reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers on the case involving former high-ranking official Joris Demming, who, once again, has prompted a new victim claim. This time, journalist Fred de Brouwer died in a scooter accident in Thailand this weekend. De Brouwer, together with Henk Krol, was among the first to write about the alleged child abuse by Demink. For Henk Krol, it is hoped that this latest incident is purely a coincidence. Meneer Krol expresses condolences on the “film” and calls the development crazy. He notes that Fred had been in dialogue with several Dutch media outlets, because those outlets were finally prepared to relay the story the way it had come to him. Is it an accident, or is there more behind it? Speaker 1 says: “Nee, dat weten we niet.” The report from bystanders in Thailand claims De Brouwer was followed by a white car and then run over; the driver has not been found. This is described as “op zijn minst een merkwaardige dood” — at least a remarkable death. Asked whether he fears for his own life, Speaker 1 replies that in his circle there are many who say not to do it, “want je ziet hoeveel mensen er omgevallen zijn.” Yet he hopes it was all coincidence. If in the future it turns out that something happened to him as well, it would become harder to believe it was coincidence.

The speakers discuss the political situation surrounding Geert Wilders and the PVV. The first speaker suggests that if Wilders had participated in a debate, the other side might have won, and expresses frustration that “nothing happens in the Netherlands” right now. The dialogue turns to the nature of democracy within the parliament, with one speaker insisting that the parliament is “super democradig” while implying the PVV is not. The conversation questions the democratic legitimacy of the PVV, reinforcing that one speaker is not a member of the PVV in the traditional sense. A key point raised is the claim that there is “not a democratic club” for the PVV, contrasting their approach with the broader parliamentary system. The other speaker counters by noting that they are a member of the faction, not the party, highlighting a formal distinction: “Not of the party, because there is but one person and that is Geert Wilders himself.” This statement emphasizes a centralized leadership structure and suggests that the party’s organizational breadth is limited to a single figure at the top. The exchange also touches on the hypothetical impact of broader party membership, with a suggestion that if the PVV could assemble more members, it might be argued to be more democratic. Despite this, the speaker indicates that they will refrain from pursuing that argument in the current discussion. Throughout, the speakers grapple with how representation and democratic processes operate within the Netherlands’ political landscape, especially in relation to Wilders and the PVV. The dialogue conveys a sense of urgency and dissatisfaction about the state of politics, underscored by the assertion that a debate or more widespread participation could have changed outcomes, in contrast to the stagnation they perceive in the present moment.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

Speaker 1: “The material, put it like that. The material used in my body is.” They discuss violence, asking, “she just got stabbed?” and reply, “that’s not me.” They say, “since they did that, now they gotta investigate the material my body is supposed to,” adding, “Since they won’t do all that, now they gotta investigate.” The talk shifts to geopolitics: “She’s from the Ukraine. She’s from Russia. And, you know, they got a war they had a war going on against The United States.” They express confusion, “out of all people her.” They conclude, “That’s hey. It ain’t I don’t have nothing. I they just lashed out on her. They lashed out on her.” The closing line asks, “Who else working the are work who was working the material who was whoever was working the material, they lashed out on her.”

