reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- Speaker 0 expresses a core problem: how to support the Donald Trump presidency when the figures associated with his circle (Alex Jones, Owen Shroyer, Ian Carroll) embody traits they oppose, prompting questions about alignment with their side. He asks how to reconcile supporting Trump with these associations, calling it an objective problem. - Speaker 1 responds that he has not researched certain controversial items (Eric Prince’s phone) and notes that Eric Prince is a polarizing figure from the military-industrial complex world. He argues that involvement in war fighting does not automatically make someone evil and that a full picture requires digging beyond initial impressions, acknowledging he hasn’t done all the research. - Speaker 0 challenges this, citing his own video: Eric Prince has three CEOs for Blackwater, all with intricate ties to the IDF. He questions coincidence between Palantir Technologies and the surveillance state, Israel’s influence, and three IDF-affiliated Blackwater CEOs, referencing USS Liberty and suggesting Eric Prince’s past atrocities and a lack of accountability. He asks whether such a figure could ever be considered a good person and whether repentance is possible, noting he hasn’t seen Prince acknowledge past wrongs. - Speaker 0 adds BlackRock as another easy target, claiming BlackRock, with help from the Trump administration, bought two ports in the Panama Canal for $22.8 billion, and contends Trump mentioned a company would buy the Panama Canal during the State of the Union, but did not name BlackRock. He challenges the listener to consider whether Trump is on their side given this nugget of information. - Speaker 1 says he was not endorsing a specific device or action, calling the “phones” comment offhand and irrelevant. He reiterates he isn’t waiting for Trump or Elon Musk to act in the interest of people, and states he’s intentionally not waiting for them to do so. He emphasizes starting change bottom-up, and encourages starting conversations rather than trolling, suggesting Seven Seas could help. - Speaker 0 shifts to a broader miscommunication problem: there’s a gap where people misread each other, treating allies as enemies. He advocates filling this gap through dialogue with diverse figures like Seven Seas, Ian Carroll, Joe Rogan, Whitney Webb, Derek Brose. He mentions a planned March sit-down interview between Derek Brose and Ian Carroll, hoping for a productive exchange, while noting past heated exchanges where ad hominem attacks diminished constructive dialogue. He cites Clint Russell and redheaded libertarian as examples of contentious interactions. - They discuss disagreements over Trump’s ideology and policies, including concerns that Trump still praises the VA, pharma, and large-scale spending, which confounds libertarian critiques. He cites a national debt comparison between Obama and Trump era spending, arguing that debt devalues the dollar and harms Americans, regardless of party. - Speaker 0 reiterates suspicion that the criticism of Trump and Elon Musk coexists with perceived support for them, labeling it an inconsistency. He promises to withhold calling someone a shill until there is clear intent to deceive. Speaker 1 suggests focusing on good-faith arguments, mentioning Glenn Greenwald with respect, and invites Seven Seas to share their take on Ian Carroll’s reaction to Seven Seas’ post.

Anthony Fauci and his understanding of evidence-based medicine is questioned by Speaker 0 and Speaker 1. They both agree that he seems to lack this understanding. Speaker 0 clarifies that they don't believe Fauci is intentionally misleading, but rather that his repeated phrase "trust the science" is akin to trusting a psychopath. Speaker 1 finds the concept of "trust the science" to be vague and questions its meaning, likening it to witchcraft.

Speaker 0 claims his life is awesome, while Speaker 1 is going to work. Speaker 0 mocks Speaker 1 for going to community college and working with his hands. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of shitting on blue-collar workers while trying to appeal to them. Speaker 0 clarifies he is trying to appeal to rich people and identifies as an elitist, "kind of" like Richard Spencer. Speaker 1 says Speaker 0 has never worked with his hands and lives a terrible life. Speaker 0 says he likes being poor and that it's manly. Speaker 1 says he's not poor, it's just cheaper to live the way he does. Speaker 1 asserts that every functional member of society works, except Speaker 0. Speaker 1 says he'd rather be a functional member of society than be unique. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 wants to be a cog.

