reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- Speaker 0 expresses a core problem: how to support the Donald Trump presidency when the figures associated with his circle (Alex Jones, Owen Shroyer, Ian Carroll) embody traits they oppose, prompting questions about alignment with their side. He asks how to reconcile supporting Trump with these associations, calling it an objective problem. - Speaker 1 responds that he has not researched certain controversial items (Eric Prince’s phone) and notes that Eric Prince is a polarizing figure from the military-industrial complex world. He argues that involvement in war fighting does not automatically make someone evil and that a full picture requires digging beyond initial impressions, acknowledging he hasn’t done all the research. - Speaker 0 challenges this, citing his own video: Eric Prince has three CEOs for Blackwater, all with intricate ties to the IDF. He questions coincidence between Palantir Technologies and the surveillance state, Israel’s influence, and three IDF-affiliated Blackwater CEOs, referencing USS Liberty and suggesting Eric Prince’s past atrocities and a lack of accountability. He asks whether such a figure could ever be considered a good person and whether repentance is possible, noting he hasn’t seen Prince acknowledge past wrongs. - Speaker 0 adds BlackRock as another easy target, claiming BlackRock, with help from the Trump administration, bought two ports in the Panama Canal for $22.8 billion, and contends Trump mentioned a company would buy the Panama Canal during the State of the Union, but did not name BlackRock. He challenges the listener to consider whether Trump is on their side given this nugget of information. - Speaker 1 says he was not endorsing a specific device or action, calling the “phones” comment offhand and irrelevant. He reiterates he isn’t waiting for Trump or Elon Musk to act in the interest of people, and states he’s intentionally not waiting for them to do so. He emphasizes starting change bottom-up, and encourages starting conversations rather than trolling, suggesting Seven Seas could help. - Speaker 0 shifts to a broader miscommunication problem: there’s a gap where people misread each other, treating allies as enemies. He advocates filling this gap through dialogue with diverse figures like Seven Seas, Ian Carroll, Joe Rogan, Whitney Webb, Derek Brose. He mentions a planned March sit-down interview between Derek Brose and Ian Carroll, hoping for a productive exchange, while noting past heated exchanges where ad hominem attacks diminished constructive dialogue. He cites Clint Russell and redheaded libertarian as examples of contentious interactions. - They discuss disagreements over Trump’s ideology and policies, including concerns that Trump still praises the VA, pharma, and large-scale spending, which confounds libertarian critiques. He cites a national debt comparison between Obama and Trump era spending, arguing that debt devalues the dollar and harms Americans, regardless of party. - Speaker 0 reiterates suspicion that the criticism of Trump and Elon Musk coexists with perceived support for them, labeling it an inconsistency. He promises to withhold calling someone a shill until there is clear intent to deceive. Speaker 1 suggests focusing on good-faith arguments, mentioning Glenn Greenwald with respect, and invites Seven Seas to share their take on Ian Carroll’s reaction to Seven Seas’ post.

Hey, guys, I'm back! I know many of you were wondering where I've been. I've been exhausted and burnt out from social media, dealing with personal stuff behind the scenes, and working a lot. As you know, I'm a part-time photographer and full-time laser show designer. I'm also considering joining the military in a year or two. I'm thinking of coming back to this platform, but I took a break because I was super exhausted after my account kept getting spammed with suspension warnings. I've been on Instagram since I was 13 and started my kink account around 15, so it sucks to have that burn out. I have so many wonderful friends and hundreds of photos I haven't been able to share.

I'm feeling really overwhelmed and need to leave because I have a podcast to record. Thank you for being here. Bootlegger, please contact me.

Speaker 0 delivers a rapid-fire set of bragging lines about wealth, fashion, and success: “Go see my eyes red on my demons,” “My postie racks up just to motivate my niggas,” “Rappers need a stylist bad, but I ain't use a stylist yet,” “I signed a million dollar contracts in my box to steal a text,” “Wake up, check my bank account, phone numbers in there, bitch. I'm blessed,” and references to private jets, being fresh off the press, sipping drinks with lines, a tinted eye, a moving piece, and owning a new bulletproof Cadillac. He notes money, private flights, and the ability to charge for Instagram content, while cutting off a girl who didn’t pick up. The tone centers on opulent lifestyle, independence, and status. Speaker 1 shifts to a hostile, accusatory monologue: “All over the place, guys. Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, Laura Loomer.” He claims Gabe Hoffman “is running humps on people” and calls him a “bad guy.” He says he looks like he’s seen a ghost and that someone close to him was there to infiltrate him, describing these people as “really fucking bad” and stating they are “evil,” including claims of them being “unregistered foreign agents.” He asserts he will be watching everything they do and declares ongoing surveillance and vigilance: “I will be watching. Everything you do, I’m gonna be watching.” Speaker 2 notes a logistical detail: “Hell yeah. On my way back to the site to get my burner phone so I can use my ghost accounts…” indicating plans to obtain a burner phone for anonymous or modified online activity. Speaker 3 adds a blunt, explicit line about using “ghost accounts” for actions, saying, “can use my ghost accounts to fuck,” reinforcing the theme of covert or deceptive online activity. Overall, the transcript juxtaposes an ostentatious wealth/aspirational rap persona (Speaker 0) with a conspiratorial, accusatory stance toward specific public figures (Speaker 1), and mentions of circumventing scrutiny or anonymity online (Speaker 2 and Speaker 3). The named individuals identified by Speaker 1 are Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, and Laura Loomer.

