reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A respected and powerful Wall Street businessman wouldn't be suspected of fraud unless you knew the math. The speaker, who has taken calculus, linear algebra, and statistics courses, claims it took him five minutes to recognize the fraud. He then spent almost four hours using mathematical modeling to prove it.

The speaker says it has been 20 years or more since they have walked into any professional or asked any professional anything. They argue that professionals “don’t know your body,” and instead rely on tests whose effectiveness they claim they themselves do not know. They compare medical testing to blood work, stating that blood work can change depending on factors such as eating within 10 minutes, being in a fasted state, or being stressed. Because of this, they claim that a “blood work diagnosis” means nothing. The speaker also says professionals have never been “isolated” to determine whether test results are actually real, and that without being able to isolate and determine where substances like vitamin C come from, they question how those substances can be tested. They assert that clinicians then “make things up,” for example claiming iron is “kinda low,” copper is “kinda” a certain way, and other values are “kinda” specific without knowing. They add that when a person returns six months later, results may show “it’s not changed,” because the initial results were not known to be accurate. They conclude by stating professionals are “constantly lying,” making up information so they can sell treatments and “sell toxins and poisons,” and end with “drinks up on that one” and “I love you all.”

The speaker states they dropped out of Harvard to serve their country and pursue reform, despite receiving email threats and losing friendships. They believe campus sentiment has turned against them. The speaker expresses hope that people will recognize the need for reform and that the people working there have the best chance of achieving it, working constantly. They believe the impact of their work is more valuable than anything they could have learned in a computer science classroom.

Speaker 0 believes the school system intentionally avoids teaching about money to produce compliant employees. School discourages mistakes, promotes individual work, and seeks single correct answers, which Speaker 0 says is the opposite of real-world success. This paralyzes graduates, killing their spirit of learning. Speaker 1 relays that children are told not to report bullying to their parents, because parents might bring weapons to school and someone could die. Speaker 1 also states that people shouldn't be judged for wanting to have sex with a five-year-old.

Liberal math is criticized for making things seem free if paid for with taxes, not credit cards. The speaker questions the logic of this approach, suggesting that printing money could make everything free. They argue that wars, college loans, and benefits for certain groups are seen as free under liberal math. The speaker contrasts this with the perspective of hardworking taxpayers who do not receive the same benefits.

These kids don't know basic math like addition, subtraction, division, fractions, or multiplication. They know about gay and bisexual people, what Diddy did, what kind of gun this is, who sings a song and its lyrics, and what studs and dykes are, but they don't know basic math. Parents are failing their kids, and it's not the teachers' fault because the kids just talk and play around in class. The kids don't even understand why they don't understand.

Speaker 0 describes refinancing their mortgage today after rates dropped, saving about $300 a month. They present an amortization schedule to discuss why they believe home buying in America is a scam and why this will be their last house in the country. Key details: - Mortgage is a standard 30-year loan, a VA loan with no down payment and no private mortgage insurance. - They didn’t put anything down and went from owing $784,000 to $795,000. - Original interest rate was 6.2%, now 5.6%. - They plan to sell the house when the husband retires in four years, expecting to exit the U.S. - By 2030 they expect to owe just under $750,000, meaning they will have paid off about $50,000 in four years. - Despite a $50k principal reduction, the monthly payment is $5,700. With 50 payments, that totals about $285,000. - The amortization schedule shows financing $795,000, and if the 5.6% rate continued for thirty years, total payments would be about $1,600,000. - The speaker claims the biggest scam is the interest charged in the first year. They reference past videos about it and acknowledge responsibility for their situation. - Closing costs were $7,000, including $3,500 in upfront interest. - Principal and interest are $4,500; taxes add about $1,000, bringing the monthly total to about $5,700. - The first payment is $1,101; of that, $4,500 is the principal and interest amount, with $3,700 of that going to interest. - After the first payment, only about $849 goes to the principal; every month after that, only about $4 goes toward principal. - Over the next twelve months, they expect roughly $54,000 in principal and interest payments, not including taxes, yet the amortization schedule shows they won’t have paid down the mortgage by more than about $10,000 in that year. - Before refinancing, they owed around $784,000; twelve months from the refinance, they expect to owe about the same amount as the day before refinancing. - They argue refinancing is a scam because even if they save money, “the math” suggests they won’t recoup it; they also plan to cash out the escrow from the previous mortgage and expect to receive about $14,000, framed as a positive in “girl math,” but they feel they are actually spending more money with the bank. - Since they intend to sell in four years, refinancing again with a lower rate wouldn’t be recouped because most first-year payments go to interest. - They hope to reduce the mortgage by about $50,000 (to around $747,000) and sell for perhaps $850,000, though this does not account for realtor fees and other costs. They express uncertainty about ending up with cash, suggesting they might leave the U.S. with about $50,000. - The speaker concludes that home buying in the United States is an absolute scam and laments that the only other options are renting from someone paying a mortgage to the same bank or homelessness.

