reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss immigration in Europe, arguing that Poland has done a good job by “allowing nobody in,” and that “most European nations, they're decaying.” They say leaders in Europe are “a little freaked out by” the posture and imply that Europe is destroying its own countries. They suggest that if this continues, Europe will become weak and no longer be strong allies; their ideological shifts will reflect the change in the people entering the countries. Speaker 0 expresses concern about London and Paris, calling the Mayor of London “a disaster” and stating he has “a totally different ideology of what he's supposed to have,” noting he gets elected because many people have come in and vote for him. He adds, “I hate what's happened to London, and I hate what's happened to Paris.” Speaker 2 asks whether Speaker 0 intends a message of tough love to our allies to push reforms or if many allies are simply weak and not worth aligning with. Speaker 0 responds that they are “weak,” and that they want to be politically correct, and “they don't know what to do,” including in trade, which he describes as “a little bit dangerous.” He reiterates that Europe’s political correctness makes them weak. Speaker 0 indicates that there should be people removal for those who entered the country illegally: “think they should get the people out that came into the country illegally.” Speaker 2 then asks about NATO. Speaker 0 brings up Sweden as an example: “Sweden was known as the safest country in Europe, one of the safest countries in the world. Now it's known as a very unsafe well, pretty unsafe country. It's not even believable. It's a whole different country. Sweden.”

The speaker discusses the difficulty of reforming the European Union (EU) due to the need for unanimous agreement among the 27 member countries. They give examples of different countries' conflicting interests, such as France wanting to reduce tax evasion while Luxembourg relies on it. They also mention the challenges of reforming agriculture and rebuilding French industry. The speaker argues that the EU's institutions lack real power and that changing the EU from within is impossible. They suggest that leaving the EU through a Frexit referendum would allow France to regain control and pursue its own policies. They mention the importance of addressing the issue of the euro and express agreement with certain political figures.

A French politician discusses the power of the European Union (EU) over the French Constitution, highlighting the loss of sovereignty. In a 1995 interview, he is labeled a populist and criticized for blaming Brussels and technocracy. The politician argues that the EU's influence should be debated openly, as it affects various sectors of society. He expresses concern that power is slipping away from the people and into the hands of technocrats. The interviewer recalls the shock and disagreement with the politician's views at the time, but now acknowledges that opinions have shifted. The politician attributes the lack of change to the prevailing ideology that presents the EU as the only solution, despite growing opposition. He suggests that a significant event, like the fall of the Berlin Wall, may be needed to bring about change.

It's time for a policy reversal on Maastricht like on the euro. The single currency could lead to chaos, resentment, and massive transfers of money. Unemployment and migration would rise, fueling extremist parties. Creating a European Federation could worsen extremism. Politicians need to pay attention, stop endless summits, and see the growing disconnect between people and government. The European train can be stopped.

The speaker discusses three essential factors. Firstly, some journalists see talking about the European Union as a way to earn extra money. Secondly, for a portion of the media and political class, the EU is seen as a means to get rid of France. Thirdly, the speaker highlights the issue of French people being taught to dislike their own country, which has even shocked foreigners. The speaker also mentions that rewriting a referendum, as Nicolas Sarkozy did in 2005, should have resulted in severe penalties, but it was largely overlooked. The speaker believes that many journalists and politicians failed to recognize the seriousness of these issues. The speaker concludes by mentioning the increasing need for personal protection among high-ranking journalists and politicians, indicating a rising social pressure and fear.

