reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The text has been adopted, but the suspense lies in whether there is a majority without the votes of the National Rally. It shouldn't even be a question. Emmanuel Macron's narrative shouldn't necessarily be ours. We don't have to accept it. But if there is a majority with the National Rally's votes, we start again. It's significant. Do we realize what we're talking about? Our job is also to highlight the gravity of this arithmetic. There is no democracy in the world where the results are read without considering all the votes. If that's how it is, I'll go to Brussels and request an Article 7 procedure for violation of the rule of law against France. Let's imagine for a moment that we are here, talking in these terms, in Hungary. Translation: The text has been adopted, but the suspense lies in whether there is a majority without the votes of the National Rally. It shouldn't even be a question. Emmanuel Macron's narrative shouldn't necessarily be ours. We don't have to accept it. But if there is a majority with the National Rally's votes, we start again. It's significant. Do we realize what we're talking about? Our job is also to highlight the gravity of this arithmetic. There is no democracy in the world where the results are read without considering all the votes. If that's how it is, I'll go to Brussels and request an Article 7 procedure for violation of the rule of law against France. Let's imagine for a moment that we are here, talking in these terms, in Hungary.

Speaker 1 asserts there is no genocide in Gaza and that Palestine is a name invented by the Roman Empire. Speaker 0 states this view isn't shared by the rest of the world. Speaker 1 says he is glad Speaker 0 speaks for the rest of the world. Speaker 1 questions why he should listen to the United Nations, calling it a "clown show" that should be pushed into the Hudson River. He accuses the UN of creating child prostitution rackets in Africa and asks what it has done to solve anything of late. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 thinks of the UN. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's claim to represent the world's opinion.

Speaker 0 argues that there are self-hating anti‑Zionist, anti‑Israel Jews in New York, including friends and family, who will vote for Mamdani, whom he calls a vicious anti‑Semite. He says Mamdani would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state or the nation state of the Jewish people, but recognizes Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia as Muslim states with hierarchies that exclude certain groups; for example, in Saudi Arabia you can’t become a citizen unless you convert, and in Qatar you can’t own a Christian or Jewish Bible. He asserts a double standard and calls that the core of antisemitism. He claims Zorn Mandami is a vicious antisemite and contends that if he is elected mayor of New York, antisemitism will spread to other democratic cities. After six years as a Democrat, he says he formally quit the Democratic Party and is now an anti‑Democrat who will work hard to see the defeat of the Democratic Party, which he describes as anti‑Israel, anti‑Zionist in many respects. Speaker 1 asks what he thinks about Jews and Israelis who voted for Mamdani and what they tell him when they ask why. Speaker 0 replies that there are Jewish rabbis and former rabbis who support Mamdani, calling them self‑hating Jews. He says some Jews have supported Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, and that being Jewish does not make one immune to political folly. He contends these are people who are Jewish on their parents’ side, who have “never entered a synagogue, never been to Israel, know nothing about Judaism,” yet claim, “as a Jew, I support Hamas. I support Mamdani. I support terrorism. I support all that.” He asserts that because the Democratic Party has turned anti‑Israel, they must be fought, though he says it is hard to be opposed to the Democrats after six years as a Democrat; he cannot vote for a party that is anti‑Zionist, anti‑Israel, and anti‑Semitic, and that encourages leaders like Mamdani, and he suggests that news now will leave the Democratic party. Speaker 1 asks if, if Mamdani and professor Dostoevitz win in York, he would advise Jews in the city to leave. Speaker 0 answers: No. Fight back. He pledges to lead the fight against Mamdani, to bring him to court and to apply legal, political, economic, and other pressures to prevent his success in anti‑Zionism, anti‑Israel, and anti‑Semitic attitudes. He concludes: we must continue to fight him, but do not leave—stay and fight.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 argue that some conservatives sound a lot like the Marxist Islamists at an event. They say there's a grievance culture on the left that blames the West, Israel, capitalism, and the Jews, while a mirrored far-right view claims 'America actually was never great. America never landed on the moon' and that a shadowy group is manipulating all of this. They note conservatives sprinkle 'kooks' and 'American haters' into weekend events to maintain the big tent. They warn that because you vote Republican doesn't make you the preacher at the front of the church, if they spend all day criticizing the president as 'covering up a Mossad rape ring' or 'being a tool of the Israelis for hitting an Iranian nuclear facility.' Reverence should be 'the fundamental tenets of the American Republic,' and abandoning them for a pseudo coalition is a 'gigantic moral and political mistake.'