Speaker 0 demands answers and truth, claiming that people cannot handle it. Speaker 1 questions the purpose of pretending and inventing. Speaker 0 asserts that everyone's history is a fabrication and illusion. They mention living in a world with guarded walls, questioning who will protect them. The transcript abruptly ends.

Speaker 0 begins by questioning the veracity of a claim regarding Peter Thiel’s involvement or endorsement, asking explicitly, “Is it fake news that Peter Thiel backs you?” Speaker 1 responds concisely, “That is fake news,” and collapses the claim as false. The exchange then shifts into a tension-filled moment, with Speaker 0 expressing skepticism: “I don’t believe you.” The doubt is anchored in perceived connections or ties, as Speaker 0 asserts there are “too many ties,” implying a network of associations that could influence perception or credibility. The discussion moves to a specific anecdote or clip in which Speaker 0 refers to a claim about Peter Thiel inviting Speaker 1 to “his own version of a Diddy party.” Speaker 1 addresses this directly by recounting their understanding of the invitation. They state that they were told about it “in San Diego,” but they did not end up showing up for the event. In other words, Speaker 1 is saying they received information about such an invitation, but they never attended. Speaker 0 presses further, seeking clarity on whether being contacted by “that type of person”—implying Peter Thiel or his circle—was legitimate or credible. Speaker 1 clarifies the nature of the invitation as “not direct,” clarifying that the contact was “through a mutual.” This description suggests a mediated or indirect approach to the invitation rather than a direct personal invitation from Thiel themselves. In attempting to interpret the sequence, Speaker 1 adds a brief reflection on the claim by noting that they had “claimed that I worked for Peter Thiel or something,” which they then retract or contextualize as not accurate. The conversation touches on underlying associations without presenting a definitive endorsement or formal role. Speaker 1 reiterates that the connection was not direct and emphasizes the indirect path of communication, implying that any asserted alignment with Thiel’s circle was mediated rather than a straightforward, explicit affiliation. Towards the end of the exchange, Speaker 1 attempts to summarize or contextualize the matter by mentioning “there's something to do with, like, the fashion,” indicating a contextual or thematic element related to fashion that may be part of the broader conversation or perceived associations, though no further specifics are provided. The dialogue centers on contested claims about backing, the reliability of social connections, and a debated invitation that was discussed in San Diego, ultimately noting an absence of direct contact or attendance.

Speaker 0: I don't have it because I don't want it. Speaker 1: I don't trust you. I need proof of vaccination to exist. Some of us resist the lies and pseudoscience on TV. The government abuses power, confuses and scares people. I may be wrong, but I won't complain. I'm a singer who uses my brain and middle finger. I won't take anything. Vaccine passports won't affect me. Hell no, I won't get it. Hell no, I don't trust the government. Hell no, I won't comply.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 a question, but Speaker 1 avoids answering and finds the conversation pointless. Speaker 0 insists on getting an answer, but Speaker 1 dismisses them and claims not to care about their opinion. Speaker 0 tries to discuss the book's claims about society, but Speaker 1 interrupts and accuses Speaker 0 of being biased. Speaker 0 asks about the values the book mentions, but Speaker 1 refuses to continue the interview, ending the conversation. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their time and comments on the lack of anger in American political discourse.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they got the vaccination and if they are okay. Speaker 1 confirms they got vaccinated and that it worked. Speaker 0 then mentions trusted sources and compares it to finding out about the moon landing or aliens. Speaker 1 responds by saying that Speaker 0's statement is idiotic and lacks rational thought. Speaker 1 concludes by saying that nobody in the room gained anything from listening to it.

Speaker 0 discusses the conflict between the stability of his current work with Mark Lutchman and his spiritual calling represented by "Donnie," which he sees as a platform to share a message deeper than politics. Speaker 1 raises concerns about conflicting messages on Speaker 0's accounts, citing examples such as praising the U.S. while also claiming it was founded by occult Freemasons and that Satan is the prince of America. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's true beliefs, accusing him of hypocrisy and profiting from stirring up conflicting ideologies. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 will delete the "Donnie" account, as he can't fight for opposing sides simultaneously. Speaker 0 admits to being hypocritical and takes full responsibility. He mentions discussions about the path forward, including his family's insistence that he step away from "Donnie" to focus on providing for them. He has been searching for other jobs, despite the pay cut. He is at a crossroads, considering handing "Donnie" off to someone else.

