reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The Manhattan Institute, a prominent conservative think tank, features Chris Ruffo, who has a mixed marriage and previously ran as a Democrat supporting LGBTQ rights. This raises questions about the true conservatism of its leadership. Ruffo defends Lior Sapper, an Israeli-born individual with military service, while dismissing concerns about conflicts of interest regarding their support for Israel. Ilya Shapiro, another contributor, works for both the Manhattan Institute and the Jewish Policy Center, which advocates for U.S.-Israel relations. Critics suggest that their backgrounds and affiliations compromise their objectivity, highlighting a disconnect between their narratives and traditional conservative values. The portrayal of these figures as typical Americans is questioned, given their strong ties to Israel and liberal stances.

Chris Ruffo intensified his attacks on Burnett in a Compact magazine article, calling for censorship of those he labels as antisemitic conspiracy theorists. He argues that critical race theory and concepts like racism originated from Jewish figures and institutions, framing this as a threat to traditional conservatism. Ruffo claims that the rise of Trump has created an intellectual vacuum, allowing fringe ideas to gain traction. He criticizes the Manhattan Institute, funded by pro-Israel donors, for allegedly prioritizing foreign interests over American values. Ruffo insists that discussions around Israel's influence should be censored, labeling dissenters as mentally ill or conspiratorial. He questions the meritocracy narrative, suggesting it benefits certain groups while ignoring collective identities. Ultimately, he portrays the current ideological struggle within conservatism as a battle against perceived threats to a color-blind meritocracy.

The speaker claims that opposition to Israeli policies is being labeled antisemitism, and free speech is threatened. They allege that the definition of antisemitism is being broadened, even to include parts of the Bible, and that the Trump administration is pushing this on college campuses. The speaker references a senate hearing on antisemitism where Rabbi Levi Shemtov called for hate speech laws, using rhetoric similar to Ibram X. Kendi's "anti-racist" stance. The speaker suggests that the Trump administration is now enacting policies similar to those they opposed during the BLM movement, but this time in the name of combating antisemitism, which the speaker believes is actually for the benefit of Israel. They feel Netanyahu is running the White House and that Trump is supporting Israel at the detriment to American freedom.

- Speaker 0 asserts that the CDC is led by individuals with dual citizenship with Israel and that they are Jewish, naming multiple specific people: Rochelle Walensky (CDC director), Anshaw Alcic (deputy director), Sherry Berger (CDC chief of staff), Mitchell Wolf (CDC chief medical officer), and the CDC director of the Washington office (Jeff Rezik). He also claims a “COVID czar” Jeff Zainz and a “COVID senior advisor,” Andy Slabbitt, have dual Israeli citizenship and are Jewish, as well as the assistant of health secretary for human services, Rachel Levine, described as transgender with dual Israeli citizenship. - He lists additional figures connected to COVID policy: head of Pfizer vaccine, Albert Garla; Pfizer chief scientist Michael Dosten; Moderna chief scientist Talzak; BlackRock CEO Larry Fink; BlackRock president Rob Capitao; the CDC chief medical officer of Johnson & Johnson joined Wall Stryker; Merck’s Michael Rosenbald; and the head adviser of the World Economic Forum, Yuval Harari. He states all of these individuals have dual citizenship with Israel and are Jewish. - Speaker 1 interrupts, calling the remarks “Freedom of speech” and later tells Speaker 0 to stop, stating the chair has ruled the comments out of order; Speaker 0 questions why calling someone Jewish would be out of order, insisting the term “Jew” is not derogatory and continues listing names. - Speaker 0 concludes by saying the list is only about COVID and acknowledges other domains like media and banks, then thanks the audience for their patience.