The transcript centers on allegations that Naftali Aaron Kranz is a paid protester and that a group called GetFree recruits and deploys paid demonstrators. A journalist questions whether there is someone they can speak to, and the conversation suggests the person of interest is on the other side of a park. The speaker asserts that Naftali Aaron Kranz is “a paid protester through and through,” and that he posts on LinkedIn to hire paid protesters for GetFree, a company advertising itself as a grassroots organization while paying people to protest. GetFree is described as hiring for part-time mobilization support contractors, seeking individuals with four-plus years of experience in leading direct action, large-scale mobilizations, demonstrations, and civil disobedience (which is described as experience getting arrested). Compensation is reportedly 3,500 to 4,200 dollars per month for an average of twenty hours per week. The speaker claims GetFree’s stated mission is to undo white supremacy, despite the assertion that Kranz and others are paid to protest. The narrative highlights Kranz’s participation in protests, including celebrating vandalism, with an example cited of “Crown Heights stay winning” after an egg was thrown at a stranger’s cyber truck and dog feces placed on it. The speaker places Kranz at an abolish-the-police rally, noting he is not leading the protest but blending in with recruits, enabling a later photo op. The claim is that this recruitment tactic blends various leftist causes to inflate the appearance of each individual cause. The speaker also states Kranz works with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and was encountered at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. LinkedIn activity is cited again, with Kranz posting about paid protester roles and recruiting nationwide in Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore to expand turnout at events. When clicking a linked job posting, the contract is described as nine weeks, part-time, paying about 3,400 dollars in stipends issued biweekly, with responsibilities including recruiting and training people to drive turnout. The speaker identifies Nicole Cardi at the top of the Get Free movement and attributes a belief that George Floyd protests were a factor in Biden’s 2020 victory. The transcript connects protest NGOs to political goals, claiming donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the Department of Justice is investigating for foreign contributions. It also asserts ActBlue funds activists like Indivisible Twin Cities, which allegedly orchestrates resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis and has been paid protesters, receiving over 7.6 million dollars from Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros. The speaker concludes with a personal note to stay away, and the journalist states they have to go.

Speaker 0 ran into a boy associated with Live Laser, who spoke of a communist platform. Speaker 0 said the situation led them to take that boy into a time-out. Speaker 0 described that the interview was not their best, but that the content stands. Speaker 1 asked whether this results in a time-out from the coalition toward Speaker 0’s party. They noted that the coalition had previously called for cooperation regarding creating majorities, particularly in the Second Chamber where Speaker 0 has been represented since Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 asked whether there is still any enthusiasm for such cooperation after the commotion and statements. Speaker 0 replied that they cannot force anyone to talk with them. They said everyone should “just count to 76,” that they had explained what they meant, and that they would not cross any legal boundaries, “also not morally.” Speaker 1 responded that the judge would ultimately decide.

The speaker says the subject of the interview is not a Democrat and would be offended to be called one. The speaker doesn't believe a political issue would cause the subject to do such a thing. The subject never mentioned the senator or representative who were targeted. He didn't like Tim Walz and would say things like, "I don't like that Tim Walz did this." The subject mentioned a protest, but the speaker doesn't think he said anything about it. The speaker would tell him to surrender himself so he could be taken alive. The subject listened to Infowars, and the speaker told him not to take everything they say for granted. The subject was a Trump supporter, voted for Trump, and liked Trump.

The discussion centers on serious allegations involving a programmer who accused OpenAI of stealing people’s work and not paying them. The group notes that this programmer was murdered, with several participants presenting conflicting views on his death. Speaker 1 states that it was a great tragedy and that the programmer committed suicide, expressing a strong belief that it was suicide. In contrast, Speaker 0 describes the situation as clearly a murder, citing multiple troubling details and offering their personal conclusion that the programmer was killed. There is also any emphasis on the programmer’s public exposure. Speaker 2 notes that the programmer had been named four days earlier in the New York Times lawsuit and had just done an expose for the New York Times on how copyright issues with OpenAI were involved, specifically on the twenty-sixth, highlighting timing as very odd. The conversation touches on surveillance and investigative details. Speaker 3 claims there were multiple investigations and two police reports, but asserts that only one police report has been seen, alleging that in the first report the writer changed it, and that this is the second report; they claim the only one seen is the second report. The narrative then returns to the stated belief that the programmer was murdered. Speaker 0 lists signs of foul play: a struggle, surveillance camera footage, and wires cut. They detail that the programmer had just ordered takeout, had returned from a vacation with friends on Catalina Island, and that there was no indication of suicide. They note there was no note and no observed behavior suggesting suicide, and that the programmer was found dead with blood in multiple rooms, arguing that these factors make murder seem obvious. The question of whether authorities have been consulted is raised, with Speaker 0 asking if the authorities have been talked to about it. Throughout, Speaker 1 reiterates their belief in suicide by asking, “Do you think he committed suicide? I really do,” maintaining that position even after the murder narrative is presented. Speaker 1 confirms they have not discussed the matter with the authorities.