Speaker 0 notes that Trump used the Davos stage to demand Greenland back, warning allies to back off or face massive tariffs, calling Greenland “a piece of ice.” Speaker 1 says the goal is a piece of ice for world protection; the U.S. could have kept the land but chose not to, giving Greenland a choice to say yes and be appreciated or no and be remembered. Greenland is reportedly protesting in the streets, saying “hands off our country.” Speaker 0 adds that Trump has struck a deal framing a future agreement on Greenland and the Arctic, posted on Truth Social, stating that based on a productive meeting with the Secretary General of NATO, Marruta, a framework for a future deal with respect to Greenland and the Arctic has been formed, and that tariffs scheduled for February 1 will not be imposed. Speaker 2 challenges the claim, noting NATO doesn’t own Greenland, and questions whether Marruta can make such a deal. Speaker 0 continues the exchange, joking about not wanting a Met Gala, and suggests the post hints at the U.S. taking control of Canada as well because of Arctic interests. Canadian Prime Minister Carney responds by saying Canada will invoke Article 5 and support NATO to protect Denmark, with Denmark also unwilling to cede sovereignty following the framework. Speaker 2 adds that two people are deciding the fate of Greenland, and another participant begins to speak. Speaker 0 provides population context, saying about 57,000 people live in Greenland. Speaker 0 then mentions Putin’s response, quoting a brief remark that he’s “kinda behind this idea.” Speaker 2 notes Ravasi’s commentary and asks for a referendum, which Speaker 3 says would give Greenlanders a semblance of deciding for themselves, though it’s unclear how such a referendum would impact broader strategic interests. Speakers turn to Ralph Schulhammer, who is in Austria, to assess European reaction. Speaker 3 says Trump’s rhetoric in Davos was “very Trumpian” but contained carrots as well as sticks: he highlighted ancestry, support for a strong Europe, concerns about migration and energy policy, and suggested that Europe must strengthen itself to be a true partner; otherwise, the U.S. may retreat. The discussion acknowledges sentiment that Europe’s elites tend to frame issues as global rather than addressing national needs, with Speaker 3 arguing that policy-wise there can be shared interests, but communication strategy differed from Trump’s approach. The panel considers whether Greenland’s referendum would matter, noting that many peoples pursue autonomy but that Greenland’s outcome would not necessarily alter large strategic interests. They discuss historical precedents of land acquisitions and acknowledge the Greenland dispute sits at the intersection of Arctic strategic interests and great-power competition, including China and Russia’s activity in the region. Speaker 3 emphasizes that the future of Europe should be anchored in defending European territory and citizens, not only global agendas, and critiques the perception that Europe should always prioritize global issues over internal concerns. In closing, Speaker 0 references Macron’s overture to meet in Paris, noting Trump’s remark that Macron won’t be in power much longer. Ralph Schulhammer is thanked for his insights, with recognition of his Hammertime podcast.

Marine Le Pen's embezzlement conviction has made her ineligible to run for president, a catastrophic end to her political career. The charges stem from allegedly taking money from the European Parliament, meant for MEPs, and funneling it to her party in France. The speaker questions whether the charges are legitimate or a politically motivated attempt to control a popular right-wing leader amid rising frustration with mass migration and national breakdown. They ask if Europe is in a democracy crisis, pointing to Trump's legal battles and the potential "lawfare" against Conor McGregor. The speaker questions whether protecting borders is racist, particularly for melting pot nations. They also question the role of global bureaucracies like the EU and UN, suggesting they facilitate institutional power rather than individual freedom. They ask if repurposing European Parliament funds for national endeavors is truly a terrible crime, or a pretext to stop Le Pen from running. They highlight the rise of populist movements in Europe, like the gilets jaunes, protesting corporate financial power. They argue that people should be able to choose their leader, regardless of whether others agree with their rhetoric.

In this video, the speaker discusses the energy crisis in France and its connection to Germany. They claim that Germany has declared an economic war against France by promoting wind and gas energy to undermine the French nuclear system. They highlight the role of lobbyists and politicians in this process, accusing them of betraying national interests. The speaker also mentions the infiltration of Greenpeace and WWF into French institutions, further exacerbating the situation. They argue that the French government has been naive and calls for action to address this issue. The speaker dismisses the government's claims that the crisis is due to the conflict in Ukraine and EDF's maintenance failures. They emphasize the need for a comprehensive investigation into these matters.