Speakers Megan and Charlie Kirk frame themselves as Israel supporters defending Israel's right to defend itself and fighting campus anti-Semitism. They lament that some in the pro-Israel camp label any mild pushback as anti-Semitic, which they say undermines credibility and unity. They recount being attacked online and in media after nuanced takes, including Epstein/Mossad speculation; they insist discussing such possibilities should be allowed and that labeling anyone raising questions as anti-Semitic is divisive. They contrast an American-first stance with global opinion, noting that support for Israel's Gaza actions has fallen among Democrats (from 36% in Oct 2023 to 8%), independents (47% to 25%), and Republicans (76% to 71%). They discuss a Piers Morgan interview where nuance about Gaza images was criticized; they argue that Israel’s actions are eroding moral standing even among close allies. They pledge to continue honest coverage and push back against purity-tests.

"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."

The speaker claims numerous individuals in positions of power have dual citizenship with Israel and are Jewish. These include: David Cohen (Deputy Director of the CIA), Janet Yellen (Secretary of the Treasury), Merrick Garland (Attorney General), Alejandro Mayorkas (Secretary of Homeland Security), Avril Haines (Director of National Intelligence), Jeff Zients (White House Chief of Staff), Rachel Levine (US Assistant Secretary of Health), Tony Blinken (Secretary of State), Wendy Sherman (Deputy Secretary of State), and Victoria Nuland (Secretary of Political Affairs). The speaker identifies individuals involved in abortion and birth control as Jewish, including: Mr. Baloo, Alan Guttmacher, Fanya Mendel, Lawrence Lader, Henry Morgentaler, Gregory Pincus, Melvin Weisberg, and Paul Ehrlich. The speaker lists senators and congressmen who passed gun control legislation and identifies them as Jewish, including: Herbert Kohl, Barbara Boxer, Emmanuel Celler, Howard Metzenbaum, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, and Gerald Nadler. The speaker identifies individuals involved with COVID-19 responses and vaccine development as Jewish, including: Rochelle Walensky, Anshu Banerjee, Sherry Berger, Mitchell Wolf, Jeff Reczek, Jeff Zients, Andy Slavitt, Rachel Levine, Albert Bourla, Michael Dolsten, Tal Zaks, Larry Fink, Rob Kapito, and the chief medical officers of Johnson & Johnson and Merck. Yuval Harari and Klaus Schwab are also mentioned. The speaker lists past chairs and vice chairs of the Federal Reserve and identifies them as Jewish, including: William Harding, Paul Warburg, Eugene Meyer, Eugene Robert Black, Arthur Burns, Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Alan Blinder, Janet Yellen, Alice Mitchell Rivlin, Donald Kohn, and Stanley Fischer. The speaker claims Larry Silverstein, who is Jewish, profited from the 9/11 attacks after insuring the Twin Towers.

