influx of over 10,000,000 people across the border into blue states like New York and California is about math, not compassion.
Mass deportations and people fleeing these blue states are threatening the math. For every 740,000 illegal aliens deported from a blue state, they lose one congressional seat in 2030. The DNC doesn't just lose votes, they lose control. Burning a city down like LA is a means to stop Trump. Media hysteria is used to stop deportations, and state-level obstruction protects population counts. Protests and riots are designed to bait the feds and flip the narrative. This is about control, power, and political survival, with the census as the real battlefield.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So do you wanna know what all this craziness in LA is really about? The riots, the organized protests, and the current chaos unfolding in the sanctuary city known as Los Angeles? Well, it's not organic, and it's definitely not random. It's actually a calculated move by the leftist ruling class to protect the one thing, the one thing that keeps them in power. Census based political control.
You see, house seats and electoral votes aren't based on how many citizens live in a state, just how many people are counted in that state, and that includes illegal aliens. They are counted as well. So when over 10,000,000 plus flood across the border into blue states like New York and California over the last four years, it's not about compassion, it's about math. More bodies equals more power in congress. But now, mass deportations and people fleeing these blue states are threatening the math.
For every 740,000 illegal aliens that are deported from a blue state is one congressional seat in 2030. And if that trend continues, the DNC just just doesn't lose votes. They lose control and likely for good. This is why they would burn a city down like LA to stop Trump. This is why we're seeing the panic.
Media hysteria to stop deportations. State level obstruction to protect population counts. Protests and riots like we're seeing in LA designed to bait the feds and flip the narrative. This was never about human rights or compassion. They don't care about you.
They don't care about your safety. They only care about control and power. It's political survival, and the census is the real battlefield. Let me know what you think in the comments and hit that
@JOKAQARMY1 - mrredpillz jokaqarmy
From a different perspective. https://t.co/QFwCQAmWoD
Video Transcript AI Summary
An Iranian man states that the Islamic regime in Iran shut down the internet for over twelve hours. He says this is not the action of America or Israel, but of the Iranian government. He expresses worry for political prisoners and regular citizens, fearing the regime might seek revenge on its own people due to losing the war to Israel.
He says Iranians hate the government and have been trying to overthrow it for 46 years. He clarifies that Israel is bombing IRGC and Islamic regime bases, not the Iranian people, and that Iranians support these actions. He claims the Iranian regime are evil people, and the people in Iran hate the regime. He accuses others of supporting the regime and wanting to put nuclear weapons in their hands.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So I'm about to show y'all a video of an Iranian man and what he has to say about the evil regime and how they are in support of what Israel is doing and taking out this evil Islamic regime in Iran.
Speaker 1: Sup, my people? Just wanted to share with y'all that the Islamic regime in Iran, Islamic government shut down the Internet for over twelve hours right now, so we haven't heard anything of our families and friends. And remember, this is not America. This is not Israel doing this. This is a fucking government in Iran.
This is an Islamic regime. And y'all wonder why we hate them? They've been doing this to my people for forty seven years. We are worried for the political prisoners. We are worried for our regular people because we think that since they're losing the war to Israel, they might just take their fucking revenge on our own people.
And y'all wonder why we hate them, why we why my people are cheering on Israel to bomb them? And then we do have some people that come to us and ask us, why are y'all happy that Israel is bombing Iran? Israel is not bombing Iran. Israel is bombing IRGC and the Islamic regime, their bases, their members. And, yes, my people love that.
My people hate the government. We've been trying to take them down for forty six years, and they killed us. They killed us so many fucking times. They killed our kids. So don't fucking tell us that bullshit.
Speaker 0: So maybe now y'all understand that Israel is not bombing the people. Y'all just heard it out of his own mouth what bases that Israel is bombing and what they're trying to do. They are in support of that. Y'all have to understand the Iranian regime are evil people. They are evil.
The people in Iran hate the regime that they're under right now. And y'all are in support of keeping these people under this regime and putting nuclear weapons in the hands of this evil regime. That is y'all are insane, bro.
@DefiantLs - Defiant L’s
What do you think? https://t.co/VLQ2On3PVs
Video Transcript AI Summary
Oscar Moon from the OPP informs Daniel (Speaker 1) about his behavior at town council meetings. He says there was yelling, name-calling, and swearing on the streets, and that behavior is not appropriate. He notes 'There is a section in the criminal code called cause disturbance' for yelling and swearing in public that disturbs people. He warns Daniel that they 'may issue a trespass letter' and that he might be 'not allowed to be in the town hall' after New Year, and that 'if you went to the front town hall again, you get a trespass charge.' A hospital social worker, Kelsey, offers to chat; a 'mobile crisis worker' accompanies. Daniel says he won't confront or swear; 'I've done that a long time ago.' He agrees to stop yelling at them in the streets and acknowledges '100% understand.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, Daniel. How are you today?