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

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if he is a PVV Member of Parliament, and Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 says he recognizes them all, to which Speaker 1 agrees. The interviewer then asks about Speaker 1’s ambitions for the next four years, but Speaker 1 says he will answer later. Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1 is high on the list and again says he will be told later. The interviewer mentions that Speaker 1 was described as “the new talent shaved,” and Speaker 1 responds that that will go well. Speaker 0 remarks that he hasn’t noticed it yet.

Het interview met Gidi Marcushauer werd nationaal nieuws nadat hij in een eerder interview (met een journalist van Legd Laser) geweldsoproepen deed tegen Palestijnse asielzoekers. Volgens Bo had Marcushauer eerder zelden kritisch doorgevraagd gekregen, waardoor volgens de maker onderwerpen uit zijn verleden niet eerder aan bod kwamen, zoals waarom hij bij een arrestatie een vuurwapen bij zich had. De video gaat volgens de makers op drie vragen in: wat Marcushauer met een vuurwapen bij zich droeg “bij de rij”, waarom hij geen vicepremier mocht worden, en voor welke geheimzinnige stichtingen hij eerder actief was. In een gesprek met Marcushauer vraagt de journalist naar zijn uitspraak-over-beveiligingsachtergrond en probeert door te vragen; Marcushauer neemt herhaaldelijk een time-out en wil vragen niet beantwoorden. Er wordt aangehaald dat Marcushauer in 2024 geen vicepremier mocht worden op basis van onderzoek van de AIVD. Tegelijk wordt gesteld dat er in 2010 al onderzoek liep naar vermoedelijke contacten met een buitenlandse mogendheid, en dat Marcushauer zich toen terugtrok als PVV-kandidaat-kamerlid. Een commissielid zegt dat de details over de banden met buitenlandse inlichtingendiensten hem niet bekend zijn, en dat er daarover binnen de commissie niet wordt uitgeweid. Volgens de transcript is Marcushauer in 2008 aangehouden in Amsterdam omdat hij een vuurwapen bij zich droeg. Hij zou een vuurwapenvergunning hebben gehad en bestuurslid zijn bij een Joodse schietclub. Tijdens die periode hield hij zich volgens vrij Nederland bezig met beveiligingsactiviteiten voor stichting bij leven en welzijn (BLUE), die volgens het stuk vooral Joodse instellingen en evenementen beveiligt en volgens vrij Nederland “discreet” is binnen de Joodse gemeenschap. Verder wordt beschreven dat een tweede stichting, Briet Abraham (Bijd Abraham), nauwelijks online informatie heeft, behalve Kamer van Koophandel/IND-gegevens. De transcript stelt dat BLUE en Briet Abraham vanaf 2010 hetzelfde bezoekadres deelden en dat bestuurders en gevolmachtigden overeenkwamen. Ook lijken hun activiteiten op beveiliging/bewaking. Alleen Briet Abraham staat volgens de IND als erkend referent voor arbeid en kennismigranten, wat volgens het stuk inhoudt dat de stichting toestemming kan aanvragen voor verblijfsvergunningen voor arbeid/kennismigranten. Marcushauer zou volgens het transcript tot 2008 bestuurslid zijn geweest bij beide stichtingen, en zich binnen twee weken hebben uitgeschreven na zijn vuurwapen-arrestatie. De makers stellen vragen over wat Briet Abraham precies doet en of Marcushauer kennismigranten naar Nederland heeft gehaald; Marcushauer wil de vragen niet beantwoorden of zegt dat er aannames worden gemaakt. Daarna komt de beveiligingspraktijk van BLUE aan bod. Uit een Woo-verzoek zou blijken dat BLUE-beveiligers geen regulier uniform hoeven te dragen, wat volgens activisten het lastig zou maken om onderscheid te maken tussen beveiligers en bijvoorbeeld undercover politie. Leden zouden volgens het stuk trainingen in Israël volgen, vaak van oud-militairen. In 2016 zou Marcushauer opnieuw een rol vervullen bij BLUE, als lid van de raad van gedelegeerden, terwijl hij in de Eerste Kamer portefeuillehouder justitie is. De transcript koppelt dit aan vragen die hij daar stelt over samenwerking met landen zoals Israël. Er wordt ook een bredere netwerkroute geschetst via Paul Stoppelman en schietvereniging Macabi. De transcript stelt dat Stoppelman actief blijft in de beveiligingswereld, dat hij wordt genoemd in een oud artikel over Israëlische vrijwilligers, en dat Stoppelman vervolgens volgens de makers ex-IDF-soldaat Gabrio inschakelde om eind 2024 een delegatie van Israëliërs te beveiligen tijdens een delegatie door Nederland. Gabrio wordt op 14 november gearresteerd op Schiphol; er worden doorgeladen pistolen en ook een ER-vijftien thuis gevonden. In een gesprek zegt Gabrio dat hij op basis van spanning en omstandigheden meerdere vuurwapens meenam en dat hij de informatie zelfstandig zou hebben. De transcript stelt daarnaast dat Macabi onderdeel is van een uitgebreider netwerk met banden richting Israëlische politiek, en noemt een ontmoeting van Macabi-voorzitter David Bezemer met Israëlische minister van defensie en president Hertzog. Ook wordt vermeld dat Macabi en BLUE gezamenlijke zelfverdedigingscursussen organiseren, waarbij onduidelijk blijft door wie die precies worden gegeven. David Bezemer verklaart in het stuk dat Stoppelman al lang bestuurslid is en dat hij na publicaties contact heeft opgenomen voor opheldering; Bezemer zegt geen idee te hebben van contacten met Israëlische veiligheidsdiensten en dat vragen aan Stoppelman gesteld moeten worden. Tot slot stellen de makers dat het onderzoek al lang loopt en dat er geen enkel concreet strafbaar feit is vastgesteld, maar dat er volgens hen veel vragen en opmerkelijke banden zijn. Er wordt aangehaald dat Marcushauer binnen de Nederlandse Joodse gemeenschap bekendstaat als radicaal en dat zijn geweldsuiten over Palestijnse vluchtelingen passen in een breder patroon, inclusief een uitgelekte e-mail over Israël-kritische Joden. De transcript zegt dat dit verhaal relevant wordt doordat Marcushauer bijna vicepremier werd, eerder als risico werd gezien door de AIVD, en volgens de makers een sleutelrol speelt in een minderheidskabinet.