Speaker 1 responds to accusations of antisemitism, stating that criticizing the Israeli government or supporting justice for the Palestinian people does not equate to antisemitism. They mention that a former president campaigned against the power of finance without being labeled antisemitic. The speaker questions the motives behind the questions being asked, suggesting that the goal is to silence them. They highlight past tragedies involving the Jewish community and argue against linking financial dominance to antisemitism. The speaker warns against limiting freedom of expression and compares the situation to the United States, where they claim a fraud is occurring regarding Israel within the Democratic Party and a growing opposition within the Jewish community due to the connection between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu.

The speaker criticizes the Hamas Charter, comparing it to conspiracy theories found on far-right platforms like 4chan. They argue that Hamas should be seen as a far-right fascist organization, but the left struggles to condemn it due to their association of the Palestinian cause with anti-imperialism. This confusion prevents them from acknowledging Hamas as a fascistic group.

We do not trust the polls. Mr. Mélenchon claims victory, but we fought against lies. We respect the French people's decision. The country is paralyzed, and the dominant force in parliament will have a devastating program. We regret the loss of precious time for urgent solutions.

The speaker claims that Pierre Polyev, leader of the Conservative Party, which they equate to the Republican Party in the US, is a fraud. They state that the Conservative Party is conservative in name only. The speaker describes Polyev as a "sinister fraud."

The speaker addresses the issue of being labeled as antisemitic and shares that the ADL called them an antisemite. They mention that three Israelis they have spoken to don't see a problem with what they said. The speaker clarifies their definition of antisemitism as hating someone based on their Jewish identity, and they express respect for a Jewish person they have collaborated with. They argue that the label of antisemitism is used to silence dissent and give examples of how the ADL has broadened the term. The speaker also mentions their personal experience of being banned from Twitter and accuses the ADL of interfering in democratic processes in Europe. Another speaker adds that they support the right to criticize any group and shares their negative experience with the ADL.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence over US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of obsessing over Israel and implying Jewish control of foreign policy, which Speaker 0 denies. Speaker 0 refutes being antisemitic, stating the concern is with a foreign government's influence, not Jewish people. Speaker 0 points out Speaker 1's stated goal to defend Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend foreign governments, and accuses Speaker 1 of being "sleazy" for implying antisemitism. Speaker 1 questions why Speaker 0 is only asking about Israel. Speaker 0 reiterates that the issue concerns a foreign government, not Jewish people.

Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of a strong result in the European elections to bring about change in German politics. Speaker 1 criticizes the author's book, claiming it appeals to those who feel culturally left behind. Speaker 2 argues against blindly opposing the AfD and highlights the increase in Russian gas imports due to the rejection of pipeline gas. Speaker 1 further criticizes the author's tendency to label things as absurd and portrays the people as deceived by a corrupt elite. The audience expresses admiration and a desire to engage with the author. Speaker 1 offers support and Speaker 2 compares the author to Christiane Ronaldo.

Speaker 0 states they will not be silenced about a problem they see. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 what they make of Masad. Speaker 1 asks what the word Masad means in Hebrew. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a troll who is trying to unravel the conversation. Speaker 1 goes on mute. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 sounds like a Jew. Speaker 1 claims the government is colluding with Likud operatives against the American people. Speaker 1 says "fuck you" and suggests settling the issue in real life. Speaker 0 responds "fuck you."

Speaker 1 initially said "no more Trump" due to his January 6th conduct, but now says "yes" to Trump. Speaker 1 states that Biden-Harris policies are an existential threat to the country and its allies. Speaker 1 believes there are now many attacks on democracy that eclipse January 6th.

Speaker 0 asks how to weed out Muslims in a country that despises you and means you harm without vilifying or persecuting those who are fine and part of the social fabric. Speaker 1 responds by highlighting that Arab states have taken a strong stance against the Muslim Brotherhood and asks why the West hasn’t. The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt and in many Gulf states (not Qatar), and there is a reason: they know how dangerous this organization is, that it doesn’t represent peace-loving Muslims who simply want to practice their religion and not impose a perverted version of jihad. Speaker 1 asserts that the Muslim Brotherhood is not pro-Muslim; it is an organization providing cover for terrorism that disproportionately impacts Muslims, especially in the Arab world. He emphasizes that the biggest victims of terrorism are the people of the Middle East, the majority of whom are Muslims, and urges people to educate themselves about what’s really happening on this front before it’s too late. Speaker 0 then asks why Europe is failing and has massively open borders, taking people from regimes where terrorism is life-threatening. Speaker 1 answers with a single word: subversion. He claims this is most evident in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, stating that the way the war and the conflict are presented in international media is not an accurate reflection of what’s happening on the ground. He believes many Palestinians would share that sentiment. He contends that what’s happening in Gaza is not how it’s reported, because narratives are shaped to present a certain story, a process he attributes to Al Jazeera. He questions who runs Al Jazeera and asserts it is state-run by Qatar, and says they have been a chief sponsor of a “laundered ideology” presenting Palestinian victimhood even if some stories are fabricated. He claims Al Jazeera has falsified stories during the Gaza war. Speaker 1 concludes that when people push back against Islamism, they’re accused of conspiracy or exaggeration, but the speaker argues that there is a conspiracy to undermine the West. He acknowledges that it may seem crazy to say so, but asserts that such a conspiracy is exactly what is happening. He identifies this as the fundamental ideology of Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Shia side, and says this is something that must be spoken out against to educate the general public.