Julien Ambert discusses the widespread impoverishment in France, with 20% of the population struggling to afford food. He mentions the devaluation of the currency, which negatively affects retirees. He argues that when the euro was strong against the dollar, retirees did not experience impoverishment. However, he criticizes the lack of individual freedom under the euro, as others decide what individuals can or cannot buy. He also mentions France's net contribution of €13 billion to the European Central Bank (ECB), which supports the French economy by lending money to French banks. He warns that if the ECB decides to suffocate France economically, the consequences would be dire. The conversation then moves on to the next topic.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen advocates for digital IDs, claiming they can boost emerging economies. Nigel Farage criticizes this as a move towards global government control, warning of potential privacy and freedom violations. He emphasizes the importance of democratic nation states cooperating and trading, rather than surrendering power to unelected bureaucrats. Farage asserts a belief in liberty, freedom, and the nation state.

Glenn opens by noting a year has passed since Jeffrey Sachs urged Europe to adopt a realistic foreign policy that understands Russia, Europe, and the United States, and to avoid being invaded by the U.S.—even suggesting Trump could land troops in Greenland. Glenn asks how to read the current situation, including Davos and Europe’s anger at U.S. hostility, and the revived emphasis on international law. Jeffrey Sachs responds with a version of the “ride on the back of a tiger” metaphor from Kennedy, arguing Europeans forgot that the United States is an imperial power that has acted brazenly and brutally for about twenty years. He lists U.S. actions: invasions, regime changes, and reckless interference in Ukraine, and U.S. complicity in Israel’s wars across Africa and the Middle East, along with involvement in overthrowing Ukraine’s Yanukovych and other interventions. He claims Europeans were silent or complicit as the United States bombed Iran, kidnapped its president, and pursued Greenland, calling the Greenland push a grotesque power grab by Trump. He asserts New York Times recognition of U.S. imperial tendencies and says Europe’s naivete and hypocrisy are evident. He states: “The United States is thuggish, imperialistic, reckless, and that The U. S. Has left a large swath of the world in misery. Europe has been mostly compliant or complicit.” He urges Europeans to understand what the United States is about, to stop Russophobia, and to keep lines of communication with Russia open; he argues Europe’s Russophobia made it boxed in with little diplomacy with Russia or the U.S. Glenn adds that Europe’s stance mirrors a Cold War-like unity against Russia, but that the current reality differs: the U.S. does not view Russia as its main adversary, and Russophobia deepens Europe’s dependence on the U.S. Glenn notes mixed reactions at Davos, including Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney signaling a shift away from a rules-based order that privileges the West, and Macron’s private message to Trump seeking a cooperative stance on Syria, Iran, and Greenland. He remarks that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg praised NATO while Trump hinted that the real enemy is within NATO, highlighting the chaos. He asks if this signals a decline of the U.S. empire or NATO. Sachs discusses Carney's stance as significant: Carney’s trip to China and a dialogue with Beijing indicating diversification with China, including a Canadian-Chinese investment plan. He credits Carney with being a rare straightforward statesman and notes instability ahead. Trump’s Davos retreat from threats (notably Greenland) may have been influenced by stock-market declines, according to Sachs’ theory. He mentions a possible European concession about U.S. sovereignty over parts of Greenland, though he doubts any negotiation has been meaningful. He cites Scott Bessent’s Fox Business interview as revealing: sanctions on Iran are a form of economic statecraft designed to crush the Iranian economy, with Iran’s currency collapse and bank failures cited as evidence; Sachs condemns this as a violation of international law and UN Charter, and calls Bessent’s pride in wielding currency-destabilization as alarming. He points to sanctions against Cuba and a broader pattern of “thuggish gangster behavior” by the U.S., noting Europeans’ silence on Iran and other regimes until it backfires on them. Sachs argues Europe’s Russophobia is self-destructive, and he emphasizes that diplomacy remains possible if Germany, France, and Italy adopt a rational approach. He criticizes Germany for duplicity in NATO enlargement and Minsk II, blaming Merkel for dropped commitments, and notes that Italy shows less Russophobia and could shift toward diplomacy. He believes Central Europe and some leaders (e.g., Orban, Czech and Slovak figures) favor diplomacy, but German leadership has been weak. He stresses that Europe must avoid dismemberment and choose diplomacy with Russia, warning that continued war policy will leave Europe isolated. He closes with optimism that there remains a path forward if key European powers act differently. Glenn thanks Sachs for the discussion and ends.

