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.

Thomas Massey is running an election tomorrow against an APAC-funded candidate. The discussion links Trump’s intervention—attacking Massey and promoting Massey’s rival—to the broader political situation, including connections to the Iran war. Speaker 1 says he knows the rival, Ed Galrin. He first met Ed in 1997 during a counterterrorism exercise whose scenario involved sending US Special Operations forces into Algeria to deal with terrorists who had smallpox. The exercise was carried out in Jacksonville, Florida, where Speaker 1 first met Ed. Speaker 1 adds that Ed was known as “fast Eddie” at the time and was not widely respected by his peers, being viewed as an irritant. Speaker 1 later encountered Ed again when the US withdrew forces from Panama. Ed had been detailed to Panama with the SEAL team, and Speaker 1 saw him standing in line with his family while they were all flying out the same day. Regarding the current election, Speaker 1 describes Ed as “a tool” being used by the Israeli lobby. Speaker 1 states that Trump’s turn on Massey is “shameful” and says Trump’s efforts label Massey a “rhino republican,” and claim that Massey supports transgenderism and “mutilating kids.” Speaker 1 characterizes these claims as “damnable lies.”

Speaker 1 argues that many people hate leftists, and when asked bluntly why, states that leftists are psychopaths who will destroy everything he cares about through suicidal empathy. Speaker 0 asks whether he means progressives or the entire left, and Speaker 1 says the delineation is threshold minute; when examining granularity, it all comes down to ethics, and leftists don’t have ethics, so it’s about degrees of psychopathy. Speaker 0 asks about people who want a little more wealth redistribution but generally love America, noting they exist on the left. Speaker 1 questions why they want these changes. Speaker 0 explains that they think the left has a different view of human nature and that luck and structures matter, contrasting with the right’s caricature of merit and hard work. The sensible left would acknowledge that luck can affect outcomes and that some people face sickness or accidents, so society should help those who are struggling, supporting social safety nets to a greater extent than those who want the lowest taxes. This is presented as the steelman argument. Speaker 1 says that makes sense and identifies the core idea as social safety nets. Speaker 0 asks why such safety nets aren’t voluntary. Speaker 1 responds that achieving the level of redistribution desired requires some degree of force. He notes that the entire idea of progressive liberalism is supposed to be volunteerism, with left-wing government not forcing people to do anything. Speaker 0 calls that a contradiction, and Speaker 1 counters that the left’s promise is that secular government will be fair and allow personal freedom as long as one does not hurt others, whereas Christian nationalists would compel certain actions. The conversation then shifts to the claim that the left’s promise of secular governance leads to compelling people to do things against their will, contradicting the previous ideal of voluntaryism. Overall, the dialogue centers on: a critique of leftists as lacking ethics and exhibiting psychopathic tendencies; a defense of a more nuanced left view that accounts for luck and structural factors; the tension between voluntary redistribution and the necessity of force to achieve redistribution; and the contrast between secular fairness and religiously motivated coercion. The speakers dispute whether progressive liberalism can be both voluntary and sufficiently redistributive, and they contrast secular promises with perceived implications for personal autonomy.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss why Speaker 1 dislikes leftists and progressives. Speaker 1 bluntly says they are psychopaths who are going to destroy everything he cares about through suicidal empathy. When pressed to distinguish leftists from progressives, Speaker 1 says the delineation is threshold minute, and that, at a granular level, it all comes down to ethics, which he believes they lack, equating it with degrees of psychopathy. They touch on people who favor a bit more wealth redistribution but love America. Speaker 0 notes these people exist on the left, though they are a smaller share. Speaker 1 probes why such people want redistribution, and Speaker 0 explains they see human nature differently from the right, arguing luck and structural factors influence outcomes. The right allegedly overestimates agency, with a caricature that people get what they deserve through hard work and merit. The sensible left, according to Speaker 0, acknowledges luck and misfortune, suggesting that not everyone’s struggles stem from personal failures, and therefore society should support those in need more than those who want the lowest taxes. This is presented as the steelman argument for more robust social safety nets. They move to why such redistribution isn’t voluntary. Speaker 0 asserts that achieving the desired level of redistribution requires some level of force. Speaker 1 notes that progressive liberalism is supposed to be about volunteerism, with a left-wing government not compelling individuals to do anything. Speaker 0 dismisses this as bullshit, while claiming the promise is that secular government will act fairly and not impose coercion, allowing people to do as they please as long as they do not hurt others. The contrast is drawn with Christian nationalism, which is framed as promoting forcing people to act in certain ways. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 suggesting that the left’s promise of secular government leads to compelling people to do various things against their will, illustrating a tension between voluntary principles and government coercion.

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 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 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.

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 says Gamas wants to “break the entire Western civilization” and “destroy the entire Western civilization.” Speaker 1 asks where this is shown, citing that a page is not enough and stating they know the Hamas manifest because they have read it, while challenging Speaker 0 to point to the exact location. Speaker 0 asserts that they are “for sharia” and repeatedly claims Hamas advocates the killing of all Jews, but Speaker 1 says these claims are not found in the manifest. Speaker 1 presses Speaker 0 to specify where the statements appear, asking for pages or sending it over. The discussion turns to using ChatGPT: Speaker 0 suggests using ChatGPT for the text, and Speaker 1 mentions that ChatGPT indicates there is a revised version from 2017. Speaker 1 then describes the 1988 original Hamas charter as describing the Western world as part of a hostile political and cultural order that, according to Hamas, suppresses the Islamic world. They say this uses strong ideological language from the context of Islamism. Speaker 1 disputes Speaker 0’s claim that “the destruction of the Western world” appears in either the original 1988 charter or the 2017 revised version, stating that it is not in the old manifest and not in the revised version either. Speaker 1 says this does not solve the issue raised in the discussion. Speaker 0 continues by saying what Islamists “ultimately” want is to overthrow Western civilization, while Speaker 1 maintains that this is not in their charter “as you just claimed,” and challenges how Speaker 0 knows what is “secretly” in it. Speaker 0 characterizes the claim as meaning it indirectly, not literally. Speaker 1 concludes that Speaker 0 says “the whole Western world should be destroyed,” but that ChatGPT does not present it as stated, and that it is not literally written in the charter.

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.