reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We have a tendency to always support the right wing because the Republicans are better than the Democrats. If Kamala Harris had won in 2024 and bombed Iran, there'd be riots; but with Trump, ninety percent of Republicans supported bombing Iran on Israel's behalf. Donald Trump is the matrix president. In 2016 Hillary Clinton, in 2020 Joe Biden, were matrix candidates; 2024 Donald Trump was. After October 7, the Jews knew that the Republican party controlled by APAC, controlled by Israel, and with Trump in office, they were gonna let Israel do whatever they wanted to do. Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and the media are all in on it because Trump is their matrix candidate. JD Vance is the Matrix candidate. They ordered Trump to nominate him. Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Tucker Carlson ordered Trump to pick J. D. Vance. This is what they don't want you to hear.

The World Economic Forum elites are afraid of losing and believe they are facing a decline in their influence. Recent events have shown their concerns. NBC reported on the Pentagon's efforts to enact a deep state coup, implying they are preparing for Donald Trump's return. John Kerry spoke at Davos, expressing hope that financial institutions now control the world and politicians cannot stop the green transition. The New York Times published an article stating that there is a consensus at Davos that Trump will win reelection. The elites' ideology has faced backlash due to their extreme views and censorship attempts. Voters are rejecting their ideas, and the totalitarians' institutional capture is crumbling. Florida banned DEI on university campuses, and even JPMorgan's CEO, Jamie Dimon, is urging the elites to listen to Trump and his voters.

If you don't conform to the prevailing national security state or neoconservative worldview, there's a whole infrastructure that supports those who do. They have endowed professorships, think tanks offering high-paying jobs, and a clear career path in government. However, if you think differently, you're targeted and canceled. They go to great lengths to undermine you, and if that fails, they attempt to ruin you.

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.

Chris Ruffo, a prominent conservative, is now advocating for censorship, contradicting the conservative principle of free speech. His call for censorship follows a scandal involving foreign influence in right-wing think tanks. Ruffo's article in Compact Magazine, funded by George Soros, criticizes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and calls for silencing dissenting opinions. Soros, a significant donor to progressive causes in Israel, supports leftist factions, while Rupert Murdoch backs right-wing elements. Both sides of the political spectrum are funded by wealthy Jewish donors with differing visions for Israel. Ruffo's push for censorship targets those exposing these funding dynamics, framing them as harmful to the conservative movement's future.

Speaker 0 outlines a scenario where progressives and nationalist Republicans join forces on cross-cutting issues. He asks what approval ratings such a coalition would receive for various stances, suggesting a 90% level for demanding Epstein file releases, and a 90% rating for opposing foreign aid to Israel. He then posits that when these groups collaborate on shared interests, their political appeal would grow exponentially—“four becomes eight, eight becomes 16”—creating a potential populist surge that could propel someone into the White House. The core proposal he presents is a simple compromise he calls the populist compromise. It requires the left to give up immigration priorities, accepting the idea that “we can have equity and we can have equality in the country, we can have civil rights, we can have all those things, but we have to close the damn borders.” He argues there are “too many illegal immigrants” and “too many legal immigrants,” and that this must be addressed as part of the deal. In return, the right would concede on the free market by relaxing their stances on healthcare, the social safety net, and perhaps subsidies for education. He frames the left’s willingness to close borders as a counterbalance to the right’s willingness to restrict foreign policy and financial influence. He further delineates the shared-ground platform: both sides would align against open borders, oppose foreign aid to Israel and ongoing wars in the Middle East, and push back on what he calls the influence of oligarchs and money in politics. The proposed blueprint posits that by combining these positions—closing borders on the left’s side, reforming the free market on the right’s side, opposition to certain foreign policies, and curbing oligarchic influence—the populist coalition could win “90% of the vote and rule for a century.” He contends that the current fear among political actors is a left-right alliance formed around immigration restrictions, reduced U.S. support for Israel, limitations on foreign aid, and anti-oligarchic measures. The speaker asserts that this evolving convergence represents a blueprint the movement must build upon, framing it as the path to lasting political dominance.

The National Conservatism Conference, funded by Peter Thiel and run by Yoram Hazony, features prominent figures like JD Vance, Josh Hawley, and Michael Anton. Thiel, a key Trump supporter, influenced the administration by placing Anton in the National Security Council. The conference showcases thinkers like Curtis Yarvin and Josh Hammer, who have controversial views on anti-Semitism. JD Vance's intellectual influences include the Claremont Institute and Thiel. Many neoconservatives, once Trotskyists, shifted ideologies after the Yom Kippur War. In 2016, Trump campaigned against Jewish donors and globalists, leading to backlash from figures like Paul Singer and Ben Shapiro. Despite this, Trump’s victory disrupted the GOP establishment.