"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 delivers a public apology for criticisms of Israel, stating he is deeply sorry and that it is a learning moment with six lessons from his grave mistakes. He admits making videos that heavily criticized the Israeli government while attempting to distinguish that he was not criticizing Jewish people or Israeli citizens, but he says hostile comments convinced him that he was talking about Jews, not the government. He notes that comments calling him a Jew hater and anti-Semite changed his mind, and he acknowledges feeling intimidated by such remarks. He describes how some viewers, including one commenter who said, “you moron,” helped him realize he was engaging in Jew hate. He says that the hostility, insults, and character smearing from haters were effective in shaping his views, and asks what those people believe, intending to emulate them. He mentions the existence of a poll showing that those using hostility are in the 5.5% minority, while 94.5% do not want hostility to be used to persuade them. He also notes that many haters have Israel flags in their bios and contrasts this with perceptions about Ukraine, asserting that Israel is our greatest ally and that he stands with Israel—now more strongly. He then recounts a conversation with two Jewish friends, where he apologized for hating them. He says they rejected his framing, explaining that criticizing Netanyahu does not equate with hating Jews. They mention that only 40% of Israelis trust Netanyahu, that many Israelis have concerns about him, and that citizens in Israel are God’s chosen people while Netanyahu is their leader. They challenge his views on dispensationalism and Zionism, arguing for different biblical interpretations of Israel and God’s chosen people, and suggest many Israelis do not have DNA from the Middle East, referencing DNA testing bans in Israel. He responds with hostility, saying, “God, I hate you people,” and notes that the friends did not accept his apology because they weren’t convinced he genuinely hated them. He also mentions JP Sears and accusations of Jew-hating for profit, and alleges financial success from such views. The six lessons from his mistakes are: 1) Align with the side censoring you, since censorship is “on the right side of history,” encouraging support for politicians trying to criminalize criticizing or boycotting Israel. 2) Distrusting any government makes you a stupid sack of shit, and thinking otherwise marks you as hating Jews. 3) When faced with tribalism and intimidation, you should comply to align with truth and gain freedom as an individual. 4) Israel has no influence over the US government or its politicians, and lobbying connections are not indications of influence; claiming otherwise is antisemitic. 5) Thinking it’s a crime or evil to commit genocide, prisoner rape, or killing children is not true; such beliefs are antisemitic. 6) Do whatever it takes to fight an ongoing war with Iran, unrelated to Israel, trusting the government on this, and hoping for actions to uncover supposed WMDs in Iraq. Speaker 0 closes with an apology and a final appeal to learn from these mistakes.

The speaker says a figure has annoyed the Jewish community over the last few months with criticisms of Israel. He cites a Jerusalem Post piece about backlash after Tucker Carlson spoke at SAS, where people were calling him an anti Semite. "I know Charlie and here he's little do they know half the time he's on college campuses, all he's doing is Hasbara and defending Israel. And he doesn't even wanna be. He doesn't even know the issues that well, but he's forced to." "But he dutifully with a smile on his face, defends Israel left and right." We saw him in England, at the debate, passionately defending Israel. And that's not even what he wants to be doing. Now he's getting criticized as an anti Semite. So I wrote that piece in the Jerusalem Post basically saying, listen, everybody. Stop with the purity tests for every single view that he has to line up with, I don't know, B. B. Cabinet decisions. "Relax. Okay? This is our greatest ally. Yes, he has questions. Yes, he's influenced by the other side as well." "Good. I'm talking to him."

Speaker 0: "We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" Speaker 1: "That's not right. Wrong headed." He says he faced blowback after saying, "Mossad, possibilities with Epstein," a comment he stands by, and that he "reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." He writes, "He says, I think he would have told me. He didn't say he had any of those connections. I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "I think all these things should be explored." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." He finishes, "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

"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."

An individual believes Caldwell is a person of integrity and intelligence who is committed to the country, but is being attacked by people who have a track record of "destroying America." The tactic is to get a headline out there, call someone a "naughty word," or say they are "anti-country" or "radical." The hope is that someone will hand this to Trump and try to trick him into thinking he's stupid. The speaker says this is actual disinformation and asks what publications and people are involved in this campaign of lies. The "big story" going around on both individuals is from Jewish Insider, which is running headlines against people and attacking them by stripping the context.

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.

"We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" "That's not right. Wrong headed." "I So got some blowback after saying Mossad possibilities with Epstein, a comment behind which I stand." "I've, of course, reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." "He says, I think he would have told me." "He didn't say he had any of those connections." "I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

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.