Speaker 1: Good day. How are you?
Speaker 0: Good. My name is Oscar Moon with the OPP obviously.
Speaker 1: Right? Yep.
Speaker 0: Hey. So I'm just here to talk about some of your behavior at the town council meetings and town councilors.
Speaker 1: There was no behavior. It was just letters.
Speaker 0: I'm just gonna let you know. So past behaviors, what I've heard is when you see the councilors on the streets in particular, you sometimes yell at them, call the names, and swear is what I've been told? Nope. K. That's fine if you're denying.
It's all good. I just wanna let you know that that behavior is not appropriate.
Speaker 1: I know that.
Speaker 0: There is a section in the criminal code called cause disturbance, which says that when you do things like yelling and screaming in public and swearing and it it disturbs people, that's an offense. So I don't want you to do that anymore.
Speaker 1: Got it. Cool? Yep.
Speaker 0: Cool. The other thing that may happen because they're not particularly fond of your behaviors, they're a little concerned, is they may issue a trespass letter, which would say that you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to pay off. Can I stop for a minute? Sure. After the New Year in the letters, I don't know if you've read the letters at all, we're coming to you people for a fraud investigation.
Speaker 0: Okay. We'll just say that you're not allowed to be in the town hall.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: It would just be like if you went to the front town hall again, you get a trespass charge. Okay? Yep. And these individuals are just here to chat with you because maybe you got a little stress going on. I don't they do.
No. I don't.
Speaker 1: Nothing like that? Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, this this this young lady here is awesome to talk to. I'm just gonna let you have a conversation with her.
Speaker 1: If she if if I don't want her to You don't you don't have
Speaker 0: play out the police
Speaker 1: I'll just introduce myself, and then you can decide if you want to or not. I'm Kelsey with the hospital. I'm a social worker. No. See you.
I ride around with these guys as the the mobile crisis worker. Good for you. So if you want to chat with me at all I know. I'm here to chat with you. I got other people to chat to.
That's perfect. Cool. Glad to have somebody.
Speaker 0: Mhmm. Right. So just to be a 100% sure you understand, don't be confronting the
Speaker 1: top That's of the that's why letters were left. That's why I don't leave.
Speaker 0: You know what I'm saying? 100% understand. You're not gonna confront them and swear them and
Speaker 1: swear them. That's there's documentation. There's documentation here. Got no issues with your letters. Everywhere.
Speaker 0: I got no issues with your letters. I just want you to stop yelling at them in streets because that's not appropriate.
Speaker 1: See, see, what they're doing is just trying to cover up their fraud.
Speaker 0: Just stop yelling at yelling at them in the street.
Speaker 1: That will be brought on.
Speaker 0: You're good with that.
Speaker 1: So go back and tell them that, please.
Speaker 0: Are you agreeing to stop yelling at them
Speaker 1: in Sure. I've done that a long time ago.
Speaker 0: Cool. Awesome. Okay. Alright. Have a great day.
Speaker 1: K. Drive safe now. You too. Thank you.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
We need more of this. https://t.co/9CKI9b8hEr
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript captures a courtroom-style exchange centered on a Keene, New Hampshire ticket case, framed by a post-video commentary praising a pro se participant’s questioning technique. The sequence begins with Speaker 1 highlighting the individual (referred to as a sovereign or un-barred claimant) who challenges the proceedings and observes that the judge is defensive rather than authoritative, urging viewers to note the voices and questions.
Key moments and claims:
- The conversation opens with a question about whether the corporation that issued the ticket is within New Hampshire. An objection is raised (Speaker 2) arguing that the speaker cannot offer a legal opinion, and Speaker 0 notes the lack of bar credentials of the person being questioned.
- The questioning continues with practical inquiries: how many tickets per hour are written by the witness (the meter maid), and what the witness’s hourly pay is for appearing (Speaker 4 answers $25/hour). This is framed by Speaker 1 as a potential conflict of interest, since the witness is being paid to testify, implying non-standard status for a public defender-style cross-examination.
- The witness is asked if they are a cop or deputized; they respond no. This prompts Speaker 1 to declare that the witness is not law enforcement but is testifying for the city, raising questions about legal liability for the court, the executive branch, and the judiciary.
- The questioning probes the identity of the complaining party (Steve Keene) and whether there is a victim. The witness cannot identify a victim, and when asked if there is an injured party, the witness responds unclear or nonresponsive. The judge and DA appear unsettled by this line of questioning.
- The examiner asks whether there is a victim in the matter and, if so, who it is; the witness responds that there is not clear information. The examiner criticizes the witness for not being an attorney or paralegal and proceeds with questions about the nature of the city as a municipality and as a corporation.
