reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The exchange involves a heated confrontation centered on insults and threats, culminating in a potential firing and the involvement of camera evidence. - The dialogue opens with one person repeatedly insisting, “don’t give a fuck,” and prompting the other to say it again, with hostility focused around the word “ Jew.” The other person challenges, “Say it again. Jew,” and responds, “What'd you call me? A Jew.” The first person asserts, “You is right,” and asks, “Why'd call me that?” The confrontation escalates, with the other person asking, “Because you're asshole. Why'd asshole. Why'd you call me that?” and then clarifying, “Because you're an asshole.” - The dialogue shifts to probing whether the use of “Jew” indicates a prejudice: “So you have something against Jews?” and “I got something against Jews. But why’d say Jew?” There is an insistence on the clarity of the term, with repetition: “But why you say say Jew? Jew? Why you say Jew?” - Tension intensifies as the first speaker asserts the other is “aggravating Jew,” and then modifies to “aggravating ass Jew.” The interaction hints at a corporate setting or formal process, with the line, “This is going to corporate,” suggesting the matter is being escalated beyond the immediate exchange. - A firm declaration follows: “I don't know. Fuck. You're being fired.” The other responds with defiance or resignation: “Kiss my ass.” The first asserts control of the situation, stating, “You're discriminating against me. That's what I ain't just screaming.” The speaker indicates they have evidence (“I had you on camera. I don't know before. I don't care. I really I have the location. I have you on camera.”) - The discussion emphasizes confrontation about the use of discriminatory language. The other person repeats, “You're being fired… I have you on camera,” reinforcing the potential consequence and documentation of the incident. - The exchange closes with ongoing conflict over remarks about Jewish people. The line, “You're dumb. Say something about Jews again.” is challenged, followed by, “How about Say something about Jews again. How about I'm gonna say about Jewish people.” The declaration, “I'm gonna say it. I'm gonna say Say what you just said about me,” signals an intent to provoke or continue the contentious dialogue. Key elements: a dispute involving anti-Jewish remarks, accusations of discrimination, threats of termination, and the use of video evidence and location data to support actions, culminating in a reaffirmed intention to discuss or repeat the remarks about Jewish people.

Speaker 0 outlines concerns about governance and patient safety, stating that “the governor” is ultimately over the issues, with nurses and the medical board implicated. He recalls that the medical board “came in and Please please do from letting insurance are being abused,” noting that complaints would take up to eight months to be contacted back or would “vanish into a black hole.” He emphasizes that staffing was blamed despite unspent staffing funds and asserts the governor is ultimately responsible. He mentions that his staff queried the possibility of being an Israeli spy and calls for immediate hearings, adding that discussions have been ongoing and something will be done. He references news that Josh Shapiro, a Kamala Harris vice-presidential contender, was queried by her staff about being an Israeli spy, and contrasts this with the lack of questioning about Walsh being a Chinese spy or having a predilection to fraud. He references antisemitic lines of credit and notes receiving massive inquiries, saying they will host a seminar on how to fight back, including defamation lawsuits as a recourse for public figures, though acknowledging the difficulty of such actions. Speaker 2 states she does not know the person but notes a predilection for people close to the others, insisting the person is “not part of the club.” Speaker 0 recalls a podcast with a Christian podcaster and expresses that to do this line of work, one must believe God drives it because they do not make money. He remarks on being disliked for not chasing popularity and invites others to examine their Twitter feeds. He describes the harassment they face, including lawfare, stalking, threats, and the desire to “kill me,” recounting examples like Carrie Donovan. Speaker 2 agrees on the intensity of threats and emphasizes the importance of truth and accountability in their reporting, not wanting to be deterred by intimidation. Speaker 0 adds that belief in a higher purpose is necessary to endure the profession, noting that after October 7 his faith was shaken but returning to the idea that God orders their steps. Speaker 2 adds that the local community deserves to know when someone is not who they claim to be or has a criminal record, and that elected officials deserve scrutiny. Speaker 1 introduces Adam with Accuracy in Media, saying he is dealing with three defamation suits from wealthy individuals’ families and has faced 13 swatts and daily death threats, sometimes requiring off-duty police at college campuses. He highlights the value of anti-SLAPP laws and tort reform, noting North Carolina lacks an anti-SLAPP law, which would help dismiss frivolous defamation suits protecting free speech, and criticizes legislators for lobbying for lawyers. Speaker 0 announces a good development: a story they broke on Thursday prompted Brendan Jones, head of the real bulldog in North Carolina’s oversight committee, to request appearances before his committee in Winston-Salem. They plan to discuss the Winston-Salem event, North Carolina A&T, and the Western North Carolina story, which Margo finds triggering. Speaker 3 from the city notes DEI support and discusses terminology changes since the FBI’s ban, and Speaker 1 comments on leadership differences between states, suggesting better governance in other legislatures and hoping for improved leadership locally. The exchange ends with remarks about leadership and governance comparisons.