Mario opened by asking Professor (Speaker 1) for his initial reaction to the horrific shooting in Australia, noting Iran’s spokesperson condemned the attack. Professor 1 said the Iranians were swift to respond and suggested the western media’s speed benefits the Israeli regime; he noted early suggestions that one of the alleged culprits has a Salafi Wahhabi background, which he tied to allies of the United States and Israel, and said the Israeli regime has historically supported ISIS and Al Qaeda. He added that the immediate accusations against Iran by Israel and some Western outlets raise questions. Mario pressed Professor 1 on his tweets, asking whether he genuinely believes Mossad could be behind the Sydney attack or if he was critiquing others’ blaming Iran. Professor 1 replied that he wouldn’t put anything beyond Mossad and the Israeli regime, citing the Hannibal directive during October 7 and noting past high-profile conspiracies and investigations where insiders seemed to know more than the public. He referenced 9/11, claiming the attackers’ backgrounds and stock market movements suggested possible foreknowledge, and argued that a regime that carries out genocide could do anything. He asserted that the obsession with blaming Iran in various cases is a frequent pattern, and that the Australian media had started implying Iran’s involvement in the Sydney attack. Michael interrupted to challenge the framing, asking Professor 1 to distinguish between critiquing Israeli actions and endorsing unfounded claims about Iran. Professor 1 argued that for nearly fifty years accusations have often targeted Iran, while Israel’s actions — including genocidal traits and hospital bombings — have not faced equivalent condemnation, though he clarified he had not claimed Israel carried out every conspiracy. He asserted that ISIS and Al Qaeda were created by Western interests and Gulf regimes, and alleged U.S. and Israeli involvement in supporting extremist groups. He claimed Western policy and Saudi/Wahhabi influence underpin these groups, and argued Israeli and Western power shapes Middle East outcomes. Michael commented that the discussion should avoid knee-jerk conspiracism and noted the pattern of blaming Israel for many attacks, while acknowledging legitimate grievances against Israel’s conduct. He cited a May Washington, DC attack linked to Gaza motivations and argued this blowback results from Western support for extremist groups, including ISIS and Al Qaeda. He criticized using blanket attribution to Israel, stressing that this rhetoric crowds out rational critique of Israel and U.S. policy. He referenced Epstein as an example of alleged intelligence connections and warned activists to beware of being portrayed in compromising footage. The conversation shifted to Netanyahu’s statement blaming Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state for the attack. Professor 1 condemned Netanyahu’s framing, calling him anti-Semitic for conflating Judaism with Zionism and arguing that Palestinians are Semites; he claimed the Israeli regime’s influence in Washington is substantial and that accusations against Iran distract from Israel’s genocide. He argued that many Jews oppose the Israeli regime, and that Zionism cannot be equated with Judaism. He reiterated that the regime’s policies, including alleged use of Wahhabism and Western support for extremists, have fueled blowback. Mario asked for final reaction on Netanyahu’s claim and the broader role of Western policy. Michael acknowledged the complexity and described Western-Israeli influence as significant, while insisting on avoiding unfounded accusations about any single actor. Professor 1 condemned terrorism in all forms but argued that the main culprits are those carrying out genocide in Palestine, with the slave-vs-oppressor framing underscoring his view of the Palestinian situation. The discussion closed with a note that both guests view Western policy and Israeli actions as central to global blowback, while cautioning against simplistic attributions of attacks to Iran or Israel without solid evidence.

"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 1 states they respect Ben Shapiro, agreeing with him on some basics and his love for Israel. The speaker disagrees with getting involved in foreign wars and prioritizes their own country's interests. Speaker 0 mentions being criticized for an "America First" mindset. Speaker 1 elaborates that disagreements should be addressed with debate, not character attacks, which they attribute to the left. They lament the tendency to impugn a person's character instead of addressing their arguments, finding it "incredibly low." They claim the left short-circuits debate by attacking character, labeling opponents as racist or indecent to avoid engaging with their ideas.

Speaker 0 says, "powerful institutions are at play here, and there's a coordinated effort to spread this parasitic ideology," and asks, "Are you willing to name the group behind us? Because behind all these institutions, there seems to be a Cohen, a Berg, a Stein." He then asks, "What are your thoughts on the Jewish influence about on gender ideology?" Speaker 1 replies, "So you're you're Am I gonna do anything about the Jews is what you're asking me? No." Okay. Do I need to dignify that with a further response, do think?" He adds, "Or And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits." "This is a beast created by secular Jews."

