reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 says there is a “fundamental” situation in which violence is coming regardless of choice: “You either fight back or you die.” Speaker 0 responds that today Elon, “the British public are telling the world that they’re ready to fight back,” and Speaker 1 agrees.

Speaker 0 frames the situation as a war, not a battle, and insists we absolutely will win this war: "But this is a a war." "This isn't a battle, and we absolutely will win this war." "It is a war." "It is indeed a war." Acknowledging that "they have won some battles, Jasmine," the speaker says we must "keep our eye on the war" and that "and and everybody needs to pick up a weapon and and get involved" because "this is for the the safety and and lasting of the country." The message ends with a reiteration: "And everybody needs to pick up a weapon."

Speaker 0 argues that, just like George Floyd, there must be violent action: “we're not gonna… tear this motherfucker up.” They claim the second amendment is to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, stating, “Google it. It's to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. That's true.” They insist the police should be on “our side fighting, pointing their guns at the fucking government,” and assert, “It's the facts.” They emphasize that the Second Amendment is not for hunting or self-defense, but to protect from tyranny. The speaker expresses personal fear and anger: “I have a little baby,” and asserts, “You put a gun to my baby's head. I'm gonna hurt somebody.” They claim the government is harming them and their community: “That's what they're doing to us.” They identify as not Hispanic and formerly lived comfortably, but now fear for life quality, saying, “I'm black. I used be sitting home smoking my weed, enjoying my money, but I'll die about this shit. I'll have no quality of life left.” They describe difficulties related to immigration status and fear of consequences: their wife, who is documented with a work permit, “won't go to work because they'll take her still.” They claim confiscations of people with documents and even children, and declare that “they're taking people that have documents. They're taking kids.” They declare the world is ending for them and their community and assert the environment as intolerable. The speaker references political outrage and perceived hypocrisy in leadership, noting, “They go snatch the president of Venezuela, but our fucking president is a sex offender.” They suggest drastic action: “Why are we not the White House dragging him out by his fucking collar? That’s where we gotta go, you guys, to White House.” They describe the situation as unsustainable and dismiss what they call “bullshit,” insisting the current state cannot continue. They mention abortion in a negative or contradictory context with frustration: “You can just abort a baby,” implying a provocative or incendiary line of argument. Overall, the message centers on fervent anti-government and anti-establishment sentiment, the belief that the Second Amendment serves as protection against tyranny, a call for direct action, fear for personal and family safety, and accusations of political hypocrisy and systemic oppression affecting immigrants, Black people, and ordinary citizens.

Perryville and 10, the speaker brought Supreme Court case law defending the First Amendment, and U.S. law code title 18 section 241 (conspiracy against rights), section 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), and section 245(b)(2) (federally protected activities). They left these materials with the group. The speaker then discussed ICE, DHS, and “why was it formed,” linking it to a “catalyst event” that “directly caused the Patriot Act,” describing the Patriot Act as “virtually shredded the constitution” and as establishing DHS “as nine eleven.” The speaker claimed “overwhelming and undeniable evidence” that Israel, Jews, and “Israel loyalists” were responsible for 9/11, and said Michael Chertoff, described as an Israeli Talmudic Jew, drafted the Patriot Act. The speaker claimed the Patriot Act was “prepped past a short six weeks after 09/11/2001.” They stated DHS was established in 2003, consolidated 22 federal agencies, and “birthed ICE.” The speaker said Michael Chertoff was the second secretary of DHS, and “founded Chertoff Group LLC,” profiting “hundreds of millions” of tax dollars from TSA “airport surveillance and body scan machines.” The speaker claimed “every single secretary of DHS” was “either a Jew or a Jew loyalist slash Zionist.” The speaker said DHS “worked directly with Jewish refugee NGOs” including “Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society,” the “International Rescue Committee,” and “Refugee International.” The speaker claimed DHS “paid Jewish NGOs directly with US tax dollars to import foreigners from throughout the world.” They said under former secretary Mayorkas, described as a “dual citizen with Israel and a Jew,” DHS imported “over 80,000 refugees after the Afghan withdrawal,” and they also referenced “millions of migrants from elsewhere.” The speaker said “Mayorkas' impeachment was dropped” due to “anti Semitic conspiracy theories known as the Klerge plan,” and they referred to a “177 page UN document titled Replacement Migration.” The speaker stated, “Immigration is the tool of the Zionist occupied government in order to justify the full establishment and implementation of a permanent authoritarian surveillance police state,” and claimed they are “utilizing the Patriot Act and Palantir as a weapon against the American people.” The speaker also claimed that ICE receives training, policies, procedures, and protocols directly from the IDF, and that ICE has “hundreds, if not thousands, of IDF foreign military members operating within the agency.” The speaker stated, “These United States Of America are not only occupied,” and claimed there is “currently a foreign paramilitary domestic terrorist organization operating under the guise of a federal agency on our streets, by definition.” They said, “We are currently in the beginning phases of Bolshevik Revolution two point o.” They quoted the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The speaker referred to swearing “a note to support and defend the constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and asked “Did you?” They then said they were “officially dropping this off,” mentioned it might “get me assassinated,” and referred to “the clerk.”

