reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: Andrew was the brother of Peter. He was a fisherman, and two had to pay taxes besides Jesus, but I might be mistaken here. Speaker 1: I will reconfirm that it is only Peter and Jesus that paid the tax for adults, and I will reconfirm that the other disciples were apprentices in their family's business and were therefore young as well. All of them were 12 and 15 years old, and I'll stand by that, which poses a lot of other questions. If it's the middle of the night and I walk into the wrong house and I see a 30-year-old man washing the feet of an unknown 12-year-old boy, what am I gonna do? I'm going to jail, guys. Think about these questions because it's not the version we've been told. When you redo the story with their ages in mind, it's a darker picture. Speaker 0: That’s really up for debate. If you apply modern-day Jewish disciples in halakhic schools, you might come to that conclusion. Times then were different. Speaker 1: Actually, scholars—look, I just did an article specifically on this, I have all the receipts. Scholars all agree that the age for discipleship within rabbinical circles was 12 to 15 years old. You could Google it. And, again, the only two people that paid taxes were Peter and Jesus. None of the other ones paid taxes and therefore were not adults. It’s in the scripture. Who cares if they're adults? It doesn't matter. Speaker 2: It’s about being a pedophile. Speaker 1: It’s not; it’s not taken out of context. Speaker 0: Peter, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen, right? Peter was already married; Jesus healed his mother-in-law. He was probably the oldest, mid-20s or 30s. The general consensus is Peter is mid-20s to 30s. John is 15 to 20, the youngest. James, late teens to early 20s. Andrew and Philip, late teens. Matthew, early to mid-20s. The others, Thomas and Judas, mostly teens to early 20s. I’m not sure you’ve seen 16-year-old teenagers like fifty years ago; they were men. It’s a different picture today. So I don’t buy the Jesus was a pedophile claim. Speaker 2: CQ Radio does the same bullshit. Try to make him a pedo. Speaker 1: It’s all about mystery rites and excretion from children in their mystery practices. Like adrenaline, they use children as a sacrament to open the veil. That’s what’s going on with the elites today—the Vatican, Israel, and all the elites. The Bible is a PG version. Wake up and stop attacking me because I’m telling the truth, especially if you don’t have the balls to research it yourself. Speaker 0: What the fuck was that? I’m not attacking you. You can have your own opinion. The general consensus of scholars on the Bible was what I just read—the estimated ages. The youngest were Jesus’ direct family, cousins. Speaker 2: CK will do the same thing—bring up the kid at the Last Supper, and he was doing it. It hinges on a false interpretation of one word. Speaker 1: Arts, magic, occult have two sides: black magic uses trauma, fear, and control to harvest from children; white magic uses unity and consent. They both conjure the same entities. One is loving, one is painful. Look at the ages of the disciples: 12 to 15. Only Peter and Jesus paid the toll; the others were not adults. Speaker 2: Quick question: who do you think is God? What is good in the world according to your worldview? Speaker 1: There is a loving creator. That has nothing to do with what I said. If you equate Jesus with God, that’s a you problem. Speaker 2: Are you going to say what you actually believe? Speaker 1: Move on. There’s a loving creator who created us in his image and loves us. Speaker 3: There’s been a lot of indoctrination of children recently. The biggest discussion is wars. Speaker 1: You can give us a little more. Speaker 3: They’re doxxing this kid. People know. Speaker 1: I’m an alpha warrior. Speaker 0: I have to check the Mossad Media Matrix. Speaker 3: Grandma gave him permission. It’s not going to end well. Speaker 1: I’ll be listening. Somebody can go listen there or you could hide on my page as a handle. You’ll be on my team, though. Speaker 4: Veritas suggested forgiving the heretic, but I don’t think it’s ours to forgive. It’s hubris to think that. We’re trying to have an open debate, but disrespectful behavior isn’t acceptable. Speaker 1: I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. Speaker 4: We can wrestle with scripture without ad hominem. You’re okay to say Muhammad’s a better approximation, but that’s a different topic. Speaker 1: Start by looking into the ages of the disciples. Thank you. Speaker 2: The real concern is elsewhere. Veritas has gone over that research and it suggests the opposite.

Speaker 0 doesn't care about race, only about the person. Speaker 1 questions calling names based on polling data. Speaker 0 emphasizes objectivity despite hurt feelings. Speaker 1 doubts the objectivity due to name-calling. Speaker 0 thanks for the conversation, wishing a better day. Speaker 1 reciprocates the sentiment.