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

- Thijs van den Brink introduces himself and is asked to confirm a past interview. He says he has interviewed many people and cannot recall details about a specific interview with Yvonne Köls regarding a child-abuse suspect vice president of the Hague court, mentioning the name Theo Huub. He offers to have the episode sent to him for refreshing his memory. The other speaker notes the exchange as unusual, suggesting it occurred under the CDA cabinets during Lubbers and was swept under the rug. - A separate speaker announces that the radio interview of Thijs van den Brink with Yvonne Köls from 2015 is on their YouTube channel, dated 19 August 2025, and invites listeners to check the text and listen. - The conversation shifts to Yvonne Köls’s 30-year-old novel about a pedosexual child judge. It is noted that it provoked strong backlash against her rather than the judge, including criticism, public opposition, and even physical intimidation. Despite this, the book is being republished. Köls explains that the case still disturbs her because the judge was never prosecuted, and the press largely gave attention to the opposing party rather than Köls or the victims. - Köls is a guest on a program. She explains the reason for reissuing the book: a new generation is interested and can engage with the topic. She mentions that the Catholic Church has taken steps internally and disrupted the system, and that investigations extended beyond the church to include child care institutions and care facilities. She states she had substantial knowledge from that period. - She reflects that at the time she could have spoken more about what she knew, but she was not heard. She notes that the children assigned to her pupils, who were also abused, were excluded from coverage by others at the time. She adds that the men involved are now 45 or 46 years old, and that the abuse occurred when the victims were between 10 and 15 years old. - The program concludes with acknowledgment that the victims have spoken.