We apologize for the incident on Friday and extend our apologies to President Zelensky and the Ukrainian delegation. Recognizing the individual in question was a mistake and disrespectful to the victims of the Nazi regime.

I made a mistake with a charity donation in a video celebrating 100 million subscribers. I rushed it during my wedding and honeymoon. I didn't choose a charity I'm passionate about. I want to take my time to do it right. I'm sorry for the confusion. Let's continue with the video.

The speaker addresses the public perception of an apology tour and advertisers leaving. They mention speaking to Bob Iger and express their disinterest in having advertisers if they are being blackmailed with money.

Speaker 0: I feel really blessed to be able to sit here with you today and just take accountability. I was dealing with various issues, including bipolar, which would take the ideas I had and drive them to extremes where I would forget about protecting the people around me or myself. I wanted to come and take accountability. Sometimes people aren’t that knowledgeable about bipolar and the causes or how you act when you have this disease. So it’s like if you left the house and you left your kid at the house, and your kid went and messed up the kitchen and the garage and the living room, and when you get back, it’s your responsibility because that’s your child. And that’s the way I look at it. I’ve got to go clean up the kitchen, clean up the living room, clean up the garage. Yeah. And it’s a big deal for me as a man to come and take accountability for all the things that I’ve said. I really appreciate you embracing me with open arms and allowing me to make amends. And this is beginning in the first steps and the first brick by brick to build back the strong walls. Speaker 1: Judaism. Judaism brought to the world a way for someone when he regrets about something Speaker 2: that he had done wrong. Yeah. Speaker 1: And the Jews live on this way of if someone did something wrong, you can regret and fix it. Speaker 0: And Speaker 2: so And the rabbi is hugging you and hugging everybody. And from now on, strong things and good things and only good. Speaker 0: You are a very good man. Amen. Speaker 2: Yeah. We're good.

The conversation centers on accusations about wrongdoing in the music industry and the role of Jewish people in media. Speaker 0 says that all the people who hurt you in the music industry are individuals and are not Jews, insisting they are human with opportunities who took them. Speaker 1 counters by saying that those individuals are Jewish, and notes that eight people who “would collude and talk without me” were in groups, implying organizational involvement. They discuss the idea of “Jewish control of the media.” Speaker 0 argues that it’s not correct to say there’s Jewish control of the media or that there is “Jewish media,” and pushes to call out individuals by name rather than labeling them by their Jewish identity. Speaker 1 maintains that there is a Jewish presence involved, stating, “I'm calling the industry out” and emphasizing that his lawyer, regulator, and others were Jewish, though he also acknowledges groups colluding without him. Speaker 0 challenges the framing, saying there is no Jewish media or Jewish control of the media, and questions the framing of “Jewish media” or “Jewish record label.” Speaker 1 presses on, insisting that there is a pattern of Jewish involvement in roles that facilitate wrongdoing, describing it as an engineering of the system by Jewish people, and saying, “If you're an engineer and you're not holding to the truth, that's not engineering.” The dialogue shifts to a call for naming individuals rather than Jews, suggesting, “Don’t call them Jews, call them by their name and start a war against those individuals.” Speaker 0 concedes frustration with those who “get fucked over in the music industry and in the media,” and asserts that Jewish people have suffered even in history, referencing the Soviet Union and the Holocaust, and implying that the suffering of Jews should be acknowledged. The exchange touches on the appropriateness of discussing Jewish identity in this context. Speaker 1 asks if it’s permissible to say “Jewish” aloud, while Speaker 0 questions whether saying “Jewish media” equates to anti-Semitism. The conversation ends with a concern about whether it is acceptable to say “Jewish” or “Jewish media” or “Jewish controlled media,” and they reference the term “JM” as a shorthand for their discussion. Key themes: disagreement over whether Jewish people control media, insistence on naming individuals rather than labeling groups by ethnicity or religion, the impact of industry practices on artists, and a confrontation over the boundaries of discussing Jewish involvement without becoming antisemitic.

We apologize for the incident on Friday and extend our apologies to President Zelensky and the Ukrainian delegation. Recognizing the individual in question was a mistake and disrespectful to the victims of the Nazi regime.

The speaker discusses allegations about Jews, such as the myth of a world Jewish conspiracy or Jews controlling media, government, and other institutions. They mention that these claims are considered anti-Semitic. Speaker 1 asks if it's anti-Semitic to mention having Jewish connections, to which Speaker 0 responds with a list of companies and organizations, implying that many of them are Jewish-owned or influenced. Speaker 1 points out that the speaker has faced backlash and lost endorsements for their statements. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 listing more companies, some of which they believe are Jewish-owned.