Mélenchon est conscient du tour de passe-passe qu'il essaie de faire. L'opposition à un gouvernement autour de LFI n'est pas seulement une question d'étiquette, de personnalité ou de style, mais principalement à cause du programme annoncé. Ce programme est dangereux pour le pays et dangereux immédiatement. Le NFP dit « notre programme, tout notre programme et rien que notre programme ». Et dans ce programme, il y a des choses extrêmement lourdes. Translation: Mélenchon is aware of the sleight of hand he is trying to pull. The opposition to a government formed around LFI is not just a matter of labels, personality, or style, but mainly because of the announced program. This program is dangerous for the country and dangerous immediately. The NFP says "our program, all of our program and nothing but our program." And in this program, there are extremely serious things.

A planned citizen and republican march against anti-Semitism turns into a political showdown. Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his followers refuse to participate, while Yaël Braun-Pivet and Gérard Larcher don't want to be associated with the far-right National Rally. The Greens, Socialists, and Communists aim to form a cordon sanitaire against the extreme right. Israeli flags will be banned from the march. Philippe de Villiers questions whether politicians are ruining what could have been a historic moment. He criticizes their focus on past anti-Semitism instead of addressing the current issue. Macron is expected to attend the rally, as it represents national unity and the need to take a stand against terrorism.

Speaker 0 says, "powerful institutions are at play here, and there's a coordinated effort to spread this parasitic ideology," and asks, "Are you willing to name the group behind us? Because behind all these institutions, there seems to be a Cohen, a Berg, a Stein." He then asks, "What are your thoughts on the Jewish influence about on gender ideology?" Speaker 1 replies, "So you're you're Am I gonna do anything about the Jews is what you're asking me? No." Okay. Do I need to dignify that with a further response, do think?" He adds, "Or And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits." "This is a beast created by secular Jews."

Speaker 0 expresses disdain towards Hamas supporters. Speaker 1 accuses them of celebrating the Israeli massacre and questions their morals. Speaker 2 asks for evidence of decapitated babies. Speaker 1 describes gruesome acts committed by Hamas. Speaker 2 mentions supporting Palestine and freedom of identity. Speaker 1 dismisses the possibility of Palestine being freed and criticizes those who support Hamas. They claim that Hamas manipulates political correctness and diversity to legitimize terror. Speaker 1 urges support for Israel and expresses hatred towards Christians and Jews. The conversation ends with a threat of violence.

The transcript centers on a heated, interconnected discussion about Tucker Carlson, U.S. politics, and the perceived influence of Israel, the Israel lobby, and foreign interests on American public discourse. The participants volley accusations, defenses, and conspiracy theories, with several notable claims and counterclaims. - The opening segment portrays Tucker Carlson as a target of powerful actors. Speaker 0 argues that Netanyahu and others have labeled Carlson a problem, suggesting that calling him a “fox in a henhouse” is a veiled call for violence and censorship. They warn that such rhetoric could provoke political suppression or harm toward Carlson, and they reference debates over whether Carlson’s anti-war stance and Iran policy have drawn attacks from prominent Israel-first voices. - The conversation shifts to alleged political interference and investigations. Speaker 0 references Kash Patel and a mid-September claim that Patel confronted J. D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and others about an investigation, asserting Patel was told not to involve certain intelligence matters or foreign involvement in domestic issues. They describe “the Israel lobby literally run by Netanyahu” as attacking Carlson and pressing to “neutralize” him. There is also a claim that Democrats celebrated or advocated harm against Charlie Kirk and that “six trainees” in a town suggested Kirk would be dead the next day, though no evidence is presented for these claims. - Speaker 1 introduces a harsh critique of Carlson, saying he is “the most dangerous anti-Semite in America,” accusing him of aligning with those who celebrate Nazis, defend Hamas, and criticize Trump for stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The comment emphasizes that Carlson is not MAGA, and asserts a leadership role for Carlson in a modern-day Hitler youth narrative. - The dialogue between Speakers 0 and 2 (Adam King) delves into broader political positioning. Adam King says Carlson “left MAGA,” that MAGA is a big tent whereas Carlson seeks a smaller, more controlled sphere, and that Carlson is working against the Trump agenda by attempting to influence 2028 considerations. Speaker 0 counters, arguing Tucker covers a wide range of topics and remains central to the movement, not simply fixated on Israel. - There is debate about the influence of Jewish voters and donors on the 2024 campaign, with back-and-forth estimates of Jewish contributions and skepticism about the degree to which Jews will back Vance or other candidates. The participants discuss antisemitism accusations, censorship, and the difficulty of debating these topics. They criticize the idea of labeling people antisemitic as a manipulation tactic and urge more open dialogue. - The dialogue touches on the media landscape and the limits of speaking on both sides. Adam King argues for more balanced dialogue and warns that the current rhetoric—terms like “neutralize”—fuels violence. He expresses concern about online harassment of Jews and the normalization of violent language in political discourse. - There are tangential conversations about foreign influence in U.S. affairs. Adam King mentions Qatar, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and other foreign money; he cites a Newsmax report about Mamdani’s foreign funding and discusses debates over whether Qatar has a U.S. airbase or is primarily involved in training programs. The participants debate where influence truly lies, whether with Soros, the left, or other actors. - The segment ends with a mix of promotional content and entertainment, including a satirical insert about Ultra Methylene Red, a product advertised with claims about cognitive and physiological benefits, followed by fictional, humor-laden banter about “Batman” and “the Riddler” reacting to the product. In sum, the transcript captures a multi-faceted, contentious exchange over Carlson’s position in the MAGA movement, accusations of antisemitism and censorship, perceived foreign influence in U.S. politics, and the tensions within the right-wing ecosystem, all interwoven with promotional and humorous interludes.