I just need a few minutes. I’m looking for someone to sponsor my college expenses. We already have solar, and I’m not interested in that. I need $10,000 to pay off my student loans. I’ve worked hard for 20 years to get where I am. I saved for my home and my car. Why should I pay for your choices? An educated populace benefits society. I learned a lot in college, including how art and science are problematic. You spent $200,000 on gender studies? Yes, and that’s why people like you should support people like me. I worked hard, and my wife put herself through college without help. We’re not giving you $10,000 for your studies. By the way, sponsoring graduates is mandatory now, so I need that money. Give it to me!

The speaker mentions that they often bring papers but never look at them, except when they are given numbers. They admit to relying on whatever is written down for them.

We're born into a system with numbers, papers, and waiting. We work hard, get good grades, and go to college. Debt is seen as good, but it leads to financial struggles. Starting a family requires multiple jobs, and buying or renting is unaffordable. Used cars are as expensive as new ones. The system is overwhelming and terrible. But what if it could be different? We need to take control and put power back in the hands of the people. Less paperwork, no waiting, and no lines. Just because we're born into this system doesn't mean we have to accept it.

I'm not giving you any of my money, money that I don't have anyway. Even if I did have it, you still wouldn't get it. You forced us to go to college, saying we wouldn't amount to anything without it and that college is better than having a trade. All lies. Most of us are unemployed or working in fields unrelated to our degrees, and now you want my money. Take it up with whoever you need to, take it up with Jesus. I already paid it all; he paid it all, so I'm letting him pay it. You're not getting any.

There's a lot of people that think that because they're bad at school or because they're not interested in school that they're destined to be a loser. And that's not true. The problem with school is too rigid. Like, public school system sit down, under employed underpaid teacher, disinterested, not really connected with the work. You're not connected with it. You just can't wait to go home and do what you like to do. Exactly. And you get this thought in your head like, oh my god. I'm gonna be a loser. I mean, that's how I was when I was in high school. I thought I was gonna be a loser.

The speaker initially chose accounting for their aptitude with numbers and potential salary. However, during their junior year, they and a group of friends were victims of hate crimes, including keyed cars and hate mail. The school hired the Cochran firm, and the speaker felt helpless, inspiring a desire to help others facing similar experiences, leading to the decision to take the LSAT. While in college, the speaker participated in Little Shop of Horrors and was recruited for mock trial. Initially hesitant, believing it was for future law students, the speaker joined mock trial during their senior year, became a national All-American, and was encouraged to attend law school. They applied, received a full ride, and decided to attend law school with the option to quit if they disliked it.

The discussion centers on the idea that his shtick hinges on the perception that he is the character he plays—“every man” who isn’t right wing but a populist fighting for the people against the powers that be. This is illustrated with a personal anecdote: “This is the truck that I drove this morning. This is the truck I drive. It's a 1987 Chevrolet Silverado. There are no electronics in this. There's no air conditioning. There's no radio, and there's no way for the government to turn off my engine if I'm disobedient.” The speaker cautions that “the moment that it's revealed not to be true, it's over. It's like you're worth 50,000,000 not worth $50,000,000. 30 to 50. Get off the fucking Internet, son. Don't stop believing that stuff.” Speaker 1 pushes back, claiming, “No. No. I'm a but see, I'm not out of the closet to leave this. I don't run around pretending to be a man of the people. I'm absolutely not a man of the people at all.” The conversation touches on money and upbringing: “I had the privilege of not being interested in money because I and I grew up in a family where we're worried about money, so I just never really thought about money.” Speaker 2 contributes background on Tucker’s lineage, noting, “Tucker's great, great… great grandfather was known as the cattle king of California, the largest, landowner in The United States in the nineteenth century. Just to give you an idea of the enormous wealth.” The discussion continues with Tucker’s financial succession, “Tucker and his brother did end up with a part of the oil and gas, minerals that she owned in her estate. So even that went well for Tucker.” There is a mention of apparent wealth and inheritance: “Well, I'm, like, extraordinarily loaded just from, like, money I, you know, inherited from my number of trust funds. From a Swanson deal.” The dialogue clarifies family ties: “She wasn't your mother. How I felt. That's I had a mother. I mean That's right. My dad got remarried to someone I think of as my mother.” There is a note on the father’s marriage to Patricia Caroline Swanson in 1979, described as “the heir to the Swanson billion dollar fortune. They're frozen food family. Serve Swanson dinner soon.” The exchange reiterates inherited wealth and the question of authenticity: “You're a trust fund baby, are you not? No. Completely. I've never needed to work.” The closing reflection suggests a critique of the shtick: “I think there's kind of a deep phoniness at the center of his shtick.” The final line cites a concrete memory: “I worked in a kitchen in 1985. Everybody in the kitchen had a criminal record. Every single one. But, of course, every dishwasher has been to prison for something. Right?”