As a representative of Europe, a continent of great explorers, inventors and industrial revolutions, I want it to be great again. Currently, the continent is in decline and we owe it to our heritage and children to repair it. Europe's GDP was once larger than the United States', but is now 50% smaller. Industrial production in Germany has fallen, while Poland's has increased. Europe stands at a crossroads and cannot be the weaker partner of the United States. To rise again, we must abandon the outdated EU development model, as the Franco-German engine has stalled and Brussels cannot replace the real economy. Climate and migration policies have created chaos. If we fail to change course, Europe risks becoming a museum or a colony of Asian powers.

The speakers present a nationalist and xenophobic framing of national interest and ethnic conflict. The first speaker argues that “The German nation does not wish its interest to be determined and controlled by any foreign nation,” listing France, England, and America—repeatedly emphasizing different nations as external controllers. He states, “This … we are resolved to prevent the settlement in our country of a strange people which was capable of snatching for itself all the leading positions in the land and to oust it.” A second portion asserts that “This is all done on purpose. None of this is an accident,” claiming that “what they do is they construct as many divisions amongst the peasants as possible.” He describes attempts to inflame societal tensions by promoting division: “Make sure the blacks hate the whites. Men hate the women by promoting degeneracy in the whole month of June.” He adds, “Republicans hate the Democrats,” and that people are “so busy fighting with each other they can laugh from the talk.” The first speaker then shifts to a statement about historical anti-Jewish policy, claiming, “Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time. He wanted to expel the Jews.” He asserts, “For Europe cannot settle down until the Jewish question is cleared up.” He concludes with a call to collective action: “Workers of all classes and of all nations, recognize your common enemy.” The dialogue ends with a reframing of political conflict: “It's not right versus left. It's about right versus wrong.” Throughout, the speakers articulate a conspiracy-theory style narrative centered on foreign influence, ethnic and racial antagonism, and the alleged manipulation of social divisions to achieve political ends.

There is an unknown group of "globalitarian misanthropists" calling the shots, not figures like Ursula von der Leyen, Bill Gates, or Klaus Schwab. Elected governments are merely puppets implementing their plans, which seems to be erecting a one-world government. This would transform free societies into a collectivism where individuals are malleable parts. The EU is a stepping stone towards this one-world government. Europeans would never surrender national sovereignty directly, so the EU institutions were created under the pretext of preventing wars. By relinquishing competencies to the EU, it conditions Europeans to accept a one-world government.

We are not in trouble because of a lack of energy or amateurs. We need to talk about things. These people are great, but they are inexperienced. Macron has been here for 6 years and didn't think about all this before. We are dependent now, whereas France used to be a leader in electricity. We had the strongest nuclear potential in the world and could export electricity. But now we are begging because we followed Germany's lead. This is not Europe, it's German Europe. The Franco-German relationship is a disaster for France. We need to break free from this imperialism.

We don't want to be like the European Union, we don't care about them. We are French and we stick to French laws.