They want us to believe that it was the left that was responsible: 'They want us to believe that it was the left that was responsible.' We're supposed to believe that 'this guy shot Kirk, then took the rifle apart, put it in the knapsack, jumped down, and hurry away.' We're told he hid it 'in a wood in a reassembled state' and then 'tells his his mate on a text where he's admitting everything in the official story.' And so what you need to do before you start jumping to conclusions, HFF. There may be elements in which that is the case, but 'who's orchestrating it?' Let's do some freaking research, and let's find out what really happened. People have killed him. They want civil war between left and right.

Speaker 0 says the MAGA crowd was trying to characterize the assassin as anything but one of them because the guys the 22 year old kid in Java's family was MAGA. As if a 22 year old with a trans girlfriend never rebelled against their family. He adds, I mean but was he on the left? I don't know that either. The remarks reflect a dispute over how political identity is attributed to the shooter and reveal uncertainty about the attacker's exact political alignment, highlighting skepticism about simplifying motives to a single label. The exchange centers on how media and audiences might interpret the killer's beliefs through family affiliations and slogans rather than direct evidence.

The conversation centers on the Seth Rich murder and its alleged connection to WikiLeaks and the 2016 DNC email controversy. An FBI forensic report purportedly found that Rich contacted WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and Rich allegedly provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10, but his wallet, phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later, showing top DNC officials discussing ways to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, which contributed to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair and the DNC’s top three officials. Speaker 1 questions whether there is an “October surprise” and whether material is being held. Speaker 2 of the Helix group states that they do not sit on material and emphasizes that whistleblowers take significant risks; they note Rich’s murder as an example of high stakes and risk to sources, asserting that sources seek anonymity with them. When Speaker 1 asks if Rich was a source, Speaker 2 declines to comment but says they are investigating what happened to Rich and are concerned about it, though no conclusion has been reached. Speaker 3 argues that Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and asserts that the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders; he notes that Rich was aware of this and was involved as it happened, with Donald Brazil also involved. He describes Rich as idealistic and patriotic, and recounts his murder after leaking information to WikiLeaks, insisting that this is not a conspiracy theory but a fact-based concern. He challenges others to acknowledge the alleged corruption within the Democratic party and suggests that those who ignore the facts are engaging in denial. He also critiques media portrayals and online accusations about his own credibility. Speaker 4 discusses Assange and WikiLeaks, criticizing the idea of a conspiracy theory and labeling Assange as a key figure who exposed corruption. He mentions that Assange now “works for Russia” and questions the Ecuadorian embassy situation, describing it as heavily manipulated by interests around Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. He connects the Seth Rich disclosures to broader allegations of a coordinated effort to undermine Clinton and her circle, while acknowledging that some related claims may be questionable. Speaker 6 notes that hacking of the DNC and the role of CrowdStrike remain controversial and points to the subsequent murder of Rich as a focal point for questions that have not been fully explored by the media. Speaker 7 echoes concerns about the timeline, the FBI’s involvement, and past inquiries that were not pursued, emphasizing a sense that the case and the broader narrative around the DNC emails have been inadequately examined. Speaker 8 presents a long, conspiratorial narrative alleging that on 11/01/2016 Hillary and Bill Clinton orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-option of key institutions, while a countercoup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated to undermine Hillary and the Clinton machine. The speaker claims a silent countercoup across the Internet, led by members of the intelligence community, to stop the Clintons from gaining power and ensure Obama leaves without pardon, framing the moment as a major transitional event and a second American revolution conducted without guns.