Speaker 0 wishes they had a stand-in to deliver speeches while they stay in their basement. They apologize for taking one last question and express the urgency to address the full Obama agenda. They mention making an arrangement twice.

The speaker was asked about something but had been unplugged for at least ten days. They missed two mashups and were receiving texts asking for their whereabouts. The speaker mentions a kids sports forum and a twelve-hour livestream, all happening simultaneously.

Speaker 0 is checking in with someone and expresses that they have accomplished something. The other person asks if they are leaving, to which Speaker 0 confirms. Speaker 0 then asks for some information, but the other person refuses. Both speakers clarify that they are not suicidal and enjoy life.

I'm not okay. I have to go do a podcast. Thanks for being here. Bootlegger, please contact me.

The speaker states "nobody's gonna open that up until tonight, and that's us who takes care of us," referencing patches and the Aeroprom. They don't foresee problems for a year. The speaker mentions balancing processed people against the scanner, with job loss as a consequence of failing to process enough people. The speaker notes the scanners are broken, with only one scanner available, which is also broken. They announce being open again for the next 14 days.

The speaker says, "That is a funny one for you. Yeah. It's control talk. I don't understand. Sorry, mate." The speaker then says, "Hold on. Hold on. See. I'm just doing something. I'm sorry," and "I'm waiting for."

Speaker 0 discusses the conflict between the stability of his current work with Mark Lutchman and his spiritual calling represented by "Donnie," which he sees as a platform to share a message deeper than politics. Speaker 1 raises concerns about conflicting messages on Speaker 0's accounts, citing examples such as praising the U.S. while also claiming it was founded by occult Freemasons and that Satan is the prince of America. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's true beliefs, accusing him of hypocrisy and profiting from stirring up conflicting ideologies. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 will delete the "Donnie" account, as he can't fight for opposing sides simultaneously. Speaker 0 admits to being hypocritical and takes full responsibility. He mentions discussions about the path forward, including his family's insistence that he step away from "Donnie" to focus on providing for them. He has been searching for other jobs, despite the pay cut. He is at a crossroads, considering handing "Donnie" off to someone else.

Hey, friends. Steve Baldwin here to share important tech info about Elon Musk and Twitter. It's not a glitch; everything Twitter does is intentional. There are no glitches, just actions influenced by Elon Musk, the government, and other forces.

Speaker 0 states that individuals can choose to act independently and reject assistance. However, this independence purportedly lasts only about six hours. The speaker claims "they" want not only defense but also offense. The speaker references a tweet by Tucker Carlson that names names, which the speaker has not verified but acknowledges Carlson is "on fire." The speaker indicates that names are now being called out.

I've got a lot of work to do and I'm working seven days a week to get it done. I took a 10-day break because I wasn't satisfied with how things were going, but now I'm back and ready to work. I asked for some tasks, and after waiting for 30 minutes, I finally got a little bit of work. People talk about me because I took time off, but I'm here now and ready to contribute. I plan to stay until 7 o'clock to finish everything. There's a lot to do, and I'm focused on getting it done.

Speaker 0 states they will be back before long, so others should not make plans without them. Speaker 1 expresses the utmost respect for Elon Musk and admiration for President Donald Trump. They appreciate both men and are thankful for what they do for human spaceflight and the nation, as well as for holding their respective positions.

The speaker talks about their workload and how they have been working 7 days a week. They mention taking 10 days off because they didn't like how things were going. They express their readiness to work and ask for more tasks. They mention being talked about by others because they didn't want to work initially. They thank someone for giving them a task and mention that they will be working until 7 o'clock. They briefly mention the tasks they need to complete and mention someone named Miss Ruby.