- The prosecutor objects to several lines of questioning as improper for a lay witness, while the judge sustains some objections. The examiner emphasizes that the city of Keene is a municipality and questions ownership of the parking space by the city, to which the witness responds that the city owns the space but cannot explain how ownership was established.
- A pivotal moment occurs when the examiner asks whether the city of Keene owns the parking space and if the corporation is within New Hampshire. The witness again defers or cannot answer certain legal questions, prompting further objections and the assertion that a part of the video may have been cut to exclude the portion where the examiner argued about the municipality’s corporate status.
- The exchange continues with questions about evidence, such as whether there is footage of the meter blinking or other corroborating proof, and whether the witness possesses any evidence beyond the claim that the meter was blinking. The witness admits lacking direct evidence beyond the claim itself.
- The cross-examination culminates with a motion to strike the witness as incompetent, which the judge overrules on the basis of expertise; the dialogue notes that the questioning challenges the prosecution and court officers and that the city may be a corporation, a point that appears to influence the subsequent resolution.
- In the closing portion, the vehicle cross-examination continues, and the judge grants the motion to dismiss, concluding that the motion to dismiss is granted with thanks.
Overall, the transcript documents a high-impact, assertive cross-examination by a pro se participant that challenges the witness’s qualifications, the status of the city as a corporation, the existence of a victim, and the sufficiency of the evidence, ultimately leading to a dismissal of the case.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So it is your opinion that the
Speaker 1: Alright. This video was shot to me in the DM. Shout out to the person who shot it to me. Shout out to the person the creator who put this up. This is probably one of the best examples I've seen of a sovereign, somebody who's not bar certified standing up for their rights.
Now I want you to really pay attention to how she's asserting her questions and how it throws everyone else off. They don't know how to deal with it. This is a textbook way of learning how to behave and to question and to hammer and to keep them going. Listen to how the judge is not being authoritative. He's being defensive.
Pay attention to everybody's voice and the things that they say.
Speaker 0: The corporation that you ticketed is within the state of New Hampshire. Yes or no?
Speaker 2: Your honor, objection. She can't give an opinion on a legal matter.
Speaker 0: Well, he didn't pass the bar. How can
Speaker 1: Alright. So right off the bat, he comes with an objection saying that she can't give an opinion on a legal matter. I believe that she's educated enough to where she can. The judge sustains it, but her answer in response to the DA was pretty good too. He didn't even pass the bar.
So she's throwing in some jabs while she's doing it. Still a good job, but keep paying attention.
Speaker 0: Can he give any opinions on action sustained. I don't even know how to meet with my prosecutor before I'd be up here.
Speaker 3: Do you have any questions about this?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Go ahead. So you said you write tickets for the city of Keene. How many tickets per hour do you usually write?
Speaker 4: Maybe the average amount of tickets is like 30 a day.
Speaker 0: How much are you being paid for this appearance?
Speaker 4: I'm getting my normal hourly rate.
Speaker 0: So what is that?
Speaker 4: $25 an hour.
Speaker 0: $25 an hour.
Speaker 1: Boom. And already we got action. This meter maid is so not used to being asked questions like this. She actually answered the question of how much she's getting paid to testify. That is, come on, conflict of interest.
They're being paid to testify. I bet you the the the DA is screaming inside of his mind right now, wishing he can object, but he can't. Why? Because she's not acting like a normal public defender. She's acting like one of us, questioning the things that should be questioned that public defenders won't question.
Speaker 0: Are you a cop or a deputized?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: Boom. We got more action. So she just admitted that she's not even a a law enforcement, but is getting paid to testify. Think about the legal liability that that has on the court, the executive branch, and everybody who's running the courts.
Speaker 0: Who is the complaining party in this incident?
Speaker 4: Steve Keene.
Speaker 0: Objection. Nonresponsive. That's not a human being. So is there a victim? And if so, who is it?
Speaker 5: I don't know how to object.
Speaker 2: This is in front of me.
Speaker 1: Boom. She hits on another point. She says that there's where's the injured party? The DA goes, and he didn't get caught on the the captions, but I'm pretty sure he said this is the government. So what he's saying is that they know they're getting caught with their pants down, that this is a good question that public defenders never ask that they're not ready for.
Speaker 0: There has to be a victim for there to be any there has to be cause, and there has to be injury. I'm not really referring to that. Well, I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to this knife. Can I finish, please?
Speaker 1: Oh, look at this judge being a good boy asking, please. Isn't that great? How often do you see that? Why? Because she has them worried.
Now pay attention to this next move right here. This move where he grabs his ear, I believe he's signaling to the DA, but pay attention and watch.
