reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Sam and Speaker 1 engage in a heated conversation. Speaker 1 insults Sam's appearance and accuses him of promoting penny stocks. Sam remains silent and Speaker 1 continues to mock him. Speaker 1 encourages others to check on Sam's activities and mocks him further. Another person joins the conversation and praises Speaker 1, triggering Sam to create a new account. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 mocking Sam again.

Speaker 0 states that after nearly a year of owning an account initially belonging to "Steve," they have gained 10,000 followers. They are upset by the suggestion that Steve wants the account back, comparing it to asking for a gift back after a long time. Speaker 0 uses analogies involving headphones and selling a house to illustrate the perceived absurdity of the request. They express strong disapproval, stating that such behavior is unacceptable. Speaker 1 responds that they don't believe they were acting inappropriately. They explain they messaged Speaker 0 to schedule a phone call, intentionally omitting the topic to avoid sounding curt, and feel they were in a no-win situation.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

The speaker states they were able to open an account and get a blue check mark after having to rebuild from losing an account with over 95,000 followers. The speaker believes "they" enjoy letting people build themselves up only to tear them down and make them rebuild. The speaker's account is "doctor Suzanne h seven" (drsuzanneh7). The speaker posts about vaccines and tries to stay in that lane, rather than posting opinions or pictures of pets.

David Nichol introduces himself as a Twitter user but mentions that he may switch to Mastodon due to Elon Musk's sensitivity.

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.

In a casual chat, the speaker praises Jonathan, noting that he’s “killing it” and “on fire,” even when taking a moment to drink water or smoke. The speaker mentions sending all the photos to editors because there’s a lot to clip, and expresses appreciation for Jonathan’s effort. Editors joke about Jonathan’s username, explaining that it’s changed three times due to deplatforming, and that he’s had about twenty different accounts. This makes it hard to keep track of him, especially when searching for his latest updates. The speaker laments the difficulty editors face tracking Jonathan’s content across multiple accounts and emphasizes the need to stick with the same name so it’s easier to find. They also remark on how many accounts Jonathan has and how it affects following versus followers.

Speaker 0 questions why someone would change their signature after 30 years. They mention that the person has now changed their signature on a website, and wonders if it is strange.

The speaker discusses Erica Kirk and a sequence of variant names connected to her. They begin by asserting familiarity with Erica Kirk and then pivot to a narrative about Erica Fransve (her birth name) and Erica Kirk (the name after marrying Charlie in 2020). The central question posed is: who is Erica Chelsvig? Key claims and sequence: - Erica Fransveig was her maiden name; Erica Kirk was her name after marrying Charlie in 2020; Erica Chelsvig is described as a name she supposedly bore at another point in time. - The speaker asserts they learned the name Erica Chelsvig only two days after Charlie Kirk’s funeral, after being awakened at 02:30 in the morning. - They claim to have been a large Erica Kirk fan prior to this discovery, and that the “truth” about Erica Chelsvig had emerged suddenly and unexpectedly. - The speaker alleges that information about Erica Chelsvig has “officially scrubbed from the Internet” the very next day, and that only the speaker’s aunt managed to discover and retain it. - They state that, despite being on vacation, the world will learn who Erica Chelsvig is, but not via a Google search. - The speaker asks, “So who is Erica Chelsvig auntie?” and then outlines a backstory: Erica Fransveig (maiden name); Erica Kirk (name after marriage); Erica Chelsvig (name in between, or at another point). - They note that the Chelsvig name is Romanian and remark on the odds of that, calling the world an evil place and suggesting not everything is what it seems. - The speaker claims that Erica Kirk, Gronzevay, Chelsbank, formerly, is “accidentally spilling the beans one by one,” and asserts that what is done in the dark will come to light. - They emphasize their belief that the truth is true when it needs to be scrubbed from the Internet, and question why it would be scrubbed if there wasn’t something to hide. - A further variation is mentioned: “Erica Kerr, formerly Chelsvig,” and with it, a prompt to “screenshot and read the rest” while on vacation. - The speaker reiterates that “what used to be on the Internet” was removed days after Charlie’s funeral, and that when the holy spirit speaks, you listen and you screenshot, and the truth will always come to life.

