TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker believes that the only solution to a problem is the extermination of white people from the planet. The speaker claims that white people are going to kill "us," and therefore, "we" need to solve this problem. The speaker urges listeners to set up their own system, stop "playing," get serious, and not be diverted.

Revolution necessitates killing; it's a revolutionary act. We haven't called for the killing of white people—at least not yet. I can't predict the future, but with things escalating as they are, a revolution in this country is inevitable. The statement that we are not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now, implies that we might in the future. We're not ruling out that possibility. Whether or not we will, at some point, call for the slaughter of white people, remains to be seen. It's a question for a future date.

The speaker emphasizes the need for a solution to the ongoing problem. They express concern that focusing on other issues is diverting attention from finding a resolution. The speaker mentions the use of advanced technology by white people to monitor and prevent any individual from coming up with a solution. They believe that the only solution is to exterminate white people.

I recall attending a convention where the debate centered around whether it was a revolutionary duty to kill newborn white babies to prevent them from perpetuating oppression. One person questioned the morality of this idea, but was met with disapproval from the group.

A revolution demands killing as part of a revolutionary act. It was stated that there has been no call for the killing of white people, at least for now, but there are no guarantees about the future. If things continue as they are, there will be a revolution. When asked for clarification, it was confirmed that "we are not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now" means that at some future date, there may be a call for the slaughter of white people. It was stated that this may very well happen in the future. The phrase "shoot to kill Hamazah. Kill the poor, the farmer" was also stated.

Speaker 1 expresses a desire for Trump to be shot, while Speaker 0 questions this, highlighting the hardships faced by migrants. Speaker 1 condemns calling for the president's assassination as evil.

The speakers discuss the idea of killing as part of a revolution. Speaker 1 mentions that they have not called for the killing of white people, but cannot guarantee the future. Speaker 2 expresses concern about the message being shared on Twitter, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as crybabies. Speaker 1 emphasizes that if things continue as they are, there will be a revolution. Speaker 2 questions whether Speaker 1 is ruling out calling for the slaughter of white people in the future, and Speaker 1 responds that they don't know what will happen. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 repeating the phrase "kill the poor, the farmer."

Speaker 0 expresses anger and threatens those who support Trump. Speaker 1 apologizes, and Speaker 2 also apologizes. Speaker 0 continues to express anger and clarifies that they only want to fight those who are causing problems.

Speaker 0 claims to be brave and unafraid of being surrounded. They mention having already killed 800 people and express a desire to kill one more. Another person interrupts, referring to someone as a peaceful individual and suggesting they be left alone.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about expressing "joy" over a CEO's death and posting an image of another CEO. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of condoning assassination. Speaker 1 denies celebrating the death itself, but expresses joy that the "brutality of our healthcare system was finally being acknowledged." Speaker 1 claims 70,000 Americans die yearly due to lack of health insurance, calling the healthcare system "murderous" and "violent." Speaker 1 says they were describing the mentality of supporters, not their own beliefs. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who praise assassination. Speaker 1 refuses to condemn those who praise the CEO, stating they don't "believe in things like souls." Speaker 1 says they specialize in extremism and want to understand ideologies, even those of violent extremists. Speaker 1 condemns the violence of the healthcare system. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns people that call for assassination. Speaker 1 wants Speaker 0 to acknowledge that half of bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs. Speaker 0 states anyone who wants to assassinate any innocent person is wrong. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who want to be involved in assassination.