“‘When they say they have a right to exist, they're saying we have a right to control American society to secure our existence.’ If the youth are being lost, this poses an existential problem to Israel. If the youth in the right wing of America becomes indifferent to Israel, they are truly alone. They have lost China, Russia, the whole Muslim world, Europe, Africa, Latin America—who do they got? It's just us. America’s support is conditioned upon the Republican constituency in America. If it were up to Democrats or Zoomers, they wouldn't support Israel; it's Republican boomers that are keeping it together. Do you think that's why Netanyahu offered Charlie Kirk a $150,000,000 to support Israel? The money ‘would probably come from America’ and be dispensed by Jewish American billionaires; ‘He would double their money.’ Charlie Kirk, the bag man for the GOP, who has a personal relationship with Trump, would overnight become a very rich man… a kingmaker. He declined; ‘Now he's dead.’”

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, and now it's coming for Jews, and they're like, what on earth happened? And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits. It's the movies. It's Hollywood. It's all of it. It's like time for you guys to wake up and say no more. Draw a line in the sand. I don't care if you hate me.

Speaker argues that 'you and the Likud party are cut from the same ideological cloth as Trump and the GOP in America.' They reference 'Charlie Kirk's assassination, who was a big mentor of mine' and say 'Evangelicals, from all my research, evangelicals are the reason that Israel has been supported in public sphere outside of just Jews.' They note 'So with Charlie's assassination and with the kind of trajectory that we see with, like, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson.' They ask 'what's another game plan if we lose evangelical support for the state of Israel.' 'What's our backup plan to be strong, like outside of the diaspora?'

Paul Singer and Peter Thiel are major donors to the Claremont Institute, which has influenced the Trump administration's national security apparatus. Michael Anton, a key figure in this network, was appointed to the National Security Council with Thiel's support. Thiel co-founded Palantir, a national security firm closely tied to U.S. intelligence agencies, and has expressed concerns about the Christian right's influence. The Claremont Institute's origins trace back to Harry Jaffa, a student of Leo Strauss, who advocated for a pro-Israel agenda. This network raises questions about potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and the promotion of Israeli interests.

Speaker 0 notes that many top Republican political consultants spend a lot of effort trying to primary Massey and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and asks what that signals, suggesting it feels like subversion. Speaker 1 argues they are tied to Israel-first money and are trying to crush Massey, though Massey isn’t perfect. MTG is described as a firebrand and fighter who will be with you when a fight counts. Both are sincere, and Speaker 1 emphasizes that Massey isn’t paid to say things and “means it,” which is presented as a virtue for political allies. Speaker 0 adds that MTG and Massey are sincere, even if not agreeing with all of MTG’s positions or Massey’s. The discussion shifts to the political math on Capitol Hill: a small number of MAGA-aligned figures in the Senate (Eric Schmidt, Josh Hawley from Missouri) and in the House. They argue Trump is seen as a passing storm by some, who hope to pivot back to other agendas by the 2028 cycle, mentioning Ted Cruz’s article and a sense of urgency. There’s a claim that certain vested interests want people to toe a line, and those who deviate are targeted. The remark notes Fox’s interview with someone referred to as mom Dominic, which focused heavily on Gaza and Israel in a six-minute segment, signaling how media frames issues around Israel. Speaker 1 laments the disproportionate focus on Israel in political discourse, arguing it distracts from broader aims. They recount a keynote at the National Conservatism Conference where T. E. Lawrence’s line is invoked: the Middle East is a sideshow to the Western Front, and the Arab revolt is a sideshow to a sideshow. The speaker asserts that the Middle East, given current geopolitics, economic war with China, and potential domestic unrest, is not the central issue MAGA should revolve around; the Israel issue is a sideshow to a sideshow. The central thesis offered is that while the speaker supports Israel and the Jewish people, the Israel-first focus has diverted attention from the core goals for President Trump. The main objective emphasized is the deconstruction of the administrative state and the destruction of the deep state as the central mission of Trump’s tour of duty, with the deconstruction of the administrative state identified as a primary aim to be accomplished. The discussion frames ensuring urgency to consolidate MAGA’s coalition and prioritize overarching constitutional and administrative reforms over narrower geopolitics.

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. And now it's coming for Jews, and they're like, what on earth happened? And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits. It's the movies. It's Hollywood. It's all of it. It's like time for you guys to wake up and say no more. Draw a line in the sand. I don't care if you hate me.

