reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker watched the debate between Dave Smith and Douglas Murray on Rogan. The speaker says they are an American chauvinist who only cares about their own country and wishes other countries well. They believe countries should defend themselves and if a nation can't survive without being propped up by another government, like the U.S., then it shouldn't exist. Speaker 0 asserts Israel cannot exist without U.S. support, citing its nuclear program, weapons, and economy. They claim Israel's lobbying efforts in the U.S. prove this dependence. Speaker 1 believes Israel can handle itself. They reiterate that any country that fundamentally cannot exist without being subsidized by American taxpayers should not exist, and in fact, already does not exist.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration with the hypocrisy of bundling Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine together as potential triggers for World War 3. Speaker 1 interrupts, urging Speaker 0 to sit down and have a proper conversation. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that the American people's voices need to be heard and that the President and Speaker 1 do not speak for them. Speaker 1 dismisses this as Speaker 0's opinion and asks them to sit down. Speaker 0 refuses, claiming it is their right to exercise free speech. Speaker 1 argues that it is not free speech when it disrupts others. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 0 bringing up historical events and Speaker 1 defending America. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 asking Hillary Clinton to denounce the President's warmongering speech.

The discussion centers on the way lawmakers reference religion in foreign policy and whether that approach is effective. Speaker 0 asks the audience how many think a respected lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, even if he doesn’t know the verse, and whether that is the best approach. Speaker 1 responds by referencing Ted Cruz’s Genesis twelve three, and notes that many find that off-putting when contrasted with the New Testament, specifically Paul’s writings about the new flesh not being the same as the people in the old covenant. Speaker 1 asks, “Yes. Romans nine?” and agrees with the sentiment. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 if they are Catholic, to which Speaker 1 replies that they are converting Catholic from Judaism, revealing that they are ethnically Jewish. The exchange confirms Speaker 1’s Jewish ethnicity. Speaker 0 brings up concerns about APAC, asking if Speaker 1 has concerns about APAC. Speaker 1 confirms that they do. Speaker 0 notes that some people tell them that criticizing APAC equates to being anti-Semitic, asking whether this is true. Speaker 1 calls that notion ridiculous and says it’s great to have concern for one’s country. The conversation shifts to APAC’s influence. Speaker 0 presents a characterization (as a possible summary of Speaker 1’s view) that APAC represents a form of prioritization that cuts in line, away from the American people. Speaker 0 asks whether this is a fair summary. Speaker 1 answers affirmatively, “100%.” Finally, they articulate the core idea: the public votes and are citizens, but a separate group is described as receiving higher priority for whatever reasons. Speaker 1’s agreement underscores a shared concern that APAC’s influence creates a prioritization that bypasses the ordinary American electorate.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government. And those two those two things beautifully coexisted." "Exactly. And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

Speaker 0 discusses the value of open debate and denouncing tactics used by some to shut down discussion. He references Charlie Kirk’s public life and the speech he asked him to deliver earlier this year, noting that Kirk died for the belief in the importance of debate. He explains that, in the months leading up to his final days, Kirk devoted effort to arguing about the event and the speech, and that he faced immense pressure from donors to remove him from Turning Point’s roster. The speaker asserts that Kirk stood firm in his belief that people should be able to debate, and that if you have something valid to say or are telling the truth, you should be able to explain it calmly and in detail to people who disagree, rather than resorting to silencing or questioning motives. He criticizes the tendency to label questions as indicative of evil or to accuse others of motives, noting how “shut up racist” has become a prevailing, harmful reaction. He states that this phrase was the number one reason he voted for Donald Trump. He emphasizes that if he were a racist or bigot, he would acknowledge it, noting that in America one is allowed to be whatever kind of person one wants, but he is opposed to racism and bigotry. He argues that the style of debate that obstructs the other side from talking by quickly appealing to motive is corrosive, and he questions the usefulness of such questioning practices. The speaker insists he’s grown tired of that approach and believes they’ve reached the end of it. He states clearly that he will not play by those rules, and he will express his views regardless of others’ disapproval, as long as he has the opportunity to speak. He reiterates that if someone doesn’t like his views, that’s fine, but he intends to express them openly. In closing, he reiterates his commitment to speaking his mind and not engaging in the silencing tactics he condemns.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence in US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of singling out Israel and implying Jewish control over foreign policy, labeling it an antisemitic trope. Speaker 0 denies antisemitism, stating the concern is about a foreign government's influence, not Jews or Judaism. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0 to provide another reason for focusing on Israel. Speaker 0 cites the potential for war with Iran and Speaker 1's stated goal of defending Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend any foreign government's interests, regardless of ancestry, and condemns the antisemitism accusation.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "You never you never once said, hey, I'm I'm out on America. On America's right." "And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government."