Speaker 0 asks how people can trust Speaker 1 and if he is part of the cabal. Speaker 1 responds by saying not to trust him, but to trust themselves. He dismisses the idea of controlled opposition and encourages people to do their own research and make their own decisions. He criticizes those who are indecisive and urges them to take action and make a difference. Speaker 1 talks about his sacrifices and the hardships he faces, emphasizing that he doesn't care about votes but wants to save the country. He calls out politicians and accuses them of being part of controlled opposition. He concludes by telling people to stop asking him questions and to take responsibility for their own actions.

The speakers exchange pointed claims about vaccination status and social policy. Speaker 0 asserts that vaccinated people are the problem and that it is the unvaccinated who are responsible. Speaker 1 counters with a stance that the unvaccinated should be shamed and blamed, and asserts that it is time to start blaming the unvaccinated, not ordinary people. The dialogue emphasizes distrust of the unvaccinated, with Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 associating the unvaccinated with negative behavior and calling for punitive approaches. Speaker 1 argues that the unvaccinated include children and people acting like children, and contends that it’s time to stop tolerating “the idiots in this country” and to mandate vaccination. The speakers discuss shaming the unvaccinated and refuse to call them stupid or silly by implication, while also stating that those who are not vaccinated will “end up paying the price” and that the unvaccinated should be taxed or pay more for health care. Speaker 0 suggests treating the choice to remain unvaccinated like driving while intoxicated, implying it should be addressed with similar seriousness. Speaker 1 claims that only the unvaccinated are dying and condemns misinformation, urging shaming and shunning of those who spread it, calling for turning people away. The dialogue advocates exclusion for the unvaccinated: Speaker 0 says unvaccinated individuals should be denied entry to offices or places of business, and Speaker 1 argues that if you don’t get vaccinated, you can’t come to work. The phrase “Ew. Screw your freedom” expresses a rejection of individual freedom in this context. Speaker 1 contends that the unvaccinated have put everyone in a bad position and asserts that it is not a good place. The conversation ends with a provocative statement about freedom and power, declaring that “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it's never more than one generation away from extinction.” The closing lines add, “Ice of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. They were wrong. Question everything.”

People question trust, controlled opposition, and Freemasonry. The speaker urges self-research, criticizes lazy attitudes, and emphasizes personal responsibility. They highlight sacrifices made for the country, financial struggles, and the importance of action over words. Another individual shares traumatic experiences of witnessing child abuse and vows to expose the truth despite potential risks. The conversation delves into the need for coherent storytelling to gain credibility and the eventual release of evidence. Despite warnings, the speaker remains resolute in their mission to reveal the truth.

Speaker 0, speaking in March 2024, argues for “deflating” the system. The core claim is that there exists a fake controlled opposition: illiterion puppets posing as opponents on each side, but in reality both sides serve the same agenda of totalitarian control and the controlling illiterion masters. The purpose of deflating, according to this view, is to prevent the fake opposition from being bribed or blackmailed, which would otherwise keep control of the narrative and shape of public perception. The speaker contends that in these large-scale systems there is no real democratic choice and there never will be. The proposed solution is to deflate the parasitic system. The transcript then references David Icke and a claim about Donald Trump: “David Icke, Trump doubles down on support for COVID fake vaccines and boosters despite outcry from conservatives.” The speaker questions Trump supporters, stating that “He was a fraud all along as I have said since 2016 and he has been leading you to glorious failure for the masters that own him. No politician is going to get us out of this. We have to do it.” This presents the position that Trump’s stance on vaccines is used to illustrate a broader pattern of manipulation by a so-called masters’ system, implying that political leaders are not the solution and that collective action is necessary outside the conventional political framework. The transcript also includes a claim attributed to Catherine Austin Fitz: “Trump put $10 billion dollars into a program to depopulate The US.” This assertion is presented as a sourced claim, accompanied by a prompt to like and follow and a source referenced as tumia.org. The overall narrative ties these points together to argue that both mainstream politics and alleged hidden forces operate to maintain control, and that true change requires deflating the parasitic system rather than relying on political figures or conventional democratic processes.