Speaker 0 begins with 'Of course. Morning.' They request, 'Can you switch Nightshade's pronouns are theythem.' They explain, 'He or she just doesn't fit who I am.' 'My apologies.' The speaker adds, 'Please switch their piece.' and ends with, 'Now the plan.' The exchange centers on changing Nightshade's pronouns to reflect a theythem preference, replacing traditional binary pronouns. The pronoun change is presented as a personal fit, followed by an apology for the disruption. A procedural directive—'Please switch their piece'—signals action, leading to the stated conclusion, 'Now the plan.' The emphasis is on pronoun customization and immediate plan execution here.

Speaker 0 encourages speaking louder and with confidence. They reassure Justin that it's okay. Speaker 0 also mentions that unlike Justin, they have the ability to do something (possibly related to Ellie) at the moment.

Speaker 0 states they will be back before long, advising against making plans without them. Speaker 1 expresses the utmost respect for Elon Musk and admiration for President Donald Trump. They appreciate both individuals and their contributions to human spaceflight and the nation, and are thankful for their leadership roles.

Speaker 0 wishes they had a stand-in to deliver speeches while they stay in their basement. Speaker 1 apologizes and says they have to address the full Obama agenda urgently. Speaker 0 repeats their desire for a stand-in arrangement.

Speaker 0 says: “Link up, buddy. Shoot me a DM.” He hopes all is well and tells the other person to be safe, noting that the predictions he made are happening faster than he predicted and that there are “a lot of Blue Falcons amongst us.” He adds, “So do that as you will, and have a good one,” and signs off with thanks and appreciation.

Jimmy is asked to cover the speaker while they take a bathroom break. The speaker reassures Jimmy that everything is under control and they will be back soon.

Speaker 0 gives something to Speaker 1, insisting that it will make them go to the bathroom. Speaker 1 thanks Speaker 0 for their trust. They discuss the concept of trust and how it affects them. Speaker 0 wants to explain something about the cloud, but Speaker 1 interrupts and says they can't talk about it on TV. They discuss where they want to go that evening. Speaker 0 mentions Gabriel, who is an insomniac, and Speaker 1 suggests they go with a twelve-and-a-half-year-old girl. They mention someone who is sixty-two years old. Speaker 1 wonders why they wouldn't be worried about it. Speaker 0 says they should intervene in certain situations, but Speaker 1 is unsure. They end by saying they will follow each other's lead. Translation: Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss trust, the cloud, and their plans for the evening. They mention Gabriel, a twelve-and-a-half-year-old girl, and someone who is sixty-two years old. Speaker 1 questions why they shouldn't be concerned, while Speaker 0 suggests intervening in certain situations. They agree to follow each other's lead.

Speaker 0 expresses intense anger toward the Trump administration, saying: "I give a fuck about any fucking person in the Trump administration being upset with giving them oh, how dare you?" They claim others have "no fucking idea to list the bodies that we have" and suggest that if they were serial killers, it would be like "Mal or something." They urge everyone to become emotionally detached from their online personas and to create burner accounts to "unmask all of these traders" and to impose the "threat of IRL consequences" because people use anonymity to act behind privilege. They state that Twitter should no longer be a safe place for these individuals and propose that someone should interrupt leadership by saying, "yeah, boss. I I can't do this anymore." They argue the government should consider the impact on families: "My kids and my address just fucking wound up on this platform. How the fuck did they find out who I am?" They insist that every time those people log in, they need to have "second fucking thoughts" and be terrified. They assert that "Security clearances don't mean a goddamn thing to me" and declare, "I guarantee you I'm 10 times smarter than you and your fucking best bet." Speaker 1 interjects: "Back the up, juicy." Speaker 2 responds with distress: "I'm not a Spit on me again." They request to be kept away from the person and say, "This guy's intimidating me. He's pushing me." They ask, "Where's your vehicle?" and answer, "It's in the garage." They further ask, "Hey. What is your name? Are you working for the hotel?" and Speaker 0 says, "I'm working. Tell me. Are" before the scene cuts off. Overall, the excerpt presents a heated monologue urging aggressive online accountability and real-world consequences for certain individuals operating under anonymity, followed by interruptions that reveal a tense confrontation involving intimidation, personal threat concerns, and questions about a vehicle and employment.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to be the person. Speaker 1 responds, saying it's not a problem and asks what it means to feel empty. Speaker 1 then makes some exclamations and adds something to something else. Speaker 1 guarantees that it will fit and mentions something that only black people do. Speaker 1 instructs to make sure to feel it all the way up and then says it's empty. Speaker 0 says to put it back, and Speaker 1 responds to put it back like it never left. They mention taking something and having a full something.