Speaker 0, a journalist, claims to represent the republic and wants to appeal to a specific community for votes. They propose creating a "red Islam" where both prophets Muhammad and Chavez teach that one can disrespect the capitalist system while praying. Speaker 1 criticizes Speaker 0's attire, and Speaker 0 defends it, mentioning the discomfort caused by the wind. They argue about couscous and accuse each other of opportunism. Speaker 0 admits to having no principles and mentions their past associations with politicians. Speaker 1 brings up Speaker 0's previous support for secularism and feminism, but Speaker 0 dismisses it. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 despicable and predicts a loss of support. Speaker 0 jokes about the Nupes and suggests that the socialists enjoy being shaken.

The speaker claims the European Union threatened Elon Musk with sanctions for airing an interview with Donald Trump. The speaker asserts this is offensive to democracy and freedom of speech. They accuse the EU of election interference by silencing a former president who is now a nominee for a major political party. The speaker contrasts this with the lack of outrage from the White House and the Harris campaign, questioning why Democrats aren't complaining about this alleged election interference.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone wants to sign a petition to help Hamas free Palestine. Speaker 1 hesitates and asks about the terms and conditions. Speaker 0 mentions that by supporting Hamas, you agree to various extreme actions such as slaughtering Jews and non-Muslims, punishing homosexuality with jail or death, using Palestinians to spread radical jihad, enforcing strict Sharia law, and supporting a terrorist group that harms babies and rapes girls. Speaker 1 expresses disagreement with all of these actions and decides not to sign the petition. Speaker 0 acknowledges this and thanks Speaker 1 for not signing.

Speaker 0 accuses Hamas of lying and emphasizes the importance of other democratic states like Germany, Britain, and France recognizing this. Speaker 1 acknowledges that this is the opinion of Israel, but also mentions that Hamas has denied these claims. Speaker 0 interrupts to clarify that Hamas has indeed lied, and they believe it will continue to do so. They claim to have evidence to support their statement.

**Speaker 2 (Michael Shellenberger):** Many of us were shocked by Vance's speech, but I think it's long overdue. Americans deeply value freedom of speech, and we question our alliance when European judges try to censor our speech and social media platforms. America is tired of being the world's police officer, and our patience is tested when Europe seems to turn against enlightenment values like free speech. The only solution to misinformation is accurate information through free debate. **Speaker 3 (Natalie Tucci):** I don't believe there has been an erosion of free speech in Europe, and I don't think what we heard from the US Vice President has much to do with free speech. Vance's rhetoric sounds like the Russian playbook, turning arguments about democracy on their head. His meeting with Alice Weidel suggests election interference and support for far-right parties, which could end liberal democracy and European integration.

Speaker 0 asserts there is a mental health crisis in the country and "the left" needs immediate help. Speaker 1 calls "Trump bigots" racist and claims they think they are superior. Speaker 0 suggests people are triggered by a gay man's message that they can leave the Democratic party. Speaker 0 states their message is that people don't have to be Democrats and that their "unhinged devotion to a radicalized party" is resulting in the negative reactions. Speaker 1 says "prove more" and expresses dislike.