Two speakers volley questions about fascism and anti-fascism. Speaker 1 asks: "Are you Antifa?" and "You're pro fascism?" "But can you at least say that you're anti fascist?" Speaker 0 responds: "I wouldn't say so." "I'm not really... I have still both political views on things." "I'm not gonna say that if I don't know." The exchange probes neutrality: "You think we're new you think you were we were neutral on fascism in World War two?" "The US was Antifa against the Nazis." Speaker 1 presses: "So then, like, why wouldn't you want to be Antifa?" Speaker 0: "I don't know. I'm trying to." "I can't believe Trump has you, like, so cooked in the brain that you don't even know how to say that fascism is wrong." A sponsor line interrupts: "Innovega is redefining what's possible for people with vision loss." Later, "Are you against fascism?" and "If you are against fascism in the comment section, type three in the comment section you're against fascism." The discussion veers to "Partying convicted felonies. Well, let's talk about that. So"

Speaker 0: 'you guys are basically stealing people's stuff and not paying them, and then he wound up murdered.' Speaker 1: 'Also a great tragedy. He committed suicide.' Speaker 0: 'Do you think he committed suicide?' Speaker 1: 'It was a gun he had purchased.' Speaker 0: 'There were signs of a struggle, of course. The surveillance camera, the wires had been cut.' Speaker 0: 'No indication at all that he was suicidal. No note.' Speaker 1: 'And his mother claims he was murdered on your orders.' Speaker 0: 'the city of San Francisco has refused to investigate it beyond just calling it a suicide.' Speaker 1: 'I immediately called a member of congress from California, Ro Khanna, and said, this is crazy. You gotta look into this. And nothing ever happened.'

The speaker attempts to define fascism. The other person admits they don't know what it is, identifying themselves as a photographer. The speaker prefaces their explanation with "So is kind of like when United." They then ask if they are being recorded.

Speaker 0 zegt Marcus Hauer vaker te hebben geïnterviewd en dat hij vaker extreme uitspraken doet, met ook een omstreden verleden. Hauer is volgens Speaker 0 wel eens met een vuurwapen opgepakt geweest en mocht niet minister-president worden; de AIVD zou verdenkingen hebben gehad dat hij banden had met een buitenlandse inlichtingendienst. Speaker 0 koppelt dit aan een inhoudelijke context: Palestijnen zijn op dit moment de grootste groep mensen die asiel aanvragen in Nederland indienen. Volgens Speaker 0 demoniseert Hauer de Palestijn, maar steunt hij ook de “rede, de motor, geweld” waardoor mensen gaan vluchten. Speaker 0 stelt dat dit niet uniek is aan Hauer, maar dat de situatie opmerkelijk was en dat Hauer volgens hem herhaaldelijk bevestigde dat geweld een rol speelt. Speaker 1 vindt het gek dat iemand die zijn woorden zo goed afweegt “dan hier zo ontzien” wordt. Speaker 0 antwoordt dat Hauer Israël steunt en dat bij Israël al heel lang genocide wordt gepleegd, en dat Hauer daarom consequent en eindelijk eerlijk zou zijn. Een andere spreker (Speaker 2) zegt dat Hauer tot nu toe die grenzen heel duidelijk zou hebben bewaakt. Speaker 0 merkt op dat Hauer mogelijk nooit zo kritisch bevraagd is als bij sommige aspecten van zijn verleden, zoals waarom hij een vuurwapen bij de rij droeg. Speaker 1 stelt dat de kwestie volgens hem vooral gaat om de uitspraken die Hauer bij Speaker 0 heeft gedaan, en zegt te betwijfelen dat Hauer die uitspraken “echt gepland” zou hebben als reactie op Speaker 0. Speaker 0 stelt dat het niet verbazingwekkend is dat iemand onvoorwaardelijk achter Israël staat dit soort geweld steunt, en gaat verder dan alleen woorden. Tot slot zegt Speaker 1 dat wat een politicus er in Nederland zo over zegt zelden zo ver gaat als dit. Speaker 0 zegt dat Nederland volgens hem wapensystemen blijft kopen van land waar “energieer” of volgens Speaker 0 genocide wordt gepleegd, en stelt dat dit extremer is dan alleen de uitspraak.