The speaker argues that the European Union, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization should be abolished. They claim there are numerous European “x” accounts aiming to provoke Western Europeans to go to war with Russia because Western funding for Ukraine is dwindling, and they say these actors want to attack Russia regardless of US backing. A self-proclaimed “Gunther” is featured as a controversial figure who says he’s part of NATO, but the speaker notes that NATO publicly denies knowing him and that Gunther formed his own NGOs without funding. The speaker highlights Gunther’s post: Europeans will never be slaves. In response, the speaker asks why Gunther would arrest people for telling the truth online and trying to enslave them in a digital prison; they claim Gunther is misrepresenting online repression and compare digital punishment to real torture. The speaker cites a German police investigation of a Gab user who called a female politician fat, emphasizing the use of the term fat as quoted in the post. They challenge Gunther by asking if the photo shows a Victoria’s Secret model, implying a discrepancy between appearances and claims, and label Gunther as aligning with “the EU’s bitches” and lacking sovereignty. They accuse Hungary of being fined a million dollars a day for not accepting “undesirables,” asserting EU law requires such intake and that white Europeans are urged to fight against Russia while others (described in demeaning terms) contribute less. The speaker argues that Western Europe is dependent on the United States, stating that the US is the biggest financier of NATO and possesses the most powerful military, and that Europeans would be abandoned without US support. They remark that Gunther’s post demonstrates this dependence, noting Gunther’s post about Trump wanting to win and withdraw the US Navy from European seas, which would leave Europe exposed to Russia and Iran. The speaker mocks Gunther’s attempt to lead a European naval force and requests continued US Navy presence for a decade to help. Overall, the speaker frames a narrative of European subservience to the United States, critiques of EU sovereignty, and hostility toward Western multinational institutions, while repeatedly referencing Gunther as a focal figure in these exchanges.

The speaker criticizes the lack of energy and amateurism in France's leadership. They mention that France used to be a leader in electricity production but now relies on other countries. They blame this on following Germany's lead and call it an "idiotic Franco-German couple" where France is the cuckold. The speaker urges France to break free from this imperialism.

The speakers discuss what they describe as a global rise in Islamist-linked threats and the impact of migration on security in Western countries. They begin by asserting that France’s government can no longer keep its own people safe from “potential radical Islamic terrorists that they have welcomed into their country,” and claim that France has allowed so many Middle East and North African migrants that crowds can no longer be assembled. They extend the concern to other Western nations, stating that the threat is now widespread, including in Germany, where they say many people are afraid to attend famous Christmas markets because they have become highly dangerous targets for radical Islamists. Speaker 1 provides details: since 2014, seven European Christmas markets have been attacked—three in France and four in Germany. Authorities arrested five men suspected of planning attack number eight in Germany last week; among them is described as a Muslim cleric from a German mosque who allegedly urged his followers to kill as many people as possible. The report notes that an attack in Poland on a Christmas market was foiled as well. The German case is characterized as a migrant who came from Egypt, moved to Germany, and, according to the speakers, worked at a mosque in a country they describe as tolerantly allowing him to operate there. They claim this individual began indoctrinating other Muslims to murder Christians. They describe attending a German Christmas market at this point as akin to playing Russian roulette, expressing fear that an asylum seeker living on tax dollars could drive a car into a market and kill many people. The speakers reference Australia, stating that 16 people were murdered on a beach “this past Sunday,” and claim that there is a heightened threat as their government imported tens of thousands of migrants from Muslim-majority countries, with the Muslim population purportedly doubling in a decade. They criticize Australia’s Labour Party as “left-wing,” asserting it has “the strictest gun laws in the world” yet intends to add more, while instructing viewers to light a candle as a symbolic response. They describe the current government as being led by people who are detached from reality and who prioritize political orthodoxies over people’s lives, claiming that the media feeds the same narratives and spin. Speaker 2 endorses a symbolic action: “Light a candle. Put it in their front window tonight at 06:47PM to show that light will indeed defeat darkness.” They state that a national cabinet meeting will consider a proposal to empower agencies to examine what can be done in this area. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes a narrative of increasing Islamist terrorism linked to migrant populations in Europe and Australia, argues for stronger security measures and altered political responses, and frames mainstream reporting as insufficient.