Speaker 0 argues that white Americans will soon be a minority, and that this is great. Speaker 1 counters that whites will not be the majority and describes it as an exciting transformation and evolution, a progress of the country. Speaker 2 states that whites will be a minority very soon and says, “I'm okay with that.” Speaker 1 asks, if the white working class is in trouble, whether new Americans should be brought in. Speaker 3 predicts America will look very different in a hundred years, with racial labels becoming less distinct (“You're black, you're white, you're Hispanic, you're Puerto Rican, whatever”), and says that complexity will be good in the end. Speaker 2 contends that white Americans feel they are losing their country and ownership, and that they are, in the end, not the future. Speaker 3 asserts that for the first time in American history, the number of white people went down; “White population is declining for the first time in history in America.” Speaker 3 cautions that white people will not be the majority in the country anymore, noting it will be the first generation with whites as a minority. Speaker 1 proclaims, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Speaker 3 proclaims that to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people. Speaker 1 contends that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate. Speaker 3 declares, “We gotta take these motherfuckers out.” Speaker 2 asks whether it was the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies. Speaker 3 responds, “We have to kill white people,” and, when pressed, mirrors that sentiment with, “When we say we wanna kill whites, we don't really mean we wanna kill whites. We do. We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem.” Speaker 1 comments, “When do we start killing white people?” and then, “start killing all white folks, but maybe?” Speaker 3 reiterates the extermination goal, stating, “We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem.” Speaker 5 adds, “An unrelenting stream of immigration. Nonstop. Nonstop. Folks like me who were Caucasian of European descent will be in an absolute minority in The United States Of America. Absolute minority.” He concludes that this shift is not a bad thing and calls it a source of strength.

Speaker 0 says, “They doing too much, man, and they keep pushing people. You know?” Speaker 1 erupts, “Oh, shit. What the fuck? They killed my did they fucking kill that guy? Are you fucking kidding me, dude? Not again. Are you fucking kidding me? That guy's dead. Yo. We need people on”

The speaker suggests that the only solution to a problem is to exterminate white people. They believe that white people pose a threat and that it is necessary to set up a separate system and be serious about addressing this issue.

The speakers discuss the idea of killing as part of a revolution. Speaker 1 clarifies that they are not currently calling for the killing of white people, but cannot guarantee the future. Speaker 2 questions if they may call for it in the future, to which Speaker 1 responds that they don't know. Speaker 0 adds a statement about shooting and killing.

The conversation involves two individuals discussing a controversial topic. One person claims to have killed two Palestinians while serving in the Israeli army and expresses happiness about it. The other person questions their beliefs and mentions the world will witness their actions.

Speaker 0 states that someone is killing people and something happened to a guy, which they dislike. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 about a report that a Russian commander said Putin was almost caught in a drone attack from Ukraine. Speaker 0 responds that they haven't heard about the drone attack report, but it could be a reason for the killing.

Speaker 0 asserts that Joshua Zimmerman is “the Jew” who is a traitor and an enabler to murder, claiming that Jews engineered the destruction of South Africa and the rise of the African National Congress led by the convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela, whom Speaker 0 says “was in jail for acts of terrorism.” They state Mandela “was not an angel or humanitarian.” The speaker then condemns Julius Malema, alleging he is inciting crimes, and warns of “Genocidal Jews” across Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Speaker 1 introduces Joshua Zimmerman as the person present in Ward 72 at Glen Hazel, saying they are there with fellow fighters to “conscientize the minds of those in the suburbs that the EFF is an all inclusive party regardless of race, class, or status,” and that “Slowly but surely, we are going to start winning more in the suburbs.” Speaker 2 leads chants: “Long live the commander in chief. Long live. Long live. Long live the commander in chief, Julius Malema. Long live. Long live. Viva EFF. Viva. Viva. Aman Clark. Away to.” Speaker 3 describes a crowd of “just under 100,000” chanting “kill the boar.” They identify the Boers as the remnant white South Africans who built South Africa, and say Julius Malema is leading the genocidal chant as head of the South African Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). They claim the Boer community was betrayed by liberal whites decades ago. They describe South Africa as once prosperous, now suffering under majority black rule, with unreliable electricity and a collapsed agricultural sector, labeling it an economic basket case of savagery typical of failed African states. They claim white people face daily violence and live in a state of siege, particularly those who did not leave after Mandela and the ANC took power. Speaker 3 provides context on the EFF as a South African far-left pan-Africanist and Marxist party founded by Julius Malema and allies in 2013, noting Malema serves as president and that the party is the third largest in both houses of Parliament and growing. They state the party “hasn’t yet started the mass killings of whites, but it will if Malema is to be believed.” They reference an October 2022 speech in which Malema told branch members they should “never be scared to kill.” They cite a 2018 rally where Malema urged supporters to “go after the white man” and proclaimed, “we are cutting the throat of whiteness.” They mention a 2016 rally where Malema said, “we are not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now.” Speaker 3 notes that after Robert Mugabe’s death, Malema tweeted quotes hostile toward white people, including “the only white man you can trust is a dead white man,” and asserts that Malema has given warnings of white genocide. They claim that white people who acquiesce to replacement, mass immigration, or intercultural guilt narratives will face death, insisting: “Death follows. Be warned if your current white majority nation has adopted multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusion policies. It won’t end well.” The speakers claim the media hides the truth, leaving whites “supine and docile as they’re killed,” and reiterate Melena’s call: “Kill the whites.” They conclude with a call for whites to be racialists, meaning to defend their own kind.