He started as a joke, but now he's famous and loved by many. People ask him to attend their events and even get scared of him sometimes. It's amazing how he brings communities together. People share his whereabouts and he takes pictures with school bus drivers, kids, and families. He does it to build community spirit, not for fame. He has received a lot of support and enjoys what he does. He used to feel like nobody cared, but now he knows that many people do. It's never too early to celebrate Halloween.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has recently had the opportunity to talk with the players and the coach of the club. Speaker 1 confirms that they have spoken with players like Alex, Corentin, and Maxence, and they are all motivated and determined to succeed. Speaker 1 hopes that their hard work will be rewarded today. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 is considering getting even closer to the club in the coming years. Speaker 1 reveals that they spoke with John, who asked them to sit in his place. Speaker 1 expresses their willingness to help and mentions that they feel like a part of the same family as Owen and La Svel. They are happy to assist if they can.

Speaker 0 notes the intense public interest in the relationship and asks how Speaker 1 deals with it. Speaker 1 responds that they try not to worry about what others think and focus on doing what feels right for them. Speaker 0 then asks how they met, but neither party is comfortable commenting on the topic.

Speaker 0 describes the situation as not a lone incident but an intentional design to start an internal component of what he calls a color revolution, one among many to expect. Speaker 1 asks for clarification on what is meant by a color revolution, who is driving it against the United States, and who is in charge. Speaker 0 replies that a hard look back to 2016 under Obama is necessary and believes Obama is still in the mix, with John Brennan as the operational commander on the battlefield in the United States. He says there are indicators from Brennan’s statements and actions, and that Obama is part of the command structure. He mentions an international component he calls the axis of resistance, consisting of communists emanating from the CCP’s control and communists inside the United States, arguing that there are communists in Congress who voted in 1992 not to vote against socialism. He adds Islamists, narco cartels, and terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, and the Cartel del Sol as part of this axis, with people at the “pincer” of it organizing and controlling the activities. He asserts the color revolutions in Ukraine as an example and claims the war there is a “total loser war” that must end. He says Trump must tell his team to ensure executive orders are implemented at all levels and emphasizes the phrase, “lawyers advise, leaders decide,” urging President Trump to gather all relevant agencies (CIA, DNI, Sec War, Sec State, Sec Commerce, and especially the Secretary of Homeland Security) and make a decision. He states that the color revolution is a long-term effort that accelerated after Trump’s 2016 victory, with ongoing actions described as economic warfare, cyber warfare, and political interference. He cites the New Virginia Majority, a communist movement inside the United States aiming to place communists in local government and school boards, and mentions contrived cultural shifts including Islamification in various parts of the country, including Florida, Dearborn, and Houston. He asserts Islam is not compatible with Christianity and Sharia law is not compatible with constitutional law. Speaker 1 agrees there were people who served their country; she supports removing those who served but opposes letting any of them into the United States, emphasizing a different culture. Speaker 2 agrees. Speaker 1 notes the large Muslim population spread across many regions, suggesting others could have taken Afghan refugees, but questions the appropriateness of bringing them in. Speaker 2 states it is not surprising that a CIA-trained individual who previously appeared untroubled could appear in Washington, D.C. to shoot at troops, and explains a broader pattern: old-school descendants became part of a strike force, loyal at one time but funded and equipped by the U.S., who were later abandoned during the Obama–Biden period. He describes withdrawal from bases and overnight equipment removal, followed by a lack of transition to self-sufficiency, leading to brought-in desperate fighters who may be paid to kill National Guard members. He asserts these events demonstrate a deep state pattern involving Biden, Obama, and Brennan.

Speaker 0 expresses a desire to meet Jimmy Savile someday and suggests that if the person has a sister, she could be brought along to meet him. Speaker 0 notes they don’t have any sisters. Speaker 1 replies that he doesn’t usually meet fellas, but if Speaker 0 has a sister, that would be okay. Speaker 0 mentions a personal assistant named Marsha, whose job description includes greeting, meeting, and massaging anyone Speaker 0 demands she greet or meet, and notes that Marsha is very attractive. Speaker 1 says that’s a good start. Speaker 0 asks what kind of introduction or arrangement Speaker 1 would like. Speaker 1 answers that he would prefer Marsha to wear nothing. Speaker 0 confirms that he wants Marsha, the assistant, to meet Speaker 1 naked, and Speaker 1 says there’s nothing wrong with that. Speaker 0 adds that last time he spoke like this was with Father Christmas. Speaker 1 comments that he has not trusted Father Christmases in Debenhams or other stores in the past, and says a similar sentiment about stores. Speaker 0 suggests that Speaker 1 has always been thought of as a Father Christmas figure, someone who solves problems, and makes a comparison to Father Christmas with regard to dropping wages. Speaker 0 then thanks Speaker 1 for talking with him in the restaurant and asks whether Speaker 1 could pass on best wishes to his dinner companion and consider coming on the show again in the future. Speaker 1 responds vaguely with “Who knows?”