Speaker 1 wanted to get an old account back from someone she gave it to, as it lost followers. She texted him to schedule a call, but he found her texts too forceful. Speaker 0 felt Speaker 1 was demanding his time without context and being rude. Speaker 1 wanted to handle the sensitive matter with voice tonality instead of text. She didn't want to ask for it back initially, to avoid being an "Indian giver," but others said the account wasn't being used well. She claims the account lost followers despite claims of gaining 10,000. She refutes his comparison of the account to headphones. She's taking backend measures to obtain the account and questions if keeping an account one didn't build is "Jewish behavior," versus wanting back an account to "boost people and get the j q spread." Receipts of the escalation are provided.

Speaker 1 says he’s incognito, “in Cock Negro,” and that he’s working on things and mentally preparing for stuff. He mentions that somebody might take his spot because “they got a lot of plans for me,” and says he’s pretty much going to be taking Alpha’s spot with what Alpha does, so somebody else will have to hold a port down when he’s not around. He suggests Phantom or “ mister silent” might fill in, but notes it doesn’t matter who it is. Speaker 0 explains he has a lot going on and was told something, and that he wanted to join the space before bed because he has to work early the next day. He says he’s been working a lot and that’s why he hasn’t been around. Speaker 1 reassures that people have lives outside of here and that he’s going through major changes and will have to adapt. He emphasizes he’s not leaving Twitter or spaces, because this is where he started. He reiterates that he’s mentally preparing and dealing with a few things off, and that you’ve got to take time to adjust.

The speaker is asked about retweeting a quote from Mussolini without knowing it was from him. The speaker defends the retweet, saying it's okay to like the quote without supporting Mussolini. They mention having a large following and wanting to be associated with interesting quotes. The conversation ends with a plug for subscribing to their YouTube channel.

The group discusses various connections and claims related to the Iron Dome program and individuals involved. Key points mentioned: - Erica’s father is said to be the chairman of Raytheon and to do extensive work on the Iron Dome. - Sean Maguire is described as “one of the key people running cover up for the identity of the killer” and is accused of pushing support for a person named Robinson, as well as supporting Bill Ackman, who is said to have offered a bribe. - The conversation references Truth and Ian and includes an assertion about Desi clarifying these connections. - Jonathan is highlighted for his exceptional ability to recite information; there are anecdotes about long sessions with him and the intensity of his contributions. There is also discussion about the challenges editors face due to Jonathan’s frequent changes of online usernames after being deplatformed, making it hard to track his accounts. - Other names appear in the dialogue: Lunae, Falu, Desi, Ian, Sam Parker, and Bill Ackman. - There is a mention of the workload on editors who compile and clip Jonathan’s videos, expressed as sympathy for their task. - There is a casual aside about a “big boobs” vendor reference and a note that the Israeli girl was discussed in DMs, with a disclaimer that the speaker is not the person being referenced. - Regarding the Iron Dome, it is stated that there are three main companies involved in hosting, overseeing, maintaining, and keeping it operational; one of these companies is Rafael (the sentence is cut off, but Rafael is identified as one of the three). The dialogue emphasizes alleged ties between prominent figures and defense contractors, the role of individuals in disseminating or concealing information, and the logistical and social challenges of content creation and attribution within this online discourse.

Speaker 0: I'm going to do something. I have a whole theme to take on. Of course, you're completely made up, but I'm here doing it. You're not doing anything. The name is Amit, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, What's up right? What's up right? What's up right? What's up right? What's up right? What's up right? How lucky will you get? Or not? Jensen, just go! Manta, I'm out!

Hey everyone, it's Troll Slayer Mama, also known as shove your backs up your mask, 34. My previous account got suspended, like all my others, but you can follow me here on Troll Slayer Mama on Twitter, for now at least. Who knows when that might change?