In this segment, the speaker argues against the idea that exiting the eurozone or the European Union would automatically sever access to the internal market, labeling such fears as fundamentally incorrect. The speaker references a position previously outlined in a Welt article from 2016, stating that every country within the EU should be allowed to leave the EU and automatically fall into the internal market, so that the free internal market continues to guarantee the fundamental freedoms between EU countries. The overarching objective presented is the creation of a European Economic Area, but the speaker rejects what is described as a “monstrous overbuild” currently practiced, characterized by tens of thousands of civil servants who are deemed unnecessary and overpaid, with a level of intrusion that is viewed as excessive. The speaker then shifts to a critique of the current leadership and policies, urging the removal of those in power within the EU framework, specifically naming Ursula von der Leyen and the policies associated with her tenure. The cited policy areas include a ban on combustion engines, CO2-related levies, heating laws, and building energy policy, among others. The demand is to “throw out” these people, as they are viewed as representative of an overreaching EU apparatus that the speaker does not support. The central message is that such a centralized and intrusive EU structure is unnecessary and undesirable. The text emphasizes the need for a free internal market among European nations, paired with the restoration of national sovereignty and secure borders. The speaker advocates for free exchange of goods and services among nations, suggesting that this approach would constitute real progress. The concluding sentiment reinforces a preference for smaller, less intrusive governance and a streamlined framework that prioritizes the free movement of goods and services within a European context, while maintaining secure borders and national autonomy. The overall call is for scrapping what is described as the EU apparatus, empowering nations to engage in open trade and cooperation without the perceived rigidity and overreach of the current EU system.

In this video, the speaker discusses a manifesto that will be adopted in December. The manifesto aims to restore national borders, exit the Schengen area, eliminate the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, and prioritize French law over European law. The speaker also mentions the need to establish a national electricity price outside of the European market and eliminate France's annual net contribution to the EU. They emphasize the importance of French digital sovereignty and the need to renegotiate harmful free trade agreements. The speaker criticizes the European diplomatic service and mentions the abandonment of French consulates. They conclude by expressing the desire for cooperation between willing countries on future projects. The speaker hopes that this manifesto will bring together resistant lists and unite the French people.

The speaker believes people are reacting hysterically to Trump's trade policies because they were taught that free trade is good, and tariffs are bad. Trump's perspective is that while free trade may improve GDP, it devastated parts of the US, costing people not just jobs, but their towns. The US is in the best position to negotiate trade because exports only comprise 11% of its GDP. If countries are rational, Canada and Mexico would concede to US demands, as 25% of their GDP comes from exports to the US. Europe is not much better, so they should also lower barriers. The wild card is politicians fearing job loss if they give in. The speaker acknowledges market pain but notes those who lost jobs are cheering. Trump is doing what he said he would do, fulfilling his promises.

The speaker expresses concern over Germany's influence on France's energy sector, stating that due to the destruction of their nuclear reactors, France is now heavily reliant on importing coal-based electricity from Germany. This has negatively impacted France's industrial competitiveness, trade deficit, and energy sovereignty. The speaker calls for President Macron to take action and urges intelligence agencies, police, and the justice system to investigate the presence of lobbying groups within French institutions. The discussion also touches on the abandoned Astrid project, which aimed to promote nuclear energy in France, and mentions the connection between the anti-nuclear lobby and the wind turbine lobby. It is noted that Bill Gates has taken over the Astrid project, receiving funding from the US Department of Energy to develop a fast neutron reactor technology that could have been a technological advantage for France.

Europe is the cradle of Western civilization, and the cultural and religious bonds between it and the U.S. will last beyond political disagreements. However, Europe is at risk of civilizational suicide. Many European countries are unable or unwilling to control their borders, but they are starting to push back, which is good. They are also starting to limit the free speech of their own citizens, even as those citizens protest against border issues. Europe needs to respect its own people and sovereignty, something America can't do for them. If a country like Germany takes in millions of immigrants who are culturally incompatible, Germany will have killed itself. The speaker loves Germany and wants it to thrive.

The speaker criticizes the European Commission, calling them "Talibans of the law" and "dogmatic extremists" on competition policy. They argue that France should prioritize its national interest and keep its dams, dismissing any interference from the Commission. When asked about the queen, the speaker suggests removing her, questioning the Commission's authority and dismissing any potential consequences. They emphasize the need to protect France's national interest and oppose any infringements. The speaker concludes by urging moderation and calm in the face of excesses.