reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 launches into a hostile condemnation of 'fascists' in the city, exclaiming: 'Motherfucker. Oh. Fascists in our city. They what? You see these fascists right here in our Fascists?' Then: 'Fuck you. Fuck you, fascists. Shame. Shame. Shame.' He adds, 'Shame. Y'all laughing, but that's the truth. We really talking real shit. Shut.' He insists, 'Y'all need to do some background studying about the federal mass objection.' He continues, 'They fooled a man. No. No. No. You don't, baby.' Then: 'Super bad. No. No. No. No.' 'No. No. He cooked up. He cooked up.' The overall tone is a raw, unfiltered rant.

The speakers discuss the political situation surrounding Geert Wilders and the PVV. The first speaker suggests that if Wilders had participated in a debate, the other side might have won, and expresses frustration that “nothing happens in the Netherlands” right now. The dialogue turns to the nature of democracy within the parliament, with one speaker insisting that the parliament is “super democradig” while implying the PVV is not. The conversation questions the democratic legitimacy of the PVV, reinforcing that one speaker is not a member of the PVV in the traditional sense. A key point raised is the claim that there is “not a democratic club” for the PVV, contrasting their approach with the broader parliamentary system. The other speaker counters by noting that they are a member of the faction, not the party, highlighting a formal distinction: “Not of the party, because there is but one person and that is Geert Wilders himself.” This statement emphasizes a centralized leadership structure and suggests that the party’s organizational breadth is limited to a single figure at the top. The exchange also touches on the hypothetical impact of broader party membership, with a suggestion that if the PVV could assemble more members, it might be argued to be more democratic. Despite this, the speaker indicates that they will refrain from pursuing that argument in the current discussion. Throughout, the speakers grapple with how representation and democratic processes operate within the Netherlands’ political landscape, especially in relation to Wilders and the PVV. The dialogue conveys a sense of urgency and dissatisfaction about the state of politics, underscored by the assertion that a debate or more widespread participation could have changed outcomes, in contrast to the stagnation they perceive in the present moment.

Speaker 1's initial reaction to the October 7th Hamas attack was disbelief and prayer, anticipating a disastrous Israeli revenge. During a November 9th rally, an unaffiliated individual yelled "death to Jews." Speaker 1 confronted the person, stating they didn't represent the group and then addressed the crowd, condemning the statement as antisemitic. Speaker 1 believes antisemitism is unjust. The speaker stated that the fight for Palestinian freedom and the fight against antisemitism are interconnected, because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

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 calm the situation and encourages a conversation after the event. Speaker 0 insists that the American people's voices need to be heard and claims that the president does not represent them. Speaker 1 disagrees and states that Speaker 0's opinion is not the only one. Speaker 2 joins the conversation and supports Speaker 0's view. Speaker 1 argues that Speaker 0's actions disrupt others' opportunities and claims it is not free speech. The discussion becomes heated, with Speaker 0 mentioning historical events and Speaker 1 dismissing their relevance. The conversation ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 states they 100% support Hamas for not accepting the ceasefire, because they do not want a situation where they can be bombarded again in the future. Speaker 2 says that innocent people are being killed and no one is taking their side, and that they are ashamed to be Canadian and to be in Canada. Speaker 1 says that Canada affords people the privilege of peaceful protest without fear of attack, where they can wear and say what they want, and suggests that if Speaker 2 is ashamed to be Canadian, they should leave. Speaker 1 calls this the side of the peace movement that other networks won't show.

Speaker 0 expresses their disregard for signs and tears them down. Speaker 1 questions their actions, mentioning innocent hostages taken by murderers and rapists. Speaker 0 counters by bringing up Palestinian babies, accusing Hamas and Islamic Jihad of murdering them. Speaker 1 clarifies that they do care about the Palestinian babies and accuses Speaker 0 of supporting a terrorist organization. Speaker 0 responds with derogatory remarks about Palestinians and suggests they should all be exterminated, including their children. Speaker 1 sarcastically thanks Speaker 0 for approving their fight and ends the conversation.