The speakers discuss powerful individuals who want to keep Speaker 0 out. Speaker 0 believes they should want him because he is a great candidate, but Speaker 1 suggests it's about control and being on their team. Speaker 0 refuses to make a deal with these people and sees it as a battle worth fighting. Speaker 1 mentions the importance of raising money to win and suggests pausing rather than going away. Speaker 0 disagrees and vows to be the biggest pain for these people, even if it means they might try to kill him. Speaker 1 understands but advises caution.

Speaker 0 claims the Department of Government Efficiency found hundreds of billions in fraud, but Speaker 1 denies any fraud was found. Speaker 0 alleges Social Security is paying people over 220 years old, which Speaker 1 disputes. Speaker 1 criticizes Trump's anti-immigrant stance and calls Musk a "thug." Speaker 0 defends Trump, suggesting he might be the greatest president in modern American history. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 "deluded" for supporting Trump, characterizing Trump as rude, nasty, and racist. Speaker 0 accuses others of being in a cult, claiming they try to stop people from talking to those with different ideas. Speaker 0 says things got "hot" and troopers asked him to leave. Speaker 0 then shares the speech he planned to give, emphasizing that all are Americans with First Amendment rights and should unite to eliminate corruption.

Speaker 0 questions if the theory of secretly saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals is something Speaker 1 supports. Speaker 1 responds by saying they haven't heard of it, but they are open to the idea of helping to save the world and are willing to put themselves out there.

Speaker 0 asks how people can trust Speaker 1 and if he is part of the cabal or a freemason. Speaker 1 responds by saying not to trust him, but to trust themselves. He dismisses the idea of controlled opposition and urges people to do their own research and make their own decisions. He criticizes those who are indecisive and tells them to grow up. Speaker 1 talks about his own sacrifices and challenges, claiming to eat rice and onions daily while fighting for important causes. He expresses frustration with politicians and accuses them of being part of the problem. He concludes by telling people to stop asking him questions and to take action themselves.

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 0: I’m a little pissed at the New York Times, honestly. But since you’re listening, I believe in your mission. When you write a technically completely illiterate article, you lose a lot of credibility if people are technical. That article about us being a surveillance thing is like where it’s all implied, what we do. The problem is you lose credibility with anyone who goes on the thing. That’s damaging for our democracy. Speaker 1: ask you this. And I’ll Speaker 0: look left and right. One thing I would say to people in the audience: you know you’re a lot of you think I’m right. And you know your spouse, your relative, your child, the person at work would be horrified if they knew it. You better speak up, because everyone who thinks I’m a ridiculous fascist, they’re speaking up. They write about it every day. If you do not speak up, the people who are disagreeing with me or think I’m stupid a lot, I disagree with myself. So, you have to speak up. And you cannot blame the far left, far right idiots. When they speak up for their views, do you speak up for your views? Where? Do you tell your colleague, I bet you at The New York Times a lot of people read that article about us and were ashamed. Did you go to your editor and say, how can you write something that’s technically illiterate? The guy might be a fascist, but this is technically illiterate. Okay. Speaker 1: Let me ask you different question. Speaker 0: Did you or didn’t you? Because I’m the only one speaking up. You’re gonna get a world of technical illiteracy on the right, on the left, and in the middle. Speaker 1: Alex, help me with this. A lot of Speaker 0: people

Speaker 0 asks if anyone, regardless of political affiliation, could watch the preceding two hours of discussion and feel angry. Speaker 1 responds by stating that their message to anyone who might feel angry is: "I don't give a fuck."