Speaker 0 introduces the topic and initiates the conversation. Speaker 1 acknowledges the person next to them as their friend and highlights the challenges they have faced to reach their current position. They affirm the validity of using preferred pronouns.

Speaker 0 stated that someone "trained me to have to be perfect." Speaker 1 then mentioned "working for Diddy," to which Speaker 0 responded, "Absolutely." Speaker 1 expressed affection for Diddy, calling him a "good friend" and "good guy." Speaker 0 stated that "he expects—" before Speaker 1 interjected, asking, "Is he a good guy?" Speaker 0 responded, "I don't wanna answer that question." Speaker 1 concluded by saying, "I think he's a good guy. I'm a stick up for—"

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 engage in a playful conversation about their costumes. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0's grandmother knows about their outfits. Speaker 0 introduces their guest, who compliments the costumes. Speaker 1 mentions hearing that Speaker 0's granddaughter was going to dress up as a witch. Speaker 0 denies saying that and Speaker 1 defends them. Speaker 0 appreciates the compliment and Speaker 1 reassures them that they are not a witch. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 repeating that they imitated the costume because they love Speaker 0's granddaughter.

Speaker 0 calls the North Pole for the yearly health check. Speaker 1, Mrs. Claus, says Santa is doing snow yoga with the elves and reindeer. They discuss the holiday season and how everyone in Canada, especially kids, is working hard to keep it safe. Speaker 0 agrees and mentions that every child in Canada has earned a place on the nice list. Speaker 1 says she and Santa are healthy, having received their vaccinations and flu shots. She advises staying up to date on vaccinations, wearing masks in crowded indoor places, and washing hands regularly. Speaker 0 agrees with the advice.

Speaker 0: The speaker acknowledges the topic as real, noting initial skepticism and later personal evolution on the issue. Speaker 1: Describes early vaccine rollout with social media noise, driven by women reporting sudden menstrual abnormalities after years of regular cycles. They noticed cycles off, heavy bleeding, missed periods, and painful periods after vaccination, though they themselves had not been vaccinated. Social media groups formed, including a website called My Cycle Story where women shared experiences. When fact-checkers and deplatforming followed, the speaker and others remained skeptical but curious, eventually turning to scientific research. The first patient treated was in March 2021, a woman who had seen a massage therapist who had been boosted the day before. That night she missed her period within two days, had tender, swollen breasts, cramping, and had been very regular for about twenty years; she was about 43 and described the change as totally abnormal, linking it to the close exposure to the massage therapist. The speaker initially believed ivermectin binds spike and thought shedding might be possible, so the patient was placed on ivermectin, after which her period returned within five days, though she remained uncomfortable and continued to have an irregular cycle. This is cited as the first anecdote. Speaker 1: After opening their practice, the speaker and their partner began seeing these phenomena in their patients, including some who were vaccine-injured. They challenge the notion that shedding affects only the unvaccinated or anti-vaxxers, noting vaccine-injured patients who are sensitive to exposure to other vaccinated individuals. They observed that shedding phenomena occur in a small cohort who are sensitive to environmental or pharmacological factors. They describe shedding as very common, though the degree to which it affects others is variable. Their best current insight, after extensive research and discussions with other clinicians, is that shedding tends to happen to people who are environmentally or pharmacologically sensitive—those who have allergies or difficulty handling pharmaceuticals and environmental exposures. They suggest there is a broader cohort that is sensitive but not always aware of what is happening. In summary, shedding is not limited to unvaccinated individuals, and a small, highly sensitive group may be more affected, while many people remain unaffected.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the political and legal dynamics surrounding potential investigations and trials, focusing on timing, venue, and public interest. - They agree that if Democrats lose the House and the committee is eliminated, public interest may wane. The first trials, if they occur, are expected to attract a lot of attention, similar to anniversaries, but interest could fade once Democrats are out of power and especially if Biden is removed from office. - The idea of dragging proceedings out is considered, with caution that delaying too long could reduce attention. They suggest not initiating a first trial in Washington, DC, because DC has many government workers and may be sympathetic to the defense; this relates to concerns about the potential jury pool. - There is a debate about whether the trial should be moved out of DC. Speaker 1 believes it would be difficult to move the trial and that those in DC would resist removal, arguing that hearings would be seen as fair and the jury would be impartial if held there, contrasting with Speaker 0’s concern about DC’s jury demographics. - They discuss the likelihood of successfully moving the trial, with Speaker 1 asserting that it would not be successfully moved and that the defense or supporters would resist. - The conversation touches on a hypothetical interaction with an individual who might have been involved in insurrection plans. Speaker 0 asks about what the plan would be if such an individual were in line and marching, in a military context, suggesting a scenario where operations would be outlined: “you’re gonna go here,” “you’re gonna go in by this side,” “at this time, we’re gonna take over this.” They describe the insurrection as lacking guns and involving a man “smoking pot,” noting it as the most pitiable insurrection of the 21st century. - They shift to an observation about the Proud Boys, mentioning Gavin McGinnis. Speaker 0 describes knowing Gavin from road trips to parties and finding the term “Proud Wizards” humorous when they first heard it in Brooklyn years ago. Speaker 0 characterizes McGinnis as a provocateur who says shocking things to be funny, and expresses amusement at his elevation to a prominent figure. - Speaker 0 clarifies that they have a personal history with these people and emphasizes that McGinnis says outrageous things, which they view in a historical and somewhat humorous light, contrasting with the contemporary prominence of the group. - The exchange ends with Speaker 0 explaining their familiarity with the individuals and reiterating that the portrayal of these figures is part of their broader historical context.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's ethnicity, stating they look "ambiguous" and "weird," and asks if they are Arab or Indian. Speaker 1 identifies as Indian, Ugandan, and a New Yorker. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 would claim African American status, like Elon Musk. Speaker 1 says they would not. Speaker 0, noting Speaker 1 is African, asks why not, stating their own middle name is Kwame. Speaker 1 affirms they are proud to be Ugandan.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 was stolen and adopted. Speaker 1 confirms and reveals they found out about their adoption at the age of 5. Speaker 0 inquires if Speaker 1 ever tried to find their biological family, to which Speaker 1 responds negatively. However, six years ago, Speaker 1's brother reached out to them, but Speaker 1 clarifies that they didn't want to ask for money.