Speaker 0 believes Democrats are cynically toying with the anti-racist movement, which will cause whites to see things racially, leading to a conflict with no clear solution, unlike the first civil war. Speaker 0 claims a well-armed rural white population is now correctly understanding that it is being targeted by a mob that claims it's guilty of things it isn't guilty of yet. Speaker 1 suggests many whites are no longer interested in their own identity and won't take up that war, complicating the situation. Speaker 0 agrees it's complicated and asks if there's an acceptable way it ends.

The speakers discuss the importance of resistance and decolonization. Speaker 0 mentions the connection between dying and fighting for medical rights. Speaker 1 asks for clarification, and Speaker 0 emphasizes the significance of decolonization as one of the greatest days in history. Speaker 1 expresses anticipation for Speaker 0 to speak truthfully. Speaker 0 requests further conversation.

A speaker asks whether a socialist revolution would be violent or non-violent. Another speaker responds that they would prefer a non-violent revolution. The speaker sketches out a scenario where a general strike turns into a revolution with workers occupying factories and seizing control. They posit that capitalists would respond by sending armed thugs to slaughter the workers, necessitating self-defense. The speaker states that defending against violence inevitably creates violence. They acknowledge the ideal of a peaceful revolution where capitalists concede defeat without resistance, but admit that this scenario is unlikely.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are ruling out the possibility of calling for the slaughter of white people in the future. Speaker 1 responds by saying they don't know what will happen and it may or may not be them. Speaker 0 clarifies that it could be Speaker 1 and asks what would necessitate that. Speaker 1 doesn't know and questions why they would do that. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to pledge to never call for the slaughter of white people, but Speaker 1 refuses to make that pledge. Speaker 0 understands.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they have thought about killing themselves. Speaker 1 says it would be better without Speaker 0 and that Speaker 0 would be more useful decomposing in the earth. Speaker 1 tells Speaker 0 to kill themself and imagines their body hanging from trees. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 will drop dead for them and imagines Speaker 0 shot in the head. Speaker 1 says Speaker 0's blood would be beautiful on the country. Speaker 0 says they are waiting for the cops to do something, and that the police can't remember where their cars are because they have no VIN. Speaker 0 states that two people should not be driving because they are drunk.

Speaker 0: Kill them. Kill those motherfuckers. And murder those motherfuckers in the street. Speaker 1: Let the streets let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist bloods, dude. Speaker 0: Kill them. Kill those motherfuckers. And murder those motherfuckers in the street. Speaker 1: Let the streets let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist bloods, dude. Speaker 0: Kill them. Kill those motherfuckers. And murder those motherfuckers in the street. Speaker 1: Let the streets let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist bloods, dude. Speaker 0: Kill them. Kill those motherfuckers. And murder those motherfuckers in the street. Speaker 1: Let the streets let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist bloods, dude.

Speaker 0 expresses a strong desire to challenge National Geographic and urges the audience to join in killing all white people. They emphasize the importance of fighting against the white man, regardless of personal opinions or others' perceptions. The speaker firmly believes in the death and destruction of every white person, regardless of age or innocence.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their statement regarding the potential future call for the slaughter of white people. Speaker 1 initially states that they are not ruling out the possibility, but later clarifies that they cannot guarantee it. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to make a pledge to never call for such an act, but Speaker 1 refuses. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging Speaker 1's response.