The speaker was asked if they believed students protesting were motivated by anti-Semitism or horror at the Gaza slaughter. The speaker dismissed the idea of students being driven by horror and refused to continue the conversation if it was being recorded.

A journalist asks if there’s someone who can be spoken to about hearing, and is directed to the other side of the park. The exchange turns into a broader set of allegations about a man named Naftali Aaron Kranz and the organization Get Free. The speaker claims Naftali Kranz is a paid protester through Get Free. They present LinkedIn posts recruiting for paid protesters for the company, described as Get Free’s “part time mobilization support contractor.” The speaker asserts Get Free bills itself as a grassroots organization while Naftali and others are allegedly paid to protest. They claim Get Free aims to “undo white supremacy” and that one of the best ways to do that, in Naftali’s view, is to celebrate vandalism, citing Crown Heights, where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s cyber truck and placed dog feces on it. The speaker contends Naftali attended an abolish the police rally but was not the leader, instead blending in among other recruits, and that he works with the DSA, explaining why the speaker met him at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. On LinkedIn, the speaker says Naftali frequently posts about paid protester roles, urging people to join to “help us expand our effort to win reparations across the country,” with recruitment across Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. They describe a nine-week contract, part-time, paying $3,400 in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation who will recruit people and train them to drive turnout at events. The speaker also says Naftali is part of Jews Against Trump and urges donations to bail funds to “bail immigrants out of concentration camps,” adding a claim that a Jewish person who calls an immigration detention center a concentration camp has a serious mental illness, and criticizing colleges like NYU, the Democrat party, and mainstream media as brainwashing. The speaker asserts Nicole Cardi is at the top of the Get Free Movement and claims she says the George Floyd protests were the reason Biden won the 2020 election. They argue that protest NGO groups are about getting Democrats elected, and that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the speaker says is under investigation by the Department of Justice for foreign contributions. The speaker alleges ActBlue has funneled billions to activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which is said to be orchestrating resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis. Indivisible is claimed to have paid protesters and received over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros.

Speaker 0 questions Meneer Markushauer about why he could not become vice premier, implying it would have happened if it were up to Geert Wilders. The questions prompt whether he should ask Wilders about the matter and suggest that not everything passed the AIVD security check. The line of questioning then shifts to which foreign intelligence service Markushauer actually works for, asking him to declare whether he works for any foreign security service and specifically referencing the Turk. The questions continue to press: what foreign affiliation does he have, if any, and whether he has ties to a foreign intelligence agency. The speaker mentions the Stichting bij Leven en Welzijn and asks about firearms, suggesting this is a recurring topic in related groups. There is an insinuation that Denk might nominate a member of parliament who works for the Turkish security service, and the speaker urges Markushauer to answer plainly if there is nothing to hide. The conversation also notes that ANP (the news agency) wants an answer from Markushauer, signaling media interest in his affiliations and security clearance. The overall point is to probe Markushauer’s possible connections to foreign intelligence services, questions about his eligibility for high office based on security checks, and to obtain a clear admission or denial regarding any such affiliations, with an emphasis on transparency given political risk and media attention. The exchange presents a sequence of provocative questions intended to challenge Markushauer on loyalties, security vetting, and potential foreign influence, while underscoring public and media demand for clarification.

