reSee.it - Related Video Feed

When criticism of Israeli policies arises, the tactic is often to label dissenters as anti-Semitic. This strategy involves invoking the Holocaust when Europeans criticize Israel and using the power and influence of the American Jewish establishment to stifle criticism in the US. Those who defend Israel unquestioningly refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing and dismiss critics as anti-Semitic, justifying actions against Palestinians.

And one thing a friend said to me interestingly, which is, okay. Charlie, we've pushed back against the media on COVID, on lockdowns, on Ukraine, on the border, on so, like, maybe we should also ask a question. 'Is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel?' 'Just a question, you know, that maybe we shouldn't believe everything the media says because I know I've been conditioned to ask a lot more critical questions over the last couple of years.' 'So, Ben, some people would accuse Israel of wanting to ethnically cleanse.'

It's a trick we Israelis often use. When Europeans criticize Israel, we bring up the Holocaust. Here in America, critics of Israel are labeled anti-Semitic. The ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are strong. They are a talented group of people and wield power in media and money. Their attitude is "Israel, my country, right or wrong". They aren't open to criticism. It's easy to dismiss those who criticize the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, evoking the Holocaust and Jewish suffering to justify our actions towards the Palestinians.

I've debated people my whole life, and I believe that when someone resorts to personal attacks and yelling, they're losing the debate. The Palestinians have been offered a state multiple times, but they rejected those offers in 1936, 1947, 1967, 2000, and 2008. Despite Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, no state was created. I question why people like Cenk only speak up now when they claim to care about Palestinian children, but ignore the actions of Hamas, who misused foreign aid and neglected building schools and hospitals. My organization has advocated for Arab children in the past, unlike Cenk. Accusing me of being a Jew hater is baseless, and attempting to cancel my voice due to ignorance of facts and history is unjustified.

An Israeli Jew responds to the accusation of anti-Semitism when criticizing Israeli government policies. They explain that it's a common trick to silence dissent by invoking the Holocaust or labeling critics as anti-Semitic. The strong ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment, along with their power in media and finances, contribute to this dynamic. The speaker emphasizes that this attitude of unquestioning support for Israel and the reluctance to accept criticism allows for the justification of actions against Palestinians.

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.

An Israeli Jew responds to the accusation of anti-Semitism when criticizing Israeli government policies. They explain that it's a common trick to silence dissent by invoking the Holocaust or labeling critics as anti-Semitic. The strong ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment, along with their power, money, and media influence, contribute to this dynamic. The speaker points out that this attitude of unquestioning support for Israel and the reluctance to accept criticism allows the Israeli government to justify their actions against Palestinians.

Israel and its supporters deliberately foment hate and division in our society. I’ve noticed a lot of angry comments underneath my posts these past few days, which bizarrely mention the words Islam and Muslims completely out of the blue. Why don’t you turn your attention sometimes to the genocidal intent of the radical Muslims, or does that suit your racist narrative? Reads one tweet. What can you say about Islamic jihadist Muslims murdering thousands of Christians in Sudan and other parts of Africa, reads another. The Muslims must be eradicated, reads another. There are too many examples to quote here, but here’s what’s so funny about all this. I haven’t been saying anything about Islam or Muslims on Twitter. I’ve been tweeting about Israel. Hasparists just babble about Islam when they can’t defend Israel’s actions. It is not a coincidence that they’ve been doing this. In September, Drop Site News published a leaked polling report that had been commissioned by the Israeli government which found that while Israel’s reputation is crumbling throughout the Western world, one way to salvage it would be to foment panic about Muslims. Dropsight News reports the following: Israel’s best tactic to combat this, according to the study, is to foment fear of radical Islam and jihadism, which remains high, the research finds, By highlighting Israeli support for women’s rights and gay rights, while elevating concerns that Hamas wants to destroy all Jews and spread jihadism, Israeli support rebounded by an average of 20 points in each country. Especially once the situation in Gaza is resolved, the room for growth in all countries is very significant, the report concludes. So if you speak critically about Israel online and suddenly find your replies inundated with Zionists shrieking about Islam and Muslims, that’s why. Their research has concluded that convincing Westerners to hate Muslims is easier than convincing them to love Israel. In addition to committing genocide and starting wars and working to stomp out free speech throughout the Western world, Israel is also doing everything it can to make our society more racist and hateful. A foreign state is actively fomenting division and discord in Western countries in exactly the way Western Empire apologists claimed Putin was doing at the height of Russia hysteria. Because it’s a Western ally, though, nothing is being done to stop it. In addition to being evil and disgusting, this tactic is also just sloppy argumentation. Deflection is the lowest form of argument. Even if Islam really was as dangerous as they pretend it is, and even if Muslims really did present a threat to our society, pointing this out would not address a single criticism of Israel. Yelling Muslims bad does not magically erase Israel’s abuses or address the grievances of its critics. It just diverts attention to another target and says, Stop looking at Israel’s actions and hate those people instead. Mention Israel, and you’ll get Hosperists babbling about Islam. But Islam and Israel are not opposites, and the mention of one has no bearing on the other. One is a worldwide religion with nearly 2,000,000,000 adherents, while the other is a genocidal apartheid state, Framing the issue as a conflict between two diametrically opposed parties is a false dichotomy created by propagandists and manipulators. And that’s exactly the false dichotomy Netanyahu is trying to feed into when he tells Americans that Israel is in an alliance with Christianity against radical Shiite Islam and radical Sunni Islam, calling it our common Judeo Christian civilization’s battle. He’s working to foment fear of Islam among Americans to boost support for Israel. All this to manufacture consent for human butchery and apartheid. Israel could improve its support among Westerners by simply ending its genocidal atrocities in Gaza and ceasing to try to start a war between The US and Iran, but instead it’s working around the clock to foment racism and division while demanding increased censorship and authoritarianism to stomp out pro Palestine sentiment throughout Western society. Israel is doing this because it cannot exist in its present iteration as a state without nonstop violence and abuse. Under the political ideology known as Zionism, peace, justice, truth, and freedom are simply not an option.