The conversation centers on Jonathan’s exceptional ability to recite and recall information. Speaker 1 praises Jonathan, comparing him to Ian and Sam Parker, saying very few people have Jonathan’s gift and that he might be on the level of a truth teller. They recount a five-hour session with Jonathan, noting that at one point the speaker felt like they hadn’t spoken for an hour, only to be told by Jonathan that he was on fire, with the speaker needing water or a break while Jonathan continued to perform. The speakers acknowledge that Jonathan has been “absolutely killing it.” Speaker 2 comments on sending all the I photos to editorial teams and expresses sympathy for editors due to the volume of clips Jonathan generated. They also remark on how the editors dislike Jonathan’s username because it changes three times due to deplatforming, making it hard to search for him. There is a light anecdotal exchange about Jonathan using different vendors and the humorous mention of a “big boobs” vendor, followed by a brief joke about a “big tape, girl.” A reference is then made to a “Rebecca” or “Rebecca, right beyond,” and a clarification that the speaker is not the one being messaged in DMs. The discussion shifts to a factual note about the Iron Dome, stating that it has three main companies involved in hosting, overseeing, maintaining, and keeping it operational. The three companies are listed as Rafael.

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.

Daniel Penny was facing murder and murder-one charges, and the speaker notes that they were fortunate to expose an Israeli-born and raised prosecutor pursuing a white American non-Jew Christian who was defending the values being discussed. The exposure of the prosecutor, along with the Columbia World Projects program she operates under, which is under the purview of Jerry Spire and David Boies’ law partner, cofounder Jonathan Schiller at Columbia, is cited as contributing to the charges being dropped four or five days after the exposure. From the speaker’s perspective learned over the last four years, there is an obligation for men to stand and fight and expose subversive foreign elements that are hostile and antithetical to the American people, the Constitution, and to moral integrity, turpitude, and values. This frames the account as part of a broader battle against perceived subversive forces. The speaker contrasts his approach with Ian’s, acknowledging that Ian does not go as hard directly at the source. He emphasizes his own aggressive tactics, noting he has 18 alt accounts, which he uses to disseminate information rather than to pursue ego or personal branding. He describes his original account as having about 70,000 followers before it was banned, and reflects that the fight requires decoupling from ego and e-personas to prioritize getting information out over maintaining follower counts. The value of Ian’s role is highlighted: Ian provides a large platform and a gracious space host to give patriotic and wise intellectuals and fighters the opportunity to broadcast key pieces of intel, receipts, criminality, and bad actors. Ian’s platform enables the dissemination of essential information and receipts that the speaker says are integral to exposing wrongdoing. The speaker expresses gratitude toward Ian but reiterates a broader message: men, particularly in America and sovereign nations, must be willing to step up and fight back informationally as the last bastion before resorting to other means. The overarching theme is a call to defend the Constitution and national integrity by exposing subversive actors and ideas through information warfare.

Sam: I hope that someday anybody who’s gone over there and touched that wall will never be able to walk out in public without hanging their head in shame ever again. Brian: It’s funny, Sam, because Tim Ballard was going through crazy lawfare. Glenn Beck helped him build underground railroad—they were best friends. When Sam needed or Tim needed to break a story about child trafficking, Glenn Beck was his guy. Then, when Tim was considering running for senate (or congress) and would have momentum after the Sound of Freedom release, attacks started. Glenn Beck threw him under the bus, and Sam shows him a video where Beck pledges allegiance to Israel; he’s bought and paid for, not Tim’s friend, controlled by our intelligence agencies, Israel’s bitch. He watched that video and was shocked. Sam: Brian, you probably know this. Most people don’t know this. The child ring Tim Ballard busted up in South America, the one portrayed in Sound of Freedom, was Israeli-run. It was run by Israelis. The head of that ring escaped to Portugal where a judge let him go, and nobody knows where he ended up. So that’s the real story of Sound of Freedom. It was an Israeli-run sex trafficking ring. You’re not told that. You should go research and find out who was running the ring. So a lot of intro—it’s always them, man. It always comes back to them. Brian: Every single time. Every single time. It’s like 6,000,000 to 1 odds. You know? It’s just strange how that happens. But you wanna wrap it up, Sam? Sam: Yeah. Let’s wrap it up. Listen, everybody. Twitter is not an open, superhighway of information. It is a military application. It is a propaganda operation. It is highly bodied, highly artificial, highly synthetic and manipulated. And I’m not saying don’t use it. I use it every day. We absolutely must use it as best we can. But I need everybody to be aware that not everything is as it seems on this platform. You cannot take this platform at face value. Many of the big accounts that these mainstream accounts you see coming through your feed, you cannot take them at face value. You must be aware that they’re running campaigns. They’re being paid. They’re boosted. The algorithm is being manipulated. There are bots and unauthentic accounts and fake accounts. You must be aware of the battlefield on which you’re engaging. I’m not telling you to go leave. On the contrary, I want you here, battling, but it is not what it seems. There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors and shadows and espionage and spy games on this platform. You really need to be aware of that. You need to get savvy to it. And I don’t want you to develop a mistrust of everybody. I want you to develop a more wary eye of what’s going on. I want you to look at people’s Twitter profiles. Scroll through their feeds and see who they’re retweeting, who they’re boosting, who they’re following, who their little networks are, who’s using the same messaging. Why? Brian: Because— Sam: they...