Welcome to Santa's Village! This year, we have two Santas to choose from. Which one would you like for a cherished photo? We want to see the white Santa, please. Why two Santas? It cuts the wait time in half. What should grandma do with the picture? We just remembered we're Jewish. Hi, we're here to meet Santa. You can choose between two equally qualified Santas. One Santa is busy, while the other is on a Zoom meeting. I’ll wait for the busy one. I’ll choose the Black Santa. Please don’t call me Blanta. It’s embarrassing that some can’t imagine Santa as anything but a straight white man. Well, you’re in luck! Here’s Santa number three. Hi! Ho ho ho!

Speaker 0 marched in the civil rights movement to change attitudes. They were involved in desegregating movie theaters and organizing voter registration drives. Speaker 0 sat in black churches with Jewish rabbis, preparing to desegregate movie theaters. They have been involved in causes since they were 18, including desegregating restaurants. However, according to the New York Times, Speaker 2 claims that Speaker 0 lied about marching in the civil rights movement. Despite being reminded of this, Speaker 0 continued to tell the story. Speaker 2 finds this behavior strange.

Speaker 0 asks what Remembrance Sunday means and what message they have. Speaker 1 responds: “I can see in my mind's eye there were rows and rows of white stones of all the hundreds of my friends and everybody else that gave their lives for what? The country of today. No. I'm sorry. The sacrifice wasn't worth the result that it is now.” Speaker 0 expresses sympathy and says that all the generations since, including her own and her children, are grateful for his bravery and service personnel, and that it’s their job now to make the country he fought for. Speaker 1 asks, “Is it?” Speaker 0 continues: they will do, for the younger generation, and that they want to. Speaker 1 adds that it’s wonderful to know there are people like him spreading the word, and that they will, for the younger generation. Speaker 0 introduces a special moment: the DJ Darlings come over to present a gift to Alec for his brave years of service and others like him. They give him their album, which he loves and is sig ned for him. Speaker 1 says the young ladies are like his own daughters.