Speaker 0 expresses that "The behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away" and that he is accused of being an anti-Semite despite "I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish Sabbath." He notes online backlash, "thousands of tweets and text messages," and that his "moral character is now being put into question" for supporting Israel. Speaker 1 agrees the treatment is unfair, saying "Dave Smith isn't allowed to criticize Israel" and that "the Israeli side was overrepresented." They discuss Americans first, resisting accusations, and the difficulty of criticizing the Israeli government online. They reference Epstein's controversial topic and say they hosted a debate giving "equal time to Josh Hammer, equal time to a pro Israel advocate." They observe a "hyperparanoid state" online and wonder if patterns resemble "nineteen thirties Germany."

One speaker believes people should be allowed to have differing views on immigration and debate the merits of the Israeli lobby's power. However, Pat Buchanan discredits this conversation because he gives the sense that he has another agenda related to personal dislike, conspiracies, and the belief that Jews are a sinister force trying to affect American politics. Another speaker questions if a certain individual exclusively targets people in the same group and makes Holocaust jokes. This speaker suggests this individual is like David Duke, who would endorse their shows. They believe David Duke is part of a campaign to discredit people on the right, and that Nick Fuentes is doing the same. They clarify that this doesn't mean everything he says is false, that he isn't talented, or that he's a bad person, but that he is clearly part of a campaign to discredit non-crazy right voices.

The conversation centers on the persistent American fixation with Israel and foreign entanglements. Speaker 0 asks whether Trump and modern administrations, in general, have shown slavish support for Israel, noting a growing split on the conservative right between those who defend Israel unconditionally and those who are critical of the Israeli government’s strategy, particularly in the war with Hamas. Israel emerges as a common theme tying together this divide. Speaker 1 expresses exhaustion with the Israel debate, describing it as a “hat game” that has swapped Israel for Ukraine as the focal point of international involvement. He questions why the country is obsessed with intervening in others’ affairs and references George Washington’s supposed warning against foreign entanglements, implying that foreign entanglements threaten the United States. He draws a contrast between Israel and Ukraine as long-standing blood feuds and questions the feasibility of “solving” these ancient conflicts from abroad. Speaker 0 adds provocatively about blaming historical figures, briefly mentioning King George III, while continuing to frame the discussion around the heavy costs and distractions of foreign entanglements. Speaker 1 further argues that these foreign concerns distract from addressing domestic problems. He uses a therapy-couch metaphor to suggest people project dissatisfaction about their country onto other nations rather than doing the hard work at home. He posits that people know the country is broken and that instead of tackling internal issues, they “project onto some other country,” labeling the preoccupation with Israel, Palestine, Hamas, Ukraine, Donetsk, Crimea, and similar topics as a form of self-critique or misdirection. He predicts a continuing cycle of fixation, suggesting that Taiwan would be next, followed by other small nations like Papua New Guinea, as new obsessions for national attention and resources. He concludes by saying that people are sick of this pattern of constant foreign focus. Overall, the exchange portrays a frustrated critique of America’s ongoing involvement in foreign conflicts, the shifting emphasis between Israel and Ukraine, and the belief that this preoccupation distracts from addressing domestic issues. The speakers emphasize a desire to end what they view as an endless cycle of overseas interventions and symbolic national debates.

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.

Megan and Charlie Kirk, both vocal defenders of Israel, say the pro-Israel camp overreacts to criticism by labeling dissenters as anti Semitic, which they believe undermines credibility: "the behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away." They recount personal harassment, including "you must be anti Semitic" when raising Epstein/Mossad discussions, and say "What the hell? That's such bullshit." They defend their American-first stance: "We are Americans first, period. End of story," and insist they want Israel to win, even as they note the debate harms Israel's standing. Megan warns that "Israel has made itself the villain of the world" and cites Trump's remark "time to wrap it up." They cite shifting U.S. public opinion: GOP 76% to 71%; Dems 36% to 8%; independents 47% to 25%. They discuss broadcasts, focus groups, and backlash on social media.