Speaker 0 states that the Venmo link is in her bio and, if Venmo isn’t possible, people can send gifts. She says she is monetized and frames it as a “freedom and defense fund” and “an emergency freedom and defense fund.” She declares she won’t disclose what she is spending the money on or why she needs large sums of money immediately. She emphasizes that this is a real guerrilla war on the streets, with live ammunition being used to kill citizens, and urges everyone to show up fully prepared, “whatever that means to you, to whatever degree you can.” She asserts that legally they need to be there as American citizens in defense of their constitutional rights to say no, and declares, “They have to go. Come now.”

Speaker 0 asks if they can call the officer in case of trouble, but someone questions why they would call the police. Speaker 0 explains that they are here to support women and it is supposed to be a safe event.

We're not fighting or protesting. It takes time, not a miracle. Murder? Just kidding. They'll understand. That's the worst. Let me explain.

Speaker 0 claims to be brave and unafraid of being surrounded. They mention having already killed 800 people and express a desire to kill one more. Another person interrupts, referring to someone as a peaceful individual and suggesting they be left alone.

Speaker 0 claims the defendant said he wished he had a gun to shoot people. Speaker 1 points out the difference between talking about it and actually having a gun. Speaker 0 mentions the defense's theory that the victim was unarmed. Speaker 1 asks for clarification on the defense's theory. Speaker 0 requests to speak without interruption to make a record. Translation: The defendant allegedly expressed a desire to shoot people, but the defense argues the victim was unarmed. The discussion revolves around the difference between words and actions, with a request for uninterrupted dialogue.

My name is John Sullivan from Insurgence USA in Salt Lake City, Utah. We're about to burn this shit down. Did anybody see that white militia guy shoot 3 kids? There's a whole bunch of white militia in Utah that came out against our group. We out there strapped and ready to burn that shit down. We out there to defend our fucking self.

The speaker discusses the redress of grievance process, which they claim was destroyed in 1906 when the organized militia disbanded. They mention an incident in Michigan where individuals with guns broke into the state house. The speaker argues that these individuals have the right to do so and that they are rising up to get their grievances addressed. They criticize the media for calling them protesters instead of acknowledging their rights. The speaker also accuses the governor of breaking the law and illegally depriving them and others of their rights. They clarify that they are not protesting but petitioning for a redress of grievances.

We have every obligation to defend our people, community, and families by any means necessary. While not wanting to be violent, we are not nonviolent; we believe in self-defense. If someone comes at me or my family, I will do everything in my power, legal or not, to defend them. There are over 200 people detained in a dungeon in the basement, with no bathrooms, showers, enough food or water, and children are also being held there. This is a human rights violation. We have to liberate those people and fight for them. They are being held around the corner, and we are going to move down there so they can hear and see us and know they are not alone.