Speaker 3: Yeah. This goes to her motion to dismiss, I think. So I'll let her ask a couple of questions related to that. So the objection is oral for now. Go ahead, miss Riemann.
Do you like to repeat the question, please?
Speaker 0: Is there a victim in this matter? And if so, who is it?
Speaker 4: I have no idea. I don't understand what you're asking.
Speaker 1: Oh, this video is so great for so many reasons because not even the meter maid understands the full ramification of the question she asking, not the weight of the question she's asking. And it's so great because I bet you the DA and again the judge are sitting there like, oh, this is killing us. But if for those of you who know, you know the weight of the question she's asking.
Speaker 0: Is there a victim in the matter that we're here for today?
Speaker 4: I don't believe so.
Speaker 0: You don't believe that there's even a victim, but you believe okay.
Speaker 5: I object. She's not an attorney. She's not a paralegal.
Speaker 3: Okay. And But I I I don't disagree.
Speaker 1: Hell no. The judge don't disagree. And let me tell you why. Because a paralegal or a lawyer would know better than to not ask these questions on the record. They are being asked, and she is proposing questions that are bringing real problems to the table, and they are nervous.
They don't know how to respond. We need floods and floods of this kind of litigation from litigants that are pro se or soy juris. This is how you need to be questioning everything. Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Actually, what is the city of Keene?
Speaker 1: And then, boom, she hits them with a dynamite question, the the the kill shot. And let me tell you why, because they know that the city of Keene or wherever is just a municipality, which is a quasi corporation. Now they're getting into for profit problems.
Speaker 2: Person and officer that she has the capacity to answer that legal question.
Speaker 3: I agree with the objection. That objection is sustained.
Speaker 0: And do you have any evidence besides your claim that the meter was actually expired today? Well, that's not an evidence. That's she's just claiming it again.
Speaker 3: Answering your question. Anything she answers is technically evidence.
Speaker 0: Did you hear my question? Because my question was Yeah. Do you have any evidence besides your claim that the meter was actually expired?
Speaker 4: Other evidence? I I I don't understand.
Speaker 0: Was there a picture? Did you take a picture of the meter blinking or are you just claiming that it was blinking?
Speaker 4: I claim that it's blinking and
Speaker 3: it But
Speaker 0: do you have any evidence other than that?
Speaker 4: No. Okay.
Speaker 3: No. Okay.
Speaker 0: Do you have any evidence that I was operating the car?
Speaker 4: It doesn't matter who's operating the car. I've got evidence the car was parked there. I I don't understand what you're asking.
Speaker 0: Do you have any evidence that I was operating the car?
Speaker 4: No. No.
Speaker 0: Do you work for a corporation?
Speaker 4: I work for the city of Kane.
Speaker 3: Move on, please. The objection in the move.
Speaker 1: Alright. So if you notice right there, the the camera feed stops. So if this was filmed by the court, they cut a part of it out because she objected and wanted to say that that was part of a municipality, which is a corporation. She's nailing it. And the fact that that part was cut out of this video shows you everything that they don't want you to see that kind of information.
Speaker 0: Okay. Is the city of Ken a corporation?
Speaker 4: I don't believe so.
Speaker 0: Alright. I move to strike her testimony because she's incompetent to testify because she doesn't need to know that.
Speaker 3: Overrule. You've asked her questions, she can't answer. That's not necessarily uncommon. She's So that's overruled. It's an expertise.
Speaker 0: Does the corporation you work for, which is the city of Keene, own the parking space in question?
Speaker 4: I believe they do.
Speaker 0: Well, how did they come to own it?
Speaker 4: I have no idea.
Speaker 3: I've reviewed your motion and I'm not sure I understand how the question was relevant even to your motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it is your opinion that the corporation that you ticketed is within the state of New Hampshire? Yes or no?
Speaker 2: Your honor, objection. She can't give an opinion on a legal matter.
Speaker 0: He didn't even pass the bar. How can he give any opinions on I the don't even know how to go to my prosecutor or be up here. Alright. I'm done asking questions for her and I'd like to call the state as a witness. I mean the city of Keane as a witness.
Speaker 3: This isn't your time to call. Maybe you can do this.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I'll do that when I can. I've rushed my question. And it seems to me can I answer? I can't answer that ever?
Yep.
Speaker 1: Man, this is gonna be my favorite video of all time. She did such a great job. This one should be the poster child for what to do in court, and I'll let the rest of it play out, but great work.
Speaker 3: The vehicle, it wasn't just her, it was her and Mr. Cooper that came in to detest the ticket. While it may not make sense for someone who wasn't the person who parked the car to come in and detest the ticket, but I also don't have the ordinance here that tells me who the properly chargeable person would be for the pardon me. So I can't say that the state is not burned in this case. So the motion to dismiss is granted.
Thank you. Thank you.