Speaker 0 expresses clear personal hesitation about vaccines, stating that they are not jabbed and would not touch the experimental mRNA and gene therapy experiments, asserting there is a lot of concern about these technologies from many medical people. They reference political figures and media narratives, saying Kennedy in the United States will expose much of this material and that Donald Trump is keen to see it as well. Speaker 0 then recalls personal health concerns related to vaccination, mentioning friends who have experienced myocarditis, blood clots, strokes, and other problems after receiving the COVID jab, and emphasizes the idea of long-term effects being unknown. Speaker 1 counters by saying they still believe in vaccinations, but notes that no one on that side would discuss possible problems with vaccines, and they themselves got vaccinated multiple times and are now open to the idea that there might have been problems. They acknowledge the complexity of the issue and state they do not object to vaccines inherently. Speaker 0 clarifies their stance further, stating they are not a medical expert but their instinct was not to have the vaccine, and they acknowledge how difficult it was to avoid it since the state appeared to force people to receive it. Speaker 1 adds that their own vaccination status includes having been vaxxed several times, and they feel okay today, though they recognize the complexity of the situation and that long-term effects are uncertain. Speaker 0 then discusses the notion that the state and public health authorities pressured people to vaccinate, naming the NHS, Matt Hancock, and portraying the messaging as a duty to vaccinate “because you might kill granny,” mentioning Trudeau and the World Economic Forum Brigade as part of the broader narrative. Speaker 0 proposes an alternative approach: those who are vulnerable should isolate themselves. They reference Anders Tegnell’s approach in Sweden, which did not impose lockdowns. They claim Sweden’s economy hardly missed a heartbeat, in contrast to “ours,” and argue that the pandemic greatly disrupted young people’s lives and education, with knock-on effects described as huge. Speaker 0 concludes that those who made the lockdown decisions are not ready to admit they got it wrong, for a host of reasons.

Speaker 1 does not feel safe around black people, including their own uncle. They feel very safe around white people. When around black people, Speaker 1 is alert and on edge because they anticipate problems. They are comfortable around white people.

Speaker 0 says that if they do that, they'll have a lot to show forward in eight years. Speaker 1 agrees, noting that their dad's generation is resistant to change, and they're the only one in their family starting to notice.

Speaker 0 states they want Black businesses to survive and thrive and claims to do a ton for them. They cite their work with the Department of Transportation under Pete Buttigieg, saying they tried to insulate Black businesses from a "crazy regime" to ensure they could still get contracts for infrastructure projects. Speaker 0 also claims to have a great relationship with Black businesses in their community and works with the Black chamber of business. They invite Speaker 1's organization to join, but say they have to go and suggest calling their office. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of not having time for Black people and running away. Speaker 0 responds that they always have time, but the conversation is becoming too hostile, and they don't want to "pop off."

Speaker 0 states they wouldn't want another child coming in when they're in a beach culture. Speaker 1 mentions a Kamala Harris date and an audible black history spirit week. Speaker 0 clarifies they didn't make the week up. Speaker 0 says they will have a further conversation if they feel it is inappropriate. Speaker 1 states they are doing what they have to do in their position. Speaker 0 confirms they are making the decision. Speaker 1 says they will make their own ultimate decision, implying either they will be cut off, or the children will wear certain clothes to school every day. Speaker 0 says their mom understands why they didn't wear something like that in school. Speaker 0 says no one is wearing a Kamala shirt and they are wearing jumps and curls if they choose to. Speaker 0 says they understand what Speaker 1 is doing, but they can't have that negativity in the schoolhouse. Speaker 1 claims it's not negative, but Speaker 0 just doesn't like the message. Speaker 0 says they are making the decision based on the dress code in their code of conduct.

Speaker 0 acknowledges the challenge of competing against Caster Semenya, who is far ahead. Speaker 1 expresses their attempt to avoid the situation this year and highlights the emotional impact, particularly between themselves, Miloson, and Joanna. They emphasize that the outcome is beyond their control and rely on those in power to initiate change. Speaker 0 mentions witnessing the three of them coming together in a unified hug. Speaker 1 explains that they regularly see each other and understand each other's feelings.

Speaker 0 asks if everyone thinks the family is a nice Jewish family. Speaker 1 responds: From the outside, you appear to be a nice Jewish girl. Definitely. And you all are worshiping the devil inside the home? There are other Jewish families across the country. It’s not just my own family. Speaker 0 prompts for non-gory details about what kinds of things went on in the family. Speaker 1 describes rituals in which babies would be sacrificed, noting that there were people who bred babies in their family. She says no one would know about it, and that a lot of people were overweight, so you couldn't tell if they were pregnant or not, or they would supposedly go away for a while and then come back. Speaker 0 notes that she witnessed the sacrifice. Speaker 1 confirms she witnessed it when she was very young, and she was forced to participate in sacrificing an infant. Speaker 0 asks what the purpose of the sacrifice is. Speaker 1 answers the sacrifice is to bring you what? For power. Speaker 0: Power.