After 5 years in South Korea, I came to America to study at Columbia University in New York City. I thought my journey to freedom would end here, but I was surprised to find that the professors at Columbia were teaching the same things as my North Korean teachers. I couldn't believe it. My Columbia professor in the 21st century, living in New York City, claimed that math is racist and was created by white men to control minorities.

The speaker declares they will file bankruptcy and return to school rather than pay. As a Black woman, the speaker asserts Black women are the most educated population and can easily acquire more degrees. The speaker states they will take a few credits each semester until the next administration resolves the situation, ensuring Donald Trump receives no money. They believe the middle and lower classes are being crushed, but are thinking ahead. The speaker urges listeners to pursue further education, enrolling part-time and accumulating credits to outlast the current administration.

Since graduating college, the speaker has faced challenges despite networking and applying online. The only interviews were for MLM companies disguised as sales jobs. After needing income, the speaker took a cafe job where management allegedly stole tips from baristas. Filing a claim with the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement revealed a two-year backlog. Feeling unable to afford a house or kids, the speaker is considering leaving the country if things don't improve. They are planning to get an EMT certification and become a firefighter. Day trading is not a desirable option. The speaker feels they are one medical emergency away from generational debt. They advise current college students to be open to the possibility that their degree will not open doors for them.

We're born into a system with numbers, papers, and waiting. We work hard, get good grades, and go to college. Debt is seen as good, but it leads to financial struggles. Starting a family requires multiple jobs, and buying or renting a home is unaffordable. Used cars are as expensive as new ones. The system is overwhelming and everything seems terrible. But what if it could be different? We need to take control and put power back in the hands of the people, reducing paperwork and waiting. Just because we're born into this system doesn't mean we have to accept it.

The speaker mentions that they often bring papers but never look at them, except when they are given numbers. They admit to relying on whatever is written down for them.

The speaker emphasizes the repetitive cycle of going to school, taking out loans, getting a job, and paying back the loans. They mention the need to pay down the interest on the loans and start a side hustle just to break even. They acknowledge that this system has worked for others, but now it's time to create a system that benefits us.

The speaker believes it should be illegal to put interest on student loans. They took out a $50,000 loan for a research year during med school, but the interest totals $78,000, meaning they will owe $128,000 total by the end of payment. After school, the speaker called Sallie Mae, who offered $250 payments for a year. However, the speaker claims that paying the minimum on the loan only shaves off the interest, meaning the loan never goes away. Separate from the $50,000 loan, the speaker has $250,000 in loans through med school. In total, the speaker has $300,000 in direct debt, but with interest, the debt is over half a million dollars.

The speaker argues against attending college, claiming the school system is a scam designed to create controllable employees. They allege John D. Rockefeller established the general education board to mold people into workers, not thinkers. Schools purportedly fail to teach essential money skills, instead prioritizing obedience and rote memorization. The speaker believes the system discourages independent thought and rewards conformity through tests and attendance. They assert that school curricula are outdated and easily accessible online. Choosing financial freedom over a traditional career, the speaker learned about investing and business, generating more income from their phone than a college degree could provide. They claim the system traps individuals in debt and unfulfilling jobs, and that rich people perpetuate wealth by withholding knowledge from the poor and middle class. The speaker concludes that self-education is the only escape from this system, and that college is only worthwhile if a specific passion requires a degree.