The program marks the one-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s second election to the presidency, noting that he won a majority of the popular vote and built a coalition broader than any Republican coalition since 1984. The host argues that, in this moment, Republicans face a civil war over what comes after Trump: revert to the pre-Trump GOP or continue evolving into what Trump has steered it toward. The core debate centers on what MAGA means and whether America-first should guide policy, especially in foreign affairs and domestic priorities. America first, according to the host, means the US government should act foremost on behalf of American citizens, considering how policies affect those who pay for and are represented by the government. This message—America first—was described as not only popular but the most popular political message in generations, and it is credited with drawing broad support from Black voters, Latino voters, and other American voters committed to drain-the-swamp, no more pointless wars, and government that represents Americans. On the other side, the host describes a return to the pre-Trump Republican identity: a neoconservative foreign policy paired with libertarian economic policy, a party of Washington think tanks and editorial pages. The host characterizes this old guard as policing its own, seeking silence and expulsion of dissenters, and as being morally compromised by foreign-policy priorities seen as misaligned with American interests. A central claim is that US foreign policy has too often advanced foreign interests—particularly those of Israel—over American interests, citing examples such as the Iraq War; assertions that policy has been immoral, illegitimate, and unsustainable; and the suggestion that dissenting voices are silenced. A focal point of the discussion is Lindsey Graham, portrayed as the living symbol of the old Republican Party. The host describes Graham as affable in person but as representing a policy direction at odds with the Trump era. Graham’s record is summarized as revealing deficits in fiscal responsibility (deficit growth from $5 trillion to $38 trillion over his tenure), a willingness to push for foreign wars, and a pattern of defending or promoting foreign policy agendas that critics say have harmed the United States. The program emphasizes Graham’s role in endorsing and promoting aggressive rhetoric and actions, including his appearances with Zelenskyy, his references to “killing the right people,” and his remarks at a Republican Jewish Coalition event in Las Vegas where he claimed that “we are killing all the right people” and “we’re cutting your taxes.” The host argues these statements reflect a dangerous and violent mindset and a departure from traditional conservative restraint. Clip analyses highlight Graham’s emphasis on Israel and his belief that God commanded particular foreign-policy policies, with assertions such as “God commanded it” and remarks about God’s will guiding policy. The program points to Graham’s frequent travel to Israel (the guest claims Graham said it was his “fifth visit since October 7”) and his portrayal as a staunch defender of Israel, even while critics say this undermines American sovereignty or prioritizes foreign interests. Graham’s statements about “the blood libel,” his defense of Israel, and his call for violence against perceived political enemies are presented as evidence of his misalignment with the values the host associates with America-first conservatism. The discussion frames a broader shift in the Republican Party as a power struggle between the old establishment and a MAGA movement seeking to realign or redefine the party’s priorities. The anonymous or explicit allegation is that Graham has long acted as an agent for deep-state or foreign interests, having supported or aligned with policies that critics say weaken American sovereignty or accountability to American voters. The guest asserts that Graham’s reelection would signal a non-responsive political system and a failure to reflect voters’ concerns, particularly in South Carolina. Against Graham, the program introduces Paul Dans, a candidate running in the Republican primary in June, who frames his campaign as an “outsider” effort to replace what he calls the “establishment” with a movement anchored in God, family, and country. Dans describes himself as an “original MAGA” and as a long-time participant in Trump-era policy development, including serving as the architect of Project 2025, which Dans says helped Trump’s administration by organizing a coalition and providing a platform for policy and personnel ready to implement reforms. Dans emphasizes his immigrant family background, working-class roots, and personal hardships as the driving force behind his commitment to restoring the country. He presents his campaign as an effort to bring accountability to government—particularly with respect to investigations, the Russia hoax, the 2020 election, and COVID-19 handling—and to end endless wars and recalibrate fiscal policy. Dans argues that Graham’s reelection would reflect a political system that does not respond to voters, noting that Graham’s stance has often opposed Trump, including his early opposition to Trump’s nomination and his later criticisms. Dans recounts his own experiences in Georgia during the 2020 election, his engagement with MAGA activists, and the perception that the RNC and campaign leadership sought to “cut bait” on Trump during the Georgia recount. Dans frames his campaign as a test of whether the MAGA movement can sustain itself post-Trump and whether the Republican Party can be realigned toward a policy program centered on American interests, less foreign entanglement, and domestic renewal. The interview also includes rhetoric about the broader political environment: a culture war over identity and censorship, debates about free speech, and concerns about social media platforms shaping political discourse. The host condemns what he sees as censorship and calls for an openness to political discussion, while arguing that the new generation—especially younger voters—are attracted to a program that promises affordable life, rebirth of the American dream, and a return to traditional American values. The show closes with a plug for voting and a call to back the Paul Dans campaign, including a request to visit PaulDans.com, invest in the campaign, and spread the message via social media. It also introduces content about a “new nine-eleven commission” and urges listeners to visit newcommissionnow.com to join a petition, arguing that the original nine-eleven Commission was flawed and that a new commission is needed to force accountability and reveal foreknowledge and other aspects of the events of September 11. Overall, the transcript captures a confrontation within the GOP over the party’s future trajectory post-Trump, the moral and strategic implications of foreign-policy advocacy, and a campaign narrative centered on America-first priorities, faith, family, and a critique of the entrenched political establishment.

