reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks what you say to those who claim you're fighting homosexual urges, citing: 'Oh, to see without my eyes, the first time that you'll kiss me.' Speaker 1 says the show aims to persuade 'normal people, normal conservatives' and that he doesn't do the optical thing; 'please please cover me in the right way and keep me around.' He adds, 'I'm I'm totally not a bad guy. Please, I'm not a Nazi. Don't, you know, don't kick me off.' He says the goal is for 'normal people' who might watch the show to resonate, so he can tell his barber, 'watch America first,' and wouldn't be embarrassed by what's on the show for the most part.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of respect for dialogue and for a different institution's dictation. They express disappointment that some people are so consumed with hate that they cannot impress their brother. The speaker asserts individuality: “You speak for yourself.” They declare that if someone will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then they will not stand with that person. The address ends with “Thank you, and God bless you.”

Speaker 0 doesn't care about race, only about the person. Speaker 1 questions calling names based on polling data. Speaker 0 emphasizes objectivity despite hurt feelings. Speaker 1 doubts the objectivity due to name-calling. Speaker 0 thanks for the conversation, wishing a better day. Speaker 1 reciprocates the sentiment.

The conversation revolves around the speaker's statement that Jews who voted for Obama are not truly religious. The speaker clarifies that he meant Jews who are ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish. He believes that these Jews prioritize other matters over their religion. When asked if these Jews should give up their Jewish identity, the speaker agrees, stating that a serious commitment to Judaism includes ideological alignment. The conversation ends with the speaker expressing frustration about old tweets being scrutinized.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the contested question of whether Jews count as white. The exchange centers on how race and ethnicity are classified and how those classifications change depending on who is doing the labeling and in what context. Speaker 0 begins by saying that the question of whether Jews count as white has been “an object of debate for quite a while,” and asserts that “We do. Okay.” This introduces the core tension: there is disagreement about the whiteness of Jews. Speaker 1 counters with a brief assertion that seems to push toward a universal or broad interpretation, saying “You … do,” and then adds that the determination “depends according to whom, and that's a pretty recent development,” suggesting that classifications have shifted recently and vary by perspective. Speaker 1 then characterizes Judaism in a provocative way, asking, “Judaism is agree that you are a white man?” which frames the issue as a question of how Judaism is perceived in terms of racial categories. Speaker 0 responds by framing the issue as contextual: “I mean, it depends on the context in which we're discussing it.” He identifies himself as a “man of Jewish ethnicity,” noting that this ethnicity is “sometimes grouped with white and sometimes not. I mean, that’s the more accurate way to put it.” This underscores the ambiguity and variability of classification: Jews can be grouped with whites in some contexts and with non-whites in others. Speaker 1 presses further, asking directly, “So you're not white at all?” Speaker 0 repeats the conditional language, emphasizing that it “depends who's doing the grouping and how.” He confirms that he has seen Jews grouped with white and also grouped with not white, and questions whether people are “pretending that doesn't exist,” acknowledging that the reality includes both classifications. He signals that the broader point he is addressing has a certain legitimacy in light of this complexity, but the conversation ends without a definitive conclusion, leaving the audience with the sense that Jewish whiteness is a contextual and contested category rather than a fixed identifier.

Speaker 0 questions the idea of representative groups and opposes representing individuals based on group identity, using the example of Jewish representation in Congress. Speaker 1 argues that the entire population is not fully represented, noting the absence of a Black female president. Speaker 0 raises the question of whether Jews are considered white, stating it's been debated and depends on the context. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 directly if he identifies as white. Speaker 0 clarifies he's a man of Jewish ethnicity, sometimes grouped with white, sometimes not, depending on who is doing the grouping. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 is not white at all. Speaker 0 reiterates that it depends on the context and acknowledges that Jews have been grouped both with and without white people.

Speaker 0 explains that the couple’s ruse may seem odd to some people and does not fit into any “white handbook” about keeping the kingdom orderly. There is no section on how to rescue children from sex traffickers. Speaker 1 interrupts to say they want to explain something. Speaker 0 continues that, using his team, they have had to figure things out on their own. He acknowledges that people may dismiss it, but he emphasizes gratitude for the opportunity to publicly state a principle: he will never confess to something he did not do, no matter who asks, unless God himself and an angel or some divine directive instructs him to lie to protect Elder Ballard’s name from defamation. He asserts clearly that he will not lie or confess to a false wrongdoing unless there is a divine instruction to do so. He reiterates that there is not one person on the planet for whom he would deviate from this principle, unless a direct message from God or a celestial being instructs him otherwise. Speaker 1 closes with a brief interjection: “But by the way, folks.”