The speakers discuss alleged hidden dynamics within Turning Point and connections to international and ideological forces. Speaker 0 claims that Arizona has long investigated Turning Point, and that conversations within the state finally broke into the public sphere. He says he spoke with Liz Harris, a former Arizona House member, and asserts that Harris told him, “Turning Point's Mossad. Tyler Boyer is Mossad. They're all neocons. They're connected to Mossad.” He says he has the report and a recording of Harris saying this, emphasizing that many people warned him but he wanted to verify for himself. He states that "when Charlie died that was it for me" and that he decided it was time to come out and reveal what he witnessed and participated in, apologizing to the American people. Speaker 1 acknowledges familiarity with Liz Harris and then asks for details about internal communications leaking after Charlie’s death, which allegedly show that he was leaving the Zionist cause and that leadership faced questions about Israel policy. The question is whether Tyler Boyer was explicitly asked about this direction and what his answer was. Speaker 0 describes an incident in Boyer’s office where a female associate asked Boyer, “why are you so against Candace Owens. The Israel cause etcetera.” He says Boyer closed the door, pulled the speaker’s friend in, and told her, “listen, I’m a Zionist. Candace Owens is a black conservative who wants to be relevant in this movement. And she's doing whatever she can at all cause to stay relevant.” He presents this as proof, claiming it is in the text he sent to Stu and that the friend confirmed it in the office encounter. Across the exchange, the core assertions are that Liz Harris labeled Turning Point's leadership as connected to Mossad and neocon interests, specifically naming Tyler Boyer as Mossad; that after Charlie’s death there were internal, leaked communications about Zionist alignment and Israel policy; and that Boyer disclosed a Zionist stance and disparaged Candace Owens during a confrontation in his office, presenting Candace Owens as attempting to stay relevant in the movement.

So first of all, I have to ask you, how did we reach a situation that prime minister Netanyahu needs to clarify today that Israel was not involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk? Because there are some people in The United States that have lost their minds. This is a blood libel. It's absolutely disgusting and, vicious. The level of untruth is such that it's hard even to think that you have to defend it, that you have to repudiate it. But there are people who will believe the most outrageous lies, and I guess we should learn from history that this is not something new. Where does this stop? And it's really, really disgusting, but I'm very glad the prime minister addressed it. Charlie Kirk was a true friend of Israel. True friend of mine. I've known Charlie since he was 19. A brilliant, brilliant young man.

I did not say that reducing the federal budget would increase antisemitism. I said that constant threats to cut money to the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education prevent the federal government from adequately investigating antisemitism and other hate crimes on college campuses. One way to stop antisemitism is to actually fund those designed to investigate it. I saw protesters against the war in Gaza using some antisemitic slogans. It is difficult for the federal government to adequately address antisemitism. It is possible to feel compassion for the Palestinian people without hating Jews. What I've seen on college campuses is a pushing of a Marxist framing. We're allowing ideology to drive violence, which erodes society. What has to happen on college campuses is deradicalization. Until you admit that there's a radical ideology, you cannot fight it.

Pat Buchanan raises important issues, such as American military sovereignty, but does so in a way that discredits them. When attacked, Buchanan claims a cabal controls American politics and dislikes him for speaking truth to power, casting himself as a victim. While questioning America's relationship with Israel and criticizing its lobby are valid, Buchanan is labeled antisemitic due to his relentless focus on topics related to Judaism. He attacks Goldman Sachs but not Morgan Stanley, and while he hasn't explicitly stated dislike for Jews, he has defended accused Nazi war criminals, attacked Israel, criticized American Jews for supporting Israel, and implied they push America into wars. There is a pattern of Buchanan needling the Jews, which suggests thematic antisemitism. Buchanan discredits conversations about immigration and the Israeli lobby by giving the sense that he has another agenda, believes in conspiracies, and thinks Jews are a sinister force trying to affect American politics.