The transcript challenges the idea that adults are reliable saviors or virtuous authorities, arguing that conventional figures and gurus should not be placed on pedestals because they’re not the solution. It presents a series of provocative claims about famous individuals to illustrate this point, followed by a concluding warning that adults neither save you nor exist as perfect guides. First, it opens with a provocative assertion: adults don’t exist. The speaker then recounts a controversial story about Steve Jobs, claiming he delayed nine months of medical treatment for pancreatic cancer in favor of a carrot juice diet and acupuncture. A second example targets Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, describing him as someone who overspent his income, lived in deep financial debt, and repeatedly wrote letters to friends begging for money. The remarks move to Friedrich Nietzsche, asserting that Nietzsche lost his virginity in a brothel and caused syphilis, and that his work sold only about 300 copies in his lifetime. The narrative then references Martin Luther King, claiming he had extramarital affairs with over 40 different women, including spending the last night alive with two women and physically attacking another woman. It also attributes to Isaac Newton a long period of devoted alchemical study, stating that he spent thirty years of his life writing one million words on the pseudoscience of alchemy, a body of work hidden for years by his heirs because they were embarrassed to publish it. The overarching message is that adults should not be idealized or treated as ultimate saviors. The speaker urges listeners to discard the idea of placing adults on pedestals or following gurus, suggesting that “the adults aren’t going to save you” and that “they don’t even exist.” The cumulative point is a call to question conventional authority and to rely on oneself rather than external authorities who may be fallible or compromised by personal flaws. The transcript uses these sharply contrasting anecdotes to illustrate that even celebrated figures have complicated, imperfect, or controversial histories, reinforcing the stance that reverence for adults or gurus is misplaced.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the timeline and implications of Optimus robots becoming superior surgeons. They ask when Optimus would be a better surgeon than the best human surgeons and how long that would take. Speaker 0 states three years, and Speaker 1 confirms “Three years. Three years. Okay.” They emphasize “three years at scale” and suggest that there will be more Optimus robots that are great surgeons than there are surgeons on Earth. They touch on the cost, with Speaker 1 noting “And the cost,” though the thought is not completed in the excerpt. Speaker 0 underscores the significance of the claim, saying “in three years’ time” and adding that even if it were four or five years, it would still be an extreme precision achievement. The conversation asserts that in three years, Optimus would provide medical care that is better than what the present receives today, phrased as “better than to medical care that is better than what the present receives right now.” The dialogue then shifts to the idea of medical education: “So don’t go to medical school?” Speaker 0 responds “Yes. Pointless,” though they caveat that this might apply to any form of education, not as a universal rule. They propose that medical school is still relevant if someone wants to hang out with like-minded people, concluding with “Medical. Yeah. Go to medical. If you wanna you wanna hang up with like minded people, I suppose.”

A man questions a judge about how banks supposedly operate with borrowed funds. He presents a scenario: “I gave you the equivalent of $200,000. You returned the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 plus interest. Do you think I’m stupid?” He asserts that banks and Congress allow practices where banks breach written agreements, use false or misleading advertising, act without written permission or the borrower’s knowledge, and transfer actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, then return it as a loan. The man asks if, in this system, the borrower’s actual cash value funds the bank loan check and how the bank then uses those funds. The other participant, identified as a borrower in the discussion, responds that the borrower “got a check in the house.” The man pushes: is it true the actual cash value funding the loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the borrower “for free”? He states, “No equal consideration. They got it from you for free,” and presses that the bank’s policy is to transfer the borrower’s cash value from the check to themselves and keep the money as the bank’s property, which they then loan out back to the borrower as if they own it and loan their own money. The other participant answers affirmatively, though notes not being present at the time to know the borrower’s intent. The man asks further: if a lender loans a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refuses to repay, is the lender damaged? The reply: yes, the lender is damaged if the loan isn’t repaid. He asks whether the bank’s practice is to take the borrower’s actual cash value, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return it to the borrower. The response: the bank returns the funds, but as a loan to the borrower. The man clarifies: was the cash value returned as the bank loan to the borrower or as return of the money the bank took? Answer: as a loan. The man concludes, “So how did the bank get the borrower’s money for free? … It doesn’t make any sense.” A narrator then frames the scene: a man discussing banking with a judge, summarizing the exchange about funding checks with the borrower’s name, and the judge’s reaction that “all the banks are doing this” and that Congress allows it. The narrator describes the process in which you apply for a loan, a check with your name is issued, the bank takes it, and then “gives it back to you as a loan plus interest,” sourced from your own funds. He asserts there is no equal consideration and suggests people don’t understand truth in lending. The speaker claims that if the public understood the financial system, there would be a revolution, but people prefer to “dance.”