Speaker 0 states that in public life they think of themselves as British, while in private life they are Jewish and feel strongly Jewish. They believe many of their ethics are very Jewish. They add that instinctively, Jewish people as a minority identify with other minorities. They warn that a rise in antisemitism could lead to Jews becoming more inward looking, which they see as a dangerous outcome. They emphasize that it is part of Jewish ethics to identify with other people and to do whatever they can to support them.

I'm from Ukraine and there's a large faction of Nazis there who killed my whole family. I want people to do their own research instead of believing everything they see on screen. I try to shake them up and break their mind control programming. The other person disagrees with me about Ukraine, saying the president is Jewish. But just because he's Jewish doesn't mean he's good for the Jews. My point is that people shouldn't trust others just because they look like them. Wake up, people.

The speaker states they are being asked to justify targeting people they don't like, but clarifies it's about people they believe are dishonest, not people they dislike personally. The speaker doesn't know most of them. It's not about anger, but a belief that these individuals are not worthy of access to top secret information. The speaker believes this is acceptable, noting Biden did the same with their people. The speaker reiterates the decision is based on their assessment of worthiness, not anger.

The speaker differentiates two groups of Jews as described in the Bible: the first group is called the synagogue of saints, and the second is the synagogue of Satan, which exists in the latter days (also described as the remnant of God's people, which will be Jewish people). The speaker asserts that nearly all religious deceptions in the latter days are connected to the synagogue of Satan, energized by supernatural power called the devil, and that this is the biblical teaching. He states, “This is what I believe,” and emphasizes that some people have a “strange brilliance” and are “smart,” energized by that supernatural power. The speaker then discusses power dynamics, noting that Hitler “had a stranglehold on Germany, on the banking of Germany, on everything in Germany. And on India, they had the whole thing, you see.” He adds that Hitler “went about it wrong,” but argues that “this stranglehold has got to be broken or this country is gonna go down the drain,” implying a need to take action, even if difficult to say aloud, suggesting that “nobody said that I like it the second time. We might be able to do something.” In terms of personal political identity, the speaker claims that “everybody thinks of you as conservative, and then when you lean a little bit in that direction towards the sociological thing is the big thing.” He asserts his own conservatism relative to the other person, noting, “I’m more conservative than you are,” and acknowledges that he has to lean a little to some extent. The speaker then discusses interactions with Jewish people in contemporary circles, mentioning that he sees “Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort,” and that “not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine.” He notes they are “friendly to me because they know that I’m friendly to Israel,” but he claims they do not know “how I really feel about what they’re doing for this country.” He comments that he has “no power and no way to handle them,” but ends with a conditional statement that “I would stand up if it if, you know, under” a circumstance not fully stated in the excerpt.

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.

I believe it's important to stay true to our values.

Speaker 0 states that someone likes them and put them in the movies a long time ago. They claim to have not judged anything, and that "they hate the dog." Speaker 1 warns not to be fooled by attempts to humanize someone and change perceptions of who they are. Speaker 0 confirms the discussion is about Trump.

The speaker discusses the idea of honoring God and being Jewish. They mention that the godly thing to do is to respect one another, but also claim that the Torah instructs to kill people who worship idols. They imply that Jewish people discriminate against Christians, considering them to be idolaters.

The speaker believes America's unifying principle was never race, skin color, or ethnicity, but rather a doctrine of human rights. They state that most other countries are unified by ethnicity or religion. The speaker thinks it is un-American to want to preserve European heritage, but acknowledges that the motivation behind such a desire is key. They state that if the motivation is not bigotry, they can only trust that to be the case, as they cannot look inside another person's soul.

The speaker believes America's unifying principle was never race, skin color, or ethnicity, but rather a doctrine of human rights. They state that most countries are unified by ethnicity or religion, but America was different. The speaker thinks it is un-American to want to preserve European heritage. Whether that desire is moral depends on the motivation behind it. The speaker can only trust that it is not motivated by bigotry, as they cannot look inside another person's soul.