Speaker 0 argues that conspiracy theories have been made to look like lunacy, noting that the Kennedy assassination popularized the term “conspiracy theorist.” He says it wasn’t widely used before Kennedy, but afterward it became a label for “kooks,” and he’s repeatedly been called that. Speaker 1 acknowledges this dynamic. He and Speaker 0 discuss what a conspiracy is—“more people working together to do something nefarious?”—and Speaker 0 asserts that conspiracies have always happened. He disputes the view that most conspiracies are due to ineptitude, insisting that when there is profit, power, control, and resources involved, most conspiracies, in fact, turn out to be true. He adds that the deeper you dig, the more you realize there’s a concerted effort to make conspiracies seem ridiculous so people won’t be seen as fools. Speaker 1 remarks on the ridicule as well, and Speaker 0 reiterates his own self-description: “I am a conspiracy theorist,” a “foolish person,” and “a professional clown.” He mocks the idea that being labeled foolish is a barrier, and reflects on how others perceive him. Speaker 0 then provides specific, provocative examples of conspiracies he believes are real: Gulf of Tonkin was faked to justify U.S. entry into Vietnam; production of heroin ramped up to 94% of the world’s supply once the U.S. occupied Afghanistan; and the CIA, in the United States, allegedly sold heroin or cocaine in Los Angeles ghettos to fund the Contras versus the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He states clearly that these claims are real and asserts that there are conspiracy theorists who are “fucking real.” Speaker 1 pushes back on reputation and judgment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms his self-identification as a conspiracy theorist who faces mockery. Speaker 1 suggests that this stance might give him a “superpower.”

Speaker 1 states that the Andromedans have 1,833 individuals living underground between 100 and 200 miles beneath the surface. They have lifespans of thousands of years, are carnivorous, and are not friendly to mankind, at least the ones that are here. They eat living humans, not dead ones, with a preference for children. They claim there are other groups who say not to talk about the reptilians, but Speaker 1 says otherwise. According to the Andromedans, these beings are responsible for 31,712 children disappearing in the last twenty-five years from the United States, and these children were food. Speaker 1 adds that 3,000 children in Westchester County, New York have vanished in the last five years, asking why this is happening and why people remain in denial. Speaker 0 asks how these beings are able to come up from underground and do this. Speaker 1 explains that they have cooling systems everywhere that are aided by the Grays, and there are groups within the higher echelon that help them acquire this. In addition, human beings abduct the kids and get them to the Grey Zoo, which in turn hands them to the Alpha drug contest, as part of the deal. They won’t come up as long as humans feed them down there. Speaker 1 reiterates that it’s about human beings selling themselves out, describing the echelon attitude as the needs of the few outweighing the needs of humanity, and that this is not right. Speaker 0 comments that humanity will have to rise up and take a stand, suggesting people turn off their televisions, get in their cars, and fire everyone in Washington, DC who knows and does nothing. They argue that apathy must end, or the way we live will end. They emphasize that they are not speaking from a fear space, but from anger about the apathy. Speaker 1 complains that lectures try to tell people, but others want to stand up and fight; indications are everywhere, saying the truth is now an obscure thing and the lie is the norm. Speaker 0 apologizes for seeming crazy, and Speaker 1 reassures that they are not.

In this video, Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1, accusing him of being anti-American and anti-free speech. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for working at CNN and trying to censor conservative voices. Speaker 1 denies the accusations and refuses to engage in an interview with Speaker 0. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 0 calling Speaker 1 a liar and a fraud. Speaker 0 also accuses CNN of being fake news and engaging in racketeering. The video ends with Speaker 0 expressing his belief that the truth about Speaker 1 and CNN will eventually come out.

The term "controlled opposition" exists for a reason. Meeting people in real life gives you a better sense of who they are, though it's not foolproof. Take Alex Jones, for example. People accuse him of being controlled, but I know his staff, and I've known him for years. Is he really faking his entire life? I've been on his show and seen his prep work; it's the same even when no one's watching. I was really woken up by his video on the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle. He showed masked men in military uniforms creating chaos, which allowed the police to move in. These people then negotiated with the police and were released, just like Patriot Front. Sometimes you just have to relax a little bit and activate your animal instinct while driving your cerebral cortex with emotion, like Emperor Palpatine.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of spreading propaganda and not providing education. Speaker 1 questions if Speaker 0 will target the transgender community next. Speaker 0 interrupts Speaker 2, apologizes, and insults Speaker 1's understanding of the topic. Speaker 1 points out Speaker 0's lack of knowledge.