Why are you doing this? You're kidnapped. What's happening in Palestine? How do you feel about the Palestinians? Innocent civilians are suffering. Why don't you care about them? The numbers are significant—how many people are affected? You can't ignore the plight of innocent civilians we've been advocating for. There’s misinformation being spread. Where’s the evidence of that? Are you serious? Do you want evidence of the atrocities happening, like women being raped?

We are being blackmailed by the Holocaust. This is a scary tale that is being repeated constantly, and it is wrong. Israel is a terrorist.

For 5000 years, Jewish people faced persecution, mainly from white European Christians. Palestinians didn't contribute to atrocities like Auschwitz or turning away Jewish refugees. The real enemy is white Christian Europeans, not Palestinians. The question remains: why are 2 million Palestinians in an open-air prison?

"And that suits the Israelis just fine." "And if you're wondering why there's an awful lot of lunatic antisemitic comment about Israel online, you have to wonder how much of that is organic." "But how much of it is not organic at all?" "How much of that is being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy?" "Probably some because it serves their interest." "And so the true shame here, the actual villain in the story is the leadership of The United States that is putting up with serial humiliation for decades." "You'd think every country would act that way, and most do." "And for what reason? So if there's someone to be mad at, it's our leaders."

In the US, criticism of Israeli policies is often met with accusations of anti-Semitism. This tactic is seen as a way to silence dissent by invoking the Holocaust and Jewish suffering. The strong ties between Israel and American Jewish groups make it easy to label critics as anti-Semitic. The attitude is often "Israel, right or wrong," with little room for criticism. This approach justifies actions towards Palestinians.

Criticism of Israel often leads to accusations of anti-Semitism in the U.S. This tactic is used to deflect dissent, similar to how the Holocaust is invoked when criticism comes from Europe. The American Jewish establishment has significant influence, including power, money, and media, and tends to adopt an unwavering support for Israel. This creates an environment where criticism is not welcomed, and dissenters are quickly labeled anti-Semitic. The historical suffering of the Jewish people is often used to justify actions taken against Palestinians, making it difficult to engage in open dialogue about Israeli policies.

Speaker 1 responds to Speaker 0’s question by describing a recurring tactic: when Europeans criticize Israel, the Holocaust is invoked; when people in the United States criticize Israel, they are labeled antisemitic. He calls this a trick that is "we always use it," and notes that the organization behind this dynamic is strong and has a lot of money. He asserts that there are very deep ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment within the United States, and that those ties are strong. He acknowledges that they have power, and he attributes this to their talent as well as their wealth and media influence. He describes them as possessing "power, money, and media, and other things," and characterizes their attitude as: "Israel, my country, right or wrong." He claims they identify with fiction, suggesting they are not ready to hear criticism. According to Speaker 1, it is very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as antisemitic and to bring up the Holocaust and the suffering of the Jewish people. He contends that this dynamic is used to justify everything that is done to the Palestinians. In his view, criticism of Israeli policy by Europeans or Americans is reframed as antisemitism, and the Holocaust is leveraged to shield Israeli actions, thereby silencing dissent and rationalizing actions against Palestinians.