Speaker 0 expresses support for Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself, but says they have to do this because they simply have no option if they are to survive as a country, and frankly, in many ways, as a race in that part of the world. Speaker 1 asks whether immigration represents a major threat to Britain from a demographic perspective, noting that in the last twenty years the white British population has declined from 87% to 74%, and asks if that is a concern. Speaker 0回答: No. No. Speaker 1 reiterates the claim of rapid demographic change, stating that the fastest and most rapid decline of the white British population ever experienced in British history has occurred in a tiny short period of time, and that majority cities that were once 90% white British are now majority ethnic minorities, citing London, Leicester, and Birmingham, and asks why this isn’t a concern of Speaker 0. Speaker 0 responds: But they're not unrecognizable as being English because of skin color. They're unrecognizable because of culture. He adds that he genuinely thinks the British are the most open minded, most accepting people.

The speaker believes America's unifying principle was never race, skin color, or ethnicity, but rather a doctrine of human rights. They state that most countries are unified by ethnicity or religion, while America is different. The speaker thinks it is un-American to want to preserve European heritage, but acknowledges that the motivation behind such a desire is key. They state that if the motivation is not bigotry, they can only trust that to be the case, as they cannot look inside another person's soul.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's ethnicity, stating they look "ambiguous" and "weird," and asks if they are Arab or Indian. Speaker 1 identifies as Indian, Ugandan, and a New Yorker. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 would claim African American status, like Elon Musk. Speaker 1 says they would not. Speaker 0, noting Speaker 1 is African, asks why not, stating their own middle name is Kwame. Speaker 1 affirms they are proud to be Ugandan.

Speaker 0 says you can tell me I'm flat, but it's not for a white guy. Back when I rapped in high school, people told me that I'm tight for a white dude. "What you don't?" I'm not white. I'm Jewish.

The speaker predicts that as the United States becomes nonwhite and white people become a minority, someone will eventually claim to represent white people. The speaker states they will reject this person, because no one speaks for them simply because they share the same skin color. The speaker says agreement, not shared skin color, is what allows someone to speak for them. The speaker equates the idea that someone of a certain skin color or ethnic background automatically speaks on behalf of all people who share that skin color or ethnic background to a Nazi idea. The speaker says they will oppose this, even when it happens to them.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration with being labeled as an African American, stating that they identify as simply American. Speaker 1 reacts strongly to this statement, causing a stir on Twitter. Speaker 2 interrupts, asking for clarification. Speaker 0 explains that while they don't know their African roots, they do know their roots are in Louisiana. They believe in being colorless and that everyone is just a person. Speaker 2 warns that Speaker 0 will face backlash for rejecting the African American label. Speaker 0 insists on not labeling themselves and reiterates that they are American. The conversation ends abruptly.

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.

The conversation centers on the role of identity politics and how individuals should be judged. The participants oppose broad, collective guilt and emphasize individual worth. Speaker 0 argues against the idea that “all Jews are guilty, or all anybody is guilty of anything,” calling that line of thinking untrue and noting that “God created every person as an individual, not as a group.” They describe this kind of broad attribution as identity politics and push the principle that people should be judged as individuals, with God judging each person accordingly. Speaker 1, identifying as Catholic, expresses strong agreement with the stance on universal love, saying, “I love all people.” They emphasize that, even for those who don’t like them, they must recognize and be capable of loving them, asserting that “We’re required to” do so. However, Speaker 1 offers a substantive disagreement: they contend that neoconservatism and Israel have a connection to Jewishness, asserting that “the state of Israel and the neocons are deeply motivated by that ethnic identity, and their allegiance to Israel proceeds from that.” Speaker 0 counters by labeling the line of thought as belonging to identity politics, comparing it to what they see in Black Lives Matter. They maintain that the objection is not about denying individual differences, but about applying a blanket principle to everyone. Speaker 1 responds that they would never say that all individuals are defined that way, signaling a disagreement about how the claim should be interpreted or applied. The exchange cycles back to the fundamental principle: Speaker 0 reiterates that people should be judged as individuals “by what we do,” and that “God will judge every one of us in that way,” underscoring the expectation that judgments should be individual rather than group-based. Speaker 1 maintains their view that Jewish identity and allegiance can influence political or ideological loyalties, while also affirming a personal commitment to loving all people. The dialogue highlights the tension between recognizing universal equality and acknowledging perceived connections between ethnic/religious identity and political motives.