Speaker 1, a 22-year-old Palestinian named Esther Karam, proudly supports Hamas and criticizes those she perceives as white supremacists. She questions the use of terms like "terrorist" and asks if people are aware of the suffering Palestinians have endured for 75 years. Speaker 0 mentions that several governments recognize Hamas as terrorists and discusses recent events in Gaza. Speaker 1 accuses white reporters of bias and questions the motives behind their reporting. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 1 bringing up race and religion. Speaker 0 expresses confusion and Speaker 1 ends by expressing her support for Palestine and making a hateful remark.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 would serve in a cabinet under Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 responds that they don't see it happening because they believe the Netherlands needs a leader who can unite the country and lead internationally. Speaker 1 also doubts Wilders' ability to form a majority. Speaker 0 confirms that Speaker 1 will not join a cabinet under Wilders, to which Speaker 1 agrees, stating that the country deserves a leader for everyone. Speaker 1 believes Wilders' leadership would not be beneficial and emphasizes the need for a leader who can handle crises and promote economic growth. Speaker 1 also mentions that if Wilders were to win the elections, they would go into opposition.

Speaker 0 is upset about being called venomous, disgraceful, and radical. Speaker 1 mentions fighting back against Trumpism in New York City and criticizes the Supreme Court seat being stolen. They also refer to the president and a member of the Supreme Court as illegitimate. Speaker 1 acknowledges that the president is crazy and losing control, but encourages unity. Speaker 0 mentions being called a racist. Speaker 1 emphasizes the need to stand up against a male, pale, and stale system. The transcript ends with Speaker 0 expressing gratitude.

Speaker 0: In a rule of law, we should be protected from the government's immense power. The government can completely destroy us. Speaker 1: You don't even need to ask for permission, you can demonstrate. So your reaction is a bit childish. People have the right to demonstrate, especially when the government is acquiring so much power. Speaker 0: You still need to notify them? Speaker 1: Yes, you need to notify them, but even if you don't, you can still demonstrate. It's necessary, considering the measures we've taken. Demonstrating is the last line of defense for many people. It's complicated, but we can't let the police overpower peaceful protesters. It's not about political goals, I've allowed many demonstrations during the pandemic in all cities, because it's a right.

The speaker attended a Kamala Harris rally after recently attending a Trump rally. The speaker showed ID to attend the Harris rally. The speaker was recording a video about the cheering for abortion when someone shouted, "Jesus is Lord." Kamala Harris responded by saying, "I think you're at the wrong rally. Try the smaller one down the street." The speaker claims the Trump rally had almost 7,000 people, while the Harris rally had 2,500 and open spaces. Speaker 1 states that Trump hand-selected three Supreme Court members to undo Roe v. Wade, and they did as he intended.

Two speakers volley questions about fascism and anti-fascism. Speaker 1 asks: "Are you Antifa?" and "You're pro fascism?" "But can you at least say that you're anti fascist?" Speaker 0 responds: "I wouldn't say so." "I'm not really... I have still both political views on things." "I'm not gonna say that if I don't know." The exchange probes neutrality: "You think we're new you think you were we were neutral on fascism in World War two?" "The US was Antifa against the Nazis." Speaker 1 presses: "So then, like, why wouldn't you want to be Antifa?" Speaker 0: "I don't know. I'm trying to." "I can't believe Trump has you, like, so cooked in the brain that you don't even know how to say that fascism is wrong." A sponsor line interrupts: "Innovega is redefining what's possible for people with vision loss." Later, "Are you against fascism?" and "If you are against fascism in the comment section, type three in the comment section you're against fascism." The discussion veers to "Partying convicted felonies. Well, let's talk about that. So"

The speaker expresses anger towards a group of people, accusing them of being Zionist cowards and racists. They claim that their family fought against Hitler and criticize the others for handing out flyers. The speaker calls them fascists and accuses them of supporting genocide. They also accuse the group of not believing in equality and democracy. The speaker ends by telling them to leave.

We're at the Texas capital for a leftist protest on Presidents' Day. It's a national call to action rejecting President Trump's election, reminiscent of 2017. I engaged with protesters asking about their claims of fascism in America and their views on abortion, but most refused to answer basic questions. One person said that white people put a curse on them and stole their culture. The conversation went to Japanese culture and immigration policies. Another protester said that basic health care rights like access to abortion are being taken away. I spoke with others who said that Trump is letting Elon Musk dissolve entire US departments that were mandated by congress. I was eventually asked to leave the area after things got a little heated. I was going to tell them that even though we disagree, we all have First Amendment rights and should find common ground to improve the future peacefully.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 why they are there repeatedly. Speaker 1 explains they are there to have conversations and wear a sign about children and puberty blockers. Speaker 2 asks Speaker 1 to move for their safety due to angry people nearby. Speaker 1 questions why they should move instead of dealing with the violent individuals. Speaker 2 states they are there to keep Speaker 1 safe and suggests moving to prevent a breach of the peace. Speaker 1 argues that they are not causing the aggression. Speaker 2 insists that Speaker 1's presence is causing the breach. Speaker 1 continues to stand their ground. Speaker 2 agrees to speak to the aggressive individuals if they approach Speaker 1 again.