Netanyahu had been waging a seven front war in the region, and now The United States has become the eighth front. And they wanna prevent anyone from being able to express themselves anywhere in the digital online ecosystem by just buying it all. That truth is being reversed, put on its head by a campaign of lies. Israel is now portrayed as the enemy of Christians. And the enemies of Christians are portrayed as the friends of The United States. The information sphere, the info sphere is the eighth front in this war and seizing the high ground in the fight for global public opinion. If you wouldn't tolerate it if someone's wearing a swastika on their arm, I'm sorry. You shouldn't tolerate it if you're wearing it if you're wearing a confetti.

The speaker was asked if they believed students protesting were motivated by anti-Semitism or horror at the Gaza slaughter. The speaker dismissed the idea of students being driven by horror and refused to continue the conversation if it was being recorded.

"You still don't get it, do you? While you're busy arguing about pronouns and microaggressions, we're moving in, not just to your neighborhoods, but into your institutions." "You welcome us in the name of tolerance, and we smile." "We reshape the curriculum." "We gain political power." "We silence critics by calling them racist or Islamophobic." "You think we care about the Palestinians?" "Egypt and Jordan ruled that land for decades, and no one said a word." "Palestine is a tool, a symbol to distract you, divide you, and guilt you into giving up your own values."

Did he just call for the genocide of everyone who supports the Palestinian people?

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 argues that "And that suits the Israelis just fine." They question how much antisemitic content about Israel online is organic, noting there are "haters" and asking "how much of it is not organic at all?" They contend that some messaging is "being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy?" They add, "Probably some because it serves their interest." They insist the "true villain here" is not "the state of Israel, the Jews" but "the United States" and its leaders, who are "putting up with this." Israel is "a small country with very limited resources" trying to serve its own interests. "You'd think every country would act that way, and most do," yet "there are some that don't, and ours would top that list."

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

Why does every other group in the world have the right to its own homeland except white people? Explain how that makes sense. Either no group has the right, or every group does. Why are we playing along with this nonsense? It's leading to a bad conclusion. Either every group has a right to self-determination, or no group does. It can't be some groups do, or all groups do but one. It's all or nothing. What's the counter-argument? There is no answer. Uniformity is maintained through threats, like, "Shut up. You're a bad person for saying that. You're a Nazi." No. I hate the Nazis and attacking people for what they can't control, like how they're born. I'm a Christian, and I don't believe in it. Call me whatever you want. I'm making the opposite case. I've done nothing to be ashamed of. If defending people from being murdered because of how they were born is a crime, then I'll plead guilty.