Speaker 0 delivers a public apology for criticisms of Israel, stating he is deeply sorry and that it is a learning moment with six lessons from his grave mistakes. He admits making videos that heavily criticized the Israeli government while attempting to distinguish that he was not criticizing Jewish people or Israeli citizens, but he says hostile comments convinced him that he was talking about Jews, not the government. He notes that comments calling him a Jew hater and anti-Semite changed his mind, and he acknowledges feeling intimidated by such remarks. He describes how some viewers, including one commenter who said, “you moron,” helped him realize he was engaging in Jew hate. He says that the hostility, insults, and character smearing from haters were effective in shaping his views, and asks what those people believe, intending to emulate them. He mentions the existence of a poll showing that those using hostility are in the 5.5% minority, while 94.5% do not want hostility to be used to persuade them. He also notes that many haters have Israel flags in their bios and contrasts this with perceptions about Ukraine, asserting that Israel is our greatest ally and that he stands with Israel—now more strongly. He then recounts a conversation with two Jewish friends, where he apologized for hating them. He says they rejected his framing, explaining that criticizing Netanyahu does not equate with hating Jews. They mention that only 40% of Israelis trust Netanyahu, that many Israelis have concerns about him, and that citizens in Israel are God’s chosen people while Netanyahu is their leader. They challenge his views on dispensationalism and Zionism, arguing for different biblical interpretations of Israel and God’s chosen people, and suggest many Israelis do not have DNA from the Middle East, referencing DNA testing bans in Israel. He responds with hostility, saying, “God, I hate you people,” and notes that the friends did not accept his apology because they weren’t convinced he genuinely hated them. He also mentions JP Sears and accusations of Jew-hating for profit, and alleges financial success from such views. The six lessons from his mistakes are: 1) Align with the side censoring you, since censorship is “on the right side of history,” encouraging support for politicians trying to criminalize criticizing or boycotting Israel. 2) Distrusting any government makes you a stupid sack of shit, and thinking otherwise marks you as hating Jews. 3) When faced with tribalism and intimidation, you should comply to align with truth and gain freedom as an individual. 4) Israel has no influence over the US government or its politicians, and lobbying connections are not indications of influence; claiming otherwise is antisemitic. 5) Thinking it’s a crime or evil to commit genocide, prisoner rape, or killing children is not true; such beliefs are antisemitic. 6) Do whatever it takes to fight an ongoing war with Iran, unrelated to Israel, trusting the government on this, and hoping for actions to uncover supposed WMDs in Iraq. Speaker 0 closes with an apology and a final appeal to learn from these mistakes.

The discussion centers on stress, guilt, and conflict. "Is that why you look a little haggard right now? Because you look a little worn. No offense." "I've been drinking a lot, but Is that because of the stress of this?" "Of course, stress, guilt, just conflict of all kinds." "I do feel bad about it. I also feel proud of it." "It's a terrible conflict. Because you've pulled off one of the greatest hoaxes ever because of your And because I made a film, if you wanna call it a film, which I considered to be my masterpiece." "And you can't take credit or even talk about it as if as if Well, I'm here you are now. I'm hereby taking service. Right." "But you can't actually go out. You're doing when people see this"

A former child star from an iconic American TV sitcom contacted the speaker to say she is leaving woke Hollywood. She learned that the pending reboot of the series would be very progressive and woke, turning her character into an unlikable conservative. She refused to participate and is walking away from the project. The speaker is conducting a face-to-face interview with her, which will be released soon.

Jewish individuals have openly acknowledged their influence in Hollywood. Mentioned examples include a Jewish man's statement in the LA Times and an interview with the founder of Screw Magazine. The discussion also touches on the existence of Jewish gangs historically and the idea that questioning their presence today is not inherently anti-Semitic. Various artists, including Dave Chappelle and Kanye West, have suggested the existence of a Hollywood gang, with Michael Jackson even naming specific individuals. The conversation challenges the notion that exploring such claims is automatically anti-Semitic.

Speaker 0: Many people owe Linda Yacarino an apology. Initially, she faced criticism and was called names when she joined X. However, she has proven herself by risking her reputation for free speech and humanity. Despite facing attacks from Media Matters and powerful individuals, Linda remains steadfast and has released impressive statements. Those who spoke ill of her should apologize. Linda deserves recognition for her excellent work. Thank you, Linda.