The transcript presents a fringe, highly charged discussion about perceived Israeli influence in the United States, Trump’s shift from “America first” to “Israel first,” and related political dynamics. The speakers repeatedly claim that Israel controls the U.S. government and American foreign policy, with several variations such as “Israel's controlling our government,” “Israel controls us,” and “The government of Israel controls The United States.” They assert that Israel has run American foreign policy for thirty years and that the United States government is taking edicts from Israel, describing it as an “Israel first administration.” As the discussion progresses, the speakers describe discomfort with America’s relationship with Israeli leaders, calling the Israeli government a “satanic regime” and suggesting it seeks to cause pain. They contrast Trump’s campaign promises of “America first” with his alleged current actions, arguing that he has escalated a war on behalf of Israel and turned on earlier allies who did not toe the Israel-first line. They claim Trump has allied with politicians and influencers who are unpopular with his former base, and that he endorses a “massive war on behalf of Israel that he promised he would never start.” They point to specific figures affected by these changes, including those who supported or criticized Trump and Israel. The discussion names individuals and entities linked to the shift, including Charlie Kirk. They claim Kirk was influential against the Iran war and withdrew support for Israel prior to his death; Erica Kirk allegedly took over TPUSA to continue Charlie Kirk’s legacy but allegedly did so in a way that opposes Kirk’s earlier stance, endorsing Massey’s Israel-funded opponent and labeling Massey a “rhino.” They argue donors pressured Kirk to change his stance, leading TPUSA to distance itself from Kirk’s legacy and to align with an Israel-funding candidate backed by Trump. The speakers claim broad consequences for Trump’s base: those who call for justice with the Epstein files, those suspicious of Israel, and those who question Erica Kirk are said to have been blackballed or marginalized. Conversely, supporters of the new Trump are described as urging to move on from Epstein, unconditionally supporting Israel, and reacting strongly to any critique of Erica Kirk. A recurring theme is a critique of Zionism as a political ideology; the speakers distinguish between “Israel” and “Zionism” and argue Zionism controls both the U.S. and Israel. They challenge religious claims that Israel is “God’s chosen people,” offering a Christian critique of that idea and asserting separations of church and state in the U.S. The discussion includes references to alleged silencing mechanisms, narrative control, and tribalism as a “SIOP” framework, describing three characteristics: silencing opposing ideas, a strong narrative, and tribalism. They illustrate these with examples such as censorship of anti-Israel sentiment or questions about Israel, accusations about a fixed narrative like “Israel is our greatest ally,” and the exclusion of dissenting voices. The speakers conclude by asserting that while Israel does not control the U.S., Zionism appears to influence both countries, and that the root issue is the influence of Zionism rather than a single country’s leadership. They urge viewers to speak up while suggesting the changes reflect a broader, troubling shift in political power, ending with a night-time sign-off and personal recovery product plugs being referenced but later deemphasized.

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. And now it's coming for Jews, and they're like, what on earth happened? And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits. It's the movies. It's Hollywood. It's all of it. It's like time for you guys to wake up and say no more. Draw a line in the sand. I don't care if you hate me.

Speaker 0: 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. And now it's coming for Jews, and they're like, what on earth happened? And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits. It's the movies. It's Hollywood. It's all of it. It's like time for you guys to wake up and say no more. Draw a line in the sand. I don't care if you hate me.

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.

There is a split on the right over support for Israel, led by Nick Fuentes and the Gripers. They challenge America First figures like Charlie Kirk on backing Israel, highlighting conflicts of interest. This divide has roots in past conservative clashes and is now prominent within the GOP base. The Israel lobby is seen as hindering American sovereignty, causing tension for figures like Ben Shapiro and his ally Matt Walsh.