The transcript presents an extensive compilation of claims from a group of speakers arguing that the established Holocaust narrative is false or exaggerated and that many historical incidents have been misrepresented or fabricated by Allied propaganda, Soviet influence, and Jewish-led organizations. The speakers frame Holocaust revisionism as a legitimate scholarly effort rather than denial, asserting that revisionists do not dispute that Jews and others suffered and died in the war, but dispute the scale, methods, and specifics of extermination. Key asserted points and claims - Holocaust definition and revisionism - The Holocaust is described as a belief that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered primarily by gassing in “shower rooms,” a narrative the speakers say is amplified by Hollywood, media, and schools. A growing movement of scientists, historians, engineers, journalists, and free-speech activists is portrayed as revisionist, though often branded as “Holocaust deniers” to discourage discourse. Revisionists are said not to deny persecution, deprivation of civil rights, deportation, internment, forced labor, or deaths in camps and ghettos, including deaths from disease; they also say that many victims died in ways other than genocide and that many victims’ dignity is not denied. - Internment and civilian camps in the United States - After Pearl Harbor, over 100,000 people of Japanese descent on the Pacific Coast were interned by Executive Order 9066; the text claims this restricted freedoms, required identity cards, and denied compensation or war reparations. The narrative includes accounts of interned individuals describing camp life, guard presence, and harsh conditions. - General wartime devastation and context - The war is described as a conflict that would not have occurred if “international jury” had not declared war on Germany in 1933, with emphasis on typhus, subversion, and crowded camps as drivers of disease and death. The speakers stress that millions died across battlefields, ships, and cities, and that propaganda surrounding German crimes obscures Allied or Soviet misdeeds. - Claims about typhus, gas chambers, and cremation - Typhus epidemics are said to explain many deaths in camps; Cyclone B (hydrogen cyanide) is claimed to have been used for delousing and pest control rather than execution, with several speakers arguing that gas chambers as homicidal devices did not exist or were technically infeasible. They assert there is no scientific proof of gassing, no German documents proving extermination plans, and that cremation and delousing procedures served health purposes rather than execution purposes. - Expert testimonies and forensics are cited (e.g., Leuchter, Rudolf, Lift, Lindsay) to support the claim that the gas chambers could not have functioned as execution facilities, noting technical impossibilities such as lack of explosion-proof features, gasketed doors, or proper gas delivery systems. - Specific camp narratives and testimonies - The camps are described as having been centers of labor, medical care, and even cultural activity, with accounts of weddings, births, nurseries, orchestras, libraries, theater performances, and recreational activities. Some testimonies describe attempts to maintain humanity and morale under harsh conditions, including a piano in Block 1, children’s art, and soccer games. - Several testimonies challenge the image of mass exterminations, claiming instead that most deaths resulted from disease, starvation, and Allied bombing, and that Red Cross and Vatican inquiries found no evidence of homicidal gas chambers. - A number of survivor testimonials are presented as quotations or paraphrases challenging the notion of mass murder in gas chambers, with some individuals denying personal knowledge of gas chambers or mass killings. - Documentary, legal, and scholarly disputes - The Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and other revisionist scholars are described as measuring and challenging the established narrative, sometimes facing legal or financial pressure. The transcript cites various researchers and forensics teams (e.g., Leuchter, Krakov, Farison, Groff, Farison, Larsson) as having concluded that homicidal gassings were not technically feasible in the cited facilities. - It is claimed that many postwar figures and witnesses provided testimonies or stories later recognized as unreliable or fabricated, including famous Holocaust survivors whose accounts are presented as inconsistent or false. Names and cases (e.g., Herman Rosenblatt, Anne Frank, Elie Wiesel) are invoked to illustrate alleged fraud or manipulation, though these claims contradict well-established historical records. - Propaganda, media, and the so-called “Holocaust industry” - The text asserts that the Holocaust narrative is used as a tool to enforce globalist policy, promote multiculturalism, and suppress nationalist sentiments among white Europeans. It claims that ongoing denazification efforts, legal penalties for questioning the Holocaust, and control over media and online platforms are designed to suppress dissent and promote a one-sided portrayal. - There is a claim that “atrocity propaganda” and black propaganda have been used to shape public perception, with references to Sefton Delmer and Allied psychological warfare, and accusations that postwar trials and media representations were heavily biased or manipulated. - Population counts, mortality figures, and documentary evidence - Several sections contest the veracity of the commonly cited death tolls, the reliability of Red Cross and other international communications, and the authenticity of diaries and eyewitness testimonies. The transcript asserts that the Nuremberg trials did not use physical or technical evidence to establish gas chamber existence and that some documents used as proof were mistranslated or contextualized wrongly. - The piece repeatedly emphasizes that millions of Jews did not die in the camps, that the “6,000,000” figure is a symbolic or religious number, and that high-profile Holocaust narratives are part of a constructed orthodoxy. - Final framing - The speakers position Holocaust revisionism as a defense of free speech and historical inquiry, arguing that questioning the official narrative is essential to truth. They claim laws against denial suppress inquiry and that truth should stand on its own merits without legal protection. They also suggest that conflicting accounts, forged documents, and political agendas have shaped the popular memory of World War II. Note on structure and tone - The transcript interweaves personal testimonials, expert opinions, documentary references, and polemical assertions. It repeatedly contrasts “revisionists” with conventional accounts, often asserting that mainstream portrayals are driven by propaganda, financial interests, or political goals. The overall thrust is to challenge the conventional understanding of the Holocaust, question the evidentiary basis for extermination claims, and highlight alleged inconsistencies in survivor narratives and official records.

If your version of history is true, why the need to silence dissent with money, institutes, and threats? Labeling critics as anti-Semitic, controlling media, and criminalizing alternative views raises suspicion. The fear of debate and scrutiny suggests insecurity in the truth of your history.