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

Speaker 0 criticizes the hypocrisy of the speech, accusing President Joe Biden of warmongering by allocating $100 billion in funding for Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine. Speaker 1 interrupts, urging Speaker 0 to sit down and accusing them of disrupting the conversation. Speaker 0 argues that the American people's voices should be heard, claiming that the president and Speaker 1 do not represent them. Speaker 1 dismisses Speaker 0's opinion and asks them to stop speaking. The argument continues with Speaker 0 mentioning historical events involving John Foster Dulles and the Pinochet regime. Speaker 1 tries to move on and discusses Uganda's anti-LGBT laws. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the issue is not about Israel or Palestine but about war. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 telling Speaker 0 to leave.

The speaker expresses understanding for those against US spending on foreign wars, but criticizes individuals who exclusively prioritize spending on Israel. These "Israel First" individuals, including "groipers" and Nick Fuentes, are obsessed with Israel, ignoring other problems. The speaker prioritizes America, focusing on border security, fentanyl from Canada, illegal immigration, American labor, Gen Z, and national culture. Concerns extend to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Brazil, with Israel further down the list. The speaker believes these "Israel First" individuals would vote for Joe Biden over Donald Trump, even if it harms America, because Israel matters more to them. They allegedly believe in conspiracies, such as Israel controlling the weather and being a secret cabal running the world, demonstrating their hatred for America and singular focus on Israel.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "And those two things beautifully coexisted." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often." "Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their statement in a book regarding anger and whether they contribute to it. Speaker 1 defends their use of charged language in politics but clarifies that they have an issue with assuming people with different political views are of bad character. Speaker 0 brings up Speaker 1's description of President Obama's State of the Union address as fascist, to which Speaker 1 admits it was a poor choice of words. Speaker 0 points out that being bad or wrong doesn't necessarily make something fascist. Speaker 1 offers to critique the column if it is read aloud.

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of coarsening public discourse and exacerbating divisions. Speaker 1 defends themselves by pointing out that Speaker 0 also uses harsh language. Speaker 0 brings up Speaker 1's YouTube videos with provocative titles, suggesting they contribute to the problem. Speaker 1 argues that they have no control over how others describe them and that people are free to express themselves.

Entering a discussion about Israel often leads to accusations of racism or anti-Semitism if there's any disagreement. Free speech is a fundamental right, and no one should dictate what you can say or think. When questioning U.S. support for Israel, critics are quickly labeled as bigots, regardless of their background. This tactic is used to shut down debate and deflect criticism. Every American has the right to express their views openly, and that should be respected as part of the nation's values.

Speaker 0 criticizes the hypocrisy of the speech and accuses President Joe Biden of warmongering by allocating $100 billion in funding for Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine. Speaker 1 tries to dismiss Speaker 0's comments and suggests having a conversation later. Speaker 0 insists that the American people's voices need to be heard and accuses the president of not representing them. Speaker 1 argues that Speaker 0's opinion is not the voice of the American people. The argument escalates, with Speaker 0 claiming it is free speech and Speaker 1 disagreeing. The discussion becomes heated, with Speaker 0 mentioning historical events and Speaker 1 dismissing them. The conversation ends abruptly, with Speaker 0 inviting Speaker 1 to continue outside.

Speaker 0: The speech opens with a critique of denouncing and a reference to the red guard/ c ultural revolution, questioning why nobody denounces others the way that era was denounced. The speaker recalls that the entire point of Charlie Kirk’s public life was to have actual debate, and asserts that Charlie “died for it.” The last several months of Charlie’s life were devoted, in part, to arguing about this event and this speech, which he asked the speaker to deliver earlier this year, this summer. The speaker notes that Charlie faced immense pressure from people who fund Turning Point who wanted him to remove the speaker from the roster. This has all become public, and the speaker describes the situation as sad, stating that Charlie stood firm in his often stated and deeply held belief that people should be able to debate. The speaker emphasizes that if someone has something valid to say and is telling the truth, they ought to be able to explain it calmly and in detail to people who don’t agree with them, and that they shouldn’t immediately resort to “shut up racist.” The speaker adds that “shut up racist” is the number one reason they voted for Donald Trump. They declare that if they were a racist or a bigot, they would simply say so, noting that it’s America and one is allowed to be whatever kind of person they want. They insist they are not a racist and have always opposed-bigoted views, but criticize the style of debate that prevents the other side from talking or being heard by immediately going to motive, asking why the question is asked, and stating they detect “a certain evil in your soul” in the question. They say that listening to such a question implicates the listeners too, and that someday they may be asked to denounce that person; they assert that friendship is not a reason to defend someone and that love is no defense. The speaker reflects that they thought that phase had ended and that they are not going to engage in those rules. They affirm that if someone doesn’t like what they think, that’s fine as long as they get to express it. That remains their view.