Speaker 0 states that a federal investigator told Fox News that an FBI forensic report on Seth Rich’s computer showed he made contact with WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and that Rich provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10; his wallet, cell phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later showing top DNC officials trading ideas on how to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, leading to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC’s top three officials because of the apparent conclusions in those emails. Speaker 1 asks if there is an October surprise and whether anything is known about what is being sat on. Speaker 2 replies that WikiLeaks never sits on material, noting that whistleblowers take significant risks to provide material. He references a 27-year-old DNC worker who was shot in the back in Washington two weeks earlier for unknown reasons, insisting there is no finding that it was a robbery, and questioning what is being implied. Speaker 1 presses, asking if the murdered man was one of their sources. Speaker 2 declines to comment on sources, reiterating that the stakes are high in the United States and that sources face serious risks, which is why they come to WikiLeaks to protect their anonymity. He acknowledges the seriousness of the murder and says they are investigating what happened with Seth Rich, though no conclusion has been reached, and that a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when such events occur. Speaker 3 contends that Seth Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and implies the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders. He asserts Rich was murdered after leaking information to WikiLeaks, describing Rich as a young, idealistic patriot who wore American flag attire, and argues that the murder is connected to corruption in the Democratic Party. He reflects on his own experience with online detractors and acknowledges flaws in many political figures; he asserts that it is rare to find someone who wants to be “the king of the world” and notes his own perceived lack of reputation. Speaker 4 contributes with emotion, insisting that Seth Rich was murdered and that the claim of a botched robbery is unfounded, listing inconsistencies (wallet, watch, phone left behind). He references Julian Assange and Russia, calling Assange the “darling of the left” when Obama was in office and later noting that Assange is stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy. Speaker 5 and Speaker 6 discuss broader context: Speaker 6 notes that the week WikiLeaks coverage happened on Fox News coincided with Mueller’s appointment and Comey’s firing, suggesting Fox pivoted from Russia stories to Seth Rich to deflect. Speaker 7 explains DNC data release timing, claiming FAT (file allocation table) formatting changed last-modified times on files, implying data was downloaded to a physical device before publication, suggesting an inside job rather than a Russian hack. Speaker 8 links the chain of events to the FBI, CrowdStrike, and questions about the investigation, alleging possible media silence and questioning why the murder case wasn’t more scrutinized. Speaker 9 recalls a private investigator’s work and notes that the FBI came to possess Rich’s laptop, with some at the DNC suspecting political motivation behind his murder; he asserts a media lack of follow-up. Speaker 10 presents a much broader claim: on 11/01/2016, Hillary and Bill Clinton allegedly orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-optation, and a counter coup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated by intelligence communities to prevent Hillary from becoming president and to indict Obama administration figures, describing this as a silent, internet-based counter coup and promising a peaceful transition without violence.

The speaker says they were glad that Charlie Kirk was murdered, responding immediately at work with “Good! Fuck that Nazi white supremacist piece of shit!” and describing an uncomfortable silence afterward. They later say the look on their coworker’s face haunts them, and that a follow-up question became psychologically impactful: “Have you ever actually watched any of his debates?” The speaker claims they dismissed the person as intellectually dishonest and admits they had not watched Kirk’s debates. They say their beliefs about Kirk were based on “thousands of hours” of recordings using a limited set of out-of-context clips curated by algorithms and by media organizations funded by the political opposition. They also describe mocking those saddened by Kirk’s death and downplaying it by repeating the idea that “Political violence is just an unfortunate yet necessary step toward our coveted socialist revolution.” They say they began noticing a common thread: the same repeated comment in nearly every online space—“Have you ever actually watched any of his debates?” They initially interpret it as routine right-wing regurgitation and a “cult” dynamic. They describe clicking a random YouTube thumbnail of Kirk to reaffirm preconceived biases, calling it an attempt to confirm what they already believed. On the same day, they say it became an unusually stressful afternoon when they spoke to their father for the first time in years, after years of their father supporting and loving them unconditionally. They then describe an sleepless night as they come to terms with the idea that what they thought they hated about the right—bigotry, stupidity, violence, vitriol, and narrow-mindedness—was actually “an outward projection of hatred toward my own self.” They conclude by stating “Charlie Kirk is my hero,” saying he “opened my eyes” to the “cruel and manipulative nature” of their political media, “brought my family back together,” and “taught [them] how to love again.” They end by challenging others who take issue or offense to answer the same question: “Have you ever actually watched any of his debates?”