At the core of the left, at the core of a liberal, is someone that would use the sword if they had it. They are very violent people at their core. They always have it. They can't debate. They can't have conversation. So they'll resort to these tactics. They're gonna do everything they possibly can to try to murder this movement because they can't beat us. So they're gonna try to take weapons. And now we're very aware of that. I'm aware of it. We have to have full time security. This is not a joke. This is who these people are.

The speakers discuss the idea of killing as part of a revolution. Speaker 1 clarifies that they are not currently calling for the killing of white people, but cannot guarantee the future. Speaker 2 questions if they may call for it in the future, to which Speaker 1 responds that they don't know. Speaker 0 adds a statement about shooting and killing.

Two speakers discuss protecting the area's residents, innocent people, and businesses. One speaker says they are not trying to protect the government and that civilians have done nothing wrong. They state they don't want a gas station to go up. The other speaker says they are on their side as long as they are against the cops, but shouldn't bring down local businesses. One speaker suggests business owners are out with the police and that people are destroying their own neighborhood, while the government killed someone's neighbor. The other speaker says they are not affiliated with any militia and are just out there.

Speaker 0 states that they sacrificed their life to secure this country’s freedom, specifically its freedom of speech. They accuse the addressed party of arresting people for words while turning a blind eye to crimes committed by invaders. They also condemn the addressed party as “a disgrace to your uniform, and an insult to mine.”

Speaker 0: "What message do you want to give to the far right people? The message I wanna give to the far right people is we're here to take over your country. You can't stop us. You can try, but we're here to uphold Sharia law and yeah. That's it."

Have a right to violence. All oppressed people have a right to violence. It's like the right to pee. You gotta have the right place. You gotta have the right time. You gotta have the appropriate situation, and I'm absolutely convinced that this is it.

Speaker 1 saw people being assaulted in the past, including someone trying to put out a fire. Despite not expecting danger, Speaker 1 carried an AR 15 for self-protection while helping what they thought was a friendly crowd. Speaker 0 questioned why Speaker 1 anticipated harm if the crowd seemed non-hostile. Speaker 1 claimed they didn't believe the crowd was hostile towards them, but still felt the need for the gun in case of an attack, even though they didn't anticipate it.

The speaker asserts Ukrainians have a right to fight back and states he is looking for revolutionaries to take down the system. He identifies himself as a veteran who served in Newtown and believes it's better to fight the system. He requests a Glock and a Hellcat but reiterates he doesn't "do paper." He dismisses those who aren't serious. He claims he is serious but doesn't "do paper" for RevCon and accuses someone of killing the environment. He then states he is going to class because he is a scholar.

The "Jewish cops" are ready to make citizen's arrests, which anyone can do. The speaker references a dog that has bitten people before, including himself. The First Amendment and freedom of speech are mentioned. The speaker asks if Jews rely on the other person's protection, but the response is that Jews rely on God's protection. The group collaborates with law enforcement, who know them. They discuss self-defense and permits to carry. The group is sponsored by the community, but they clarify they are not cops, but "Smedes." The location is Menai Bara Park.

Speaker 1 stated they will do everything in their power to protect Seattle residents from anyone who comes to the city with the intention to hurt them or inhibit their first amendment rights. They believe they will probably go to jail and be in prison because the current administration has threatened to jail politicians and has done so.

"I'm a constitutionalist." "All I care about is my constitutionally protected rights and the future of my children." "we don't have a gun problem here in this nation. We have a problem with mental health and we have a problem with evil." "It doesn't matter if evil utilizes our gun, a car, a baseball bat, a machete, or a rock." "It's an operation to circumvent your constitutionally protected rights." "America, if you give up your guns, you're not gonna have any rights." "You need to stand up and you need to tell these corrupt career politicians to get fucked."

Speaker 0 expresses concern about the situation at the capital, stating that they did not come for violence. They observe that the people causing trouble do not resemble patriots or themselves. Speaker 0 warns that families will be targeted and urges everyone to leave, emphasizing that the capital is their family's home.

The speaker wants the police to publicly state that the current situation is incorrect and that they will not enforce it. They believe that citizens have the right to bear arms and should not be arrested for it. They mention having seen this happen multiple times before.