The speakers are asked what makes Trump a fascist. One speaker says Trump "just does everything he wants" and is a "convicted felon." Another speaker claims Trump is trying to control the media narrative, citing the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and allegedly not allowing the Associated Press into the White House. When asked if renaming the Gulf of Mexico is pointless, the speaker agrees. The speakers are asked again what makes Trump a fascist. One speaker says a core tenet of fascism is creating an enemy. The speaker admits they received the sign and talking points from someone else. They say they came out to protest because of executive overreach.

The speakers discuss the legitimacy of the 2016 election and claim that it was stolen. They mention Russia hacking the election and the belief that Trump is an illegitimate president. They also talk about protests and violence that occurred after the election. Overall, they express anger and disbelief towards the election results.

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."

Last night, I attended a demonstration against fascism because I was upset about the election results. Many of my colleagues were also in tears, feeling unrepresented. Some disagreed, calling it ridiculous and accusing others of demonizing. We live in a democracy, but with the need for security around Wilders, it's a complex issue. Despite differences, we are fortunate to have the freedom to protest. I attended to show solidarity with those who feel threatened by the election outcome and to address the problem that has been exposed. It's important to connect and not dismiss each other's concerns.

Speaker 0 expresses disdain towards Hamas supporters. Speaker 1 accuses them of celebrating the Israeli massacre and questions their morals. Speaker 2 asks for evidence of decapitated babies. Speaker 1 describes gruesome acts committed by Hamas. Speaker 2 mentions supporting Palestine and freedom of identity. Speaker 1 dismisses the possibility of Palestine being freed and criticizes those who support Hamas. They claim that Hamas manipulates political correctness and diversity to legitimize terror. Speaker 1 urges support for Israel and expresses hatred towards Christians and Jews. The conversation ends with a threat of violence.

The speakers discuss the hatred and violence they perceive from Trump supporters. Speaker 1 claims that Trump supporters hit people, throw urine, and use crowbars. Speaker 0 expresses doubt but acknowledges the possibility of milkshake incidents. Speaker 1 questions if Trump supporters would engage in such behavior, to which Speaker 0 responds that they hope not. Speaker 1 then suggests that Democrats and liberals are actually responsible for these actions. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that the average Democrat does not support violence. The conversation continues with Speaker 1 mentioning incidents at a Trump rally and accusing liberals of stealing and burning red hats. Speaker 0 dismisses these claims as an attempt to push an agenda. The video ends with Speaker 1 questioning Speaker 0's support for multiple candidates.

Speaker 0 expresses happiness and gratitude. Speaker 1 asks if the president felt rejected by workers at a recent event. Speaker 0 explains that protests and debates are part of democracy and people's freedom to express themselves. He suggests educating people about democracy and how it works in South Africa. In a non-democratic country, the president would order the arrest of protesters, but in a democracy, it is allowed.

Speaker 0 expresses gratitude for the audience's presence and states that they believe it is a sad day for America. Speaker 1 asserts that challenging an election should be allowed, as they believed the election was rigged and stolen. They mention other individuals who have also challenged elections in the past. Speaker 1 claims they did nothing wrong and accuses others of election interference. They thank the audience and reiterate their right to challenge what they perceive as a dishonest election. Speaker 0 concludes by thanking everyone and suggesting a future meeting.

Speaker 0 claims most people in the country voted for Trump and that he won the popular vote. Speaker 1 disputes this, stating it was a slim majority of voters and that too few people voted. Speaker 0 says those who cared about issues voted for Trump to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Speaker 1 counters that lots of voters were purged from voter rolls before the election. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of election denial. Speaker 1 accuses the "narcissist in that building" of gaslighting.

The speakers are protesting for various reasons. One speaker says the protest seems pro-Hillary and pro-Kamala, and that America has been evil since before Trump. Another speaker says they are protesting for Palestine and humanity, and that America is a "God of a country." One sign says "Trumpy Pool's Russian asset," but a speaker admits this is an assumption without proof. Another speaker wearing a Ukraine hat gets angry when asked if they support the United States, calling it a stupid question. One speaker claims people from Venezuela are being wrongly accused of being gang members and deported without due process. The speaker fears this will lead to the repression of protesters. Another speaker calls someone a fascist dictator and "America's Hitler," claiming freedoms are being destroyed.