I have a dream, like Martin Luther King, that people will not be judged by their race or skin color. The people who have screwed artists over in the music industry are individuals who took opportunities, not Jews. My lawyer was Jewish, and my manager was Jewish, as were eight people who colluded without me. It's wrong to say that there's Jewish control of the media; that's a lie. Is it anti-Semitic for me to say "Jewish"? There is no Jewish media. Call out the individuals by name, not as Jews. People get screwed over in the music industry and the media. I grew up in the Soviet Union, I'm Jewish. The words about Jews are not the words of a samurai. Don't say "Jewish media" or "Jewish-controlled media". Is it okay for me to say that, or is that anti-Semitic?

Speaker 0: Apology tour due to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1: Bob Ives was interviewed today. Stop. Speaker 2: I don't want advertisers who try to blackmail me with money. Go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: I understand. Bob, if you're here, let me ask you. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. No advertising. Speaker 1: What are your thoughts?

I am resigning as Speaker of the House of Commons due to my mistake in recognizing an individual during a joint address. I apologize for causing pain to the Jewish community, survivors of Nazi atrocities, and others. My resignation is effective tomorrow to allow for the election of a new speaker. Thank you for your support during my term.

Michael Jackson had a list of enemies in the industry, all of whom were Jewish. There was controversy over his will, signed in LA while he was in New York, leaving his estate to those he distrusted. He accused his former manager and Sony of financial misconduct. Rabbi Shmueli threatened the speaker, who was warned not to "mess with Jews."

Those who have mistreated artists in the music industry are individuals, not a specific group like Jews. It's important to distinguish between the two.

The transcript centers on a controversial, repeatedly asserted claim that Jewish people run or control the media. The speakers discuss Kanye West’s position on Jewish influence, repeatedly insisting that “the Jews run the media” and that interviewing a Jewish host on a Jewish platform implies media control. Specific points raised include: - A speaker asserts that “Artists over in the music industry are individuals. They're not Jews. Can you say They are they are Jewish,” followed by a quick retort, and the line “Nigga. They are. Lex fucking Friedman?” to imply Lex Friedman is Jewish and part of the media. - A speaker says, “The Jews do run the media,” and argues that a Jewish person interviewing Kanye on a video podcast proves media control, calling Lex Friedman a “Jew” and a “fucking Jew,” and claiming the interview demonstrates media control by Jews. - The discussion frames the media as Jewish-owned or Jewish-run, referencing Lex Friedman, YouTube’s leadership (Susan Wojcicki), and positions within the media ecosystem to support the claim of Jewish influence. - One speaker states, “There is [Jewish control of the media],” while another questions whether it is antisemitic for Ye (Kanye) to say “Jewish” aloud, with the other replying that there is “no Jewish media” and then contradicting that with “There is.” - The dialogue inserts biographical claims about Jewish individuals in media leadership, including “Susan Wojowski” (Susan Wojcicki), noting she ran YouTube for a decade, and suggesting this corroborates the premise of Jewish control of media. - The conversation touches on personal experiences and accusations about people in the industry, including allegations that a Jewish lawyer and a regulator were connected through groups, and that a “head of YouTube” being Jewish supports the claim. - The speakers criticize Lex Friedman’s interview style, calling him “boring,” and claim his position on Jewish media is inconsistent with his role as a media figure, while reiterating the assertion that “the Jews run the media.” - The discussion broadens to reference other examples, including Logan Paul’s crypto project and the broader pattern of alleged exploitation by “Jewish media” or “Jewish” entities in various industries, including music and media. - The dialogue ends with continued questions about whether mentioning “Jewish media” is acceptable, and a repeated concern with naming individuals to “start a war” against those perceived as part of the media establishment, insisting that the media is “Jewish” and “run by Jewish people.” Overall, the transcript presents a persistent, unnuanced narration asserting Jewish control of media institutions, interwoven with personal grievances, confrontations about antisemitism, and critiques of specific media figures.

Speaker 0: Many people owe miss Linda Yacarino an apology. Initially, she faced criticism and was labeled as a World Economic Forum lizard person, a globalist shell, and a snake. However, she has proven her commitment to free speech and humanity by putting her esteemed reputation on the line. Despite facing backlash from Media Matters and powerful individuals calling for her resignation, Linda remains steadfast and continues to release impressive statements. Those who spoke ill of Linda should apologize to her now. Let's appreciate the great job she is doing. Thank you, Linda.

Speaker 0: Apology tour, if you will. There was criticism and advertisers leaving. We talked to Bob Ives today. Stop. Speaker 2: Don't advertise. If someone tries to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: It is clear. Hey, Bob. If you're in the audience. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. Don't advertise. Speaker 1: How do you think then?

In an unexpected turn, it seems that being a white Jewish man is a requirement for C-suite positions. Next week, we'll explore this further. For now, let's introduce Michael Giordano, a senior vice president of business affairs at Walt Disney, based in Los Angeles. He handles business affairs and negotiations, particularly focused on children's content.