Mike is a truth teller and always shares information with viewers. He recently spoke with Nino or Juan and has invited them to tomorrow's show to discuss last week's conversation. It's unclear if they will be present as I haven't had a chance to talk to them yet.

I'll be sending screenshots from the email. Are you Jonathan Stewart? There's a screenshot that says, "I always know you're a cheap pot in my language." Thanks, Sharon, for helping me track this down. That must be from years ago. It's definitely not recent.

The speaker wants an account returned because it wasn't utilized as well as it could have been. The speaker wants it back to continue their endeavors and allow the account to be utilized. The speaker suggests the account isn't helping the other person, especially if they are stressed. The speaker claims they were concise and respectful when requesting a phone call and were not "crashing out" or "tweaking out." The speaker states they were being business professional by scheduling a call, but couldn't provide sensitive information via text. The speaker acknowledges the other person is upset and feels the request is rude.

The conversation features a highly charged exchange among several participants centered on accusations of manipulation, identity politics, and perceived disinformation within online spaces. The speakers repeatedly accuse others of acting in bad faith, being “agents,” or part of a coordinated “j q” network, and they stress the importance of visible support for certain causes over ambiguous affiliation. Key claims and exchanges: - Speaker 0, addressing Albert, asserts that, from a statistics and probability perspective, the likelihood that “he’s a fit” is very high, while also denouncing others as “rats” and “weasels” who avoid any association with a cause that could risk their views. He demands clear support or silence. - Ian is criticized by Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 for giving off “white Ben Shapiro vibes.” Speaker 0 expands this to condemn those who align with or avoid certain causes, alleging many are “agents” who conceal their true intentions. - The dialogue frequently returns to the idea of bad faith actors who minimize association with certain causes or people in order to preserve status or avoid consequences. There are repeated calls to “look at the actions” and “look at the patterns” to determine character. - The group references a supposed “j q clowns” phenomenon and argues that some anonymous accounts with large followings are not trustworthy. They contrast their own Jewish experiences with what they see as arrogance from others, asserting a distinction between genuine advocacy and performative posturing. - The tension between members escalates into explicit personal attacks. Insults include racial and ethnic epithets, with multiple participants using slurs, portraying themselves as under siege by a hostile, deceptive group labeled as “Jews” or “Judaized,” and accusing others of being “agents” or “weasels.” The language includes admonitions to regulate behavior and to stop interrupting, with accusations of gaslighting and manipulation. - The group references Jonathan several times, asking Ian to create a space to gather support and donations for him, insisting on a definitive yes or no regarding the request and criticizing others for evasion and ambiguity. - Carl is repeatedly denounced by Speaker 0 as engaging in behavior that mirrors antisemitic tropes, while other participants defend or counterargue by describing themselves as trying to condemn harmful actions and seek constructive outcomes. - In later remarks, a participant labeled as Speaker 5 offers an external perspective, describing epistemic nihilism in the space: a pattern of discussing Jews broadly without offering concrete solutions, labeling Ian Malcolm and Truth Teller as disingenuous, and praising the group for exposing them. - The closing segment includes expressions of appreciation for those who stood up for truth, with contempt directed at those deemed disrespectful or disingenuous, reinforcing the accusation that certain participants are “agents” within the movement. Overall, the transcript captures a tangled, high-emotion debate characterized by accusations of bad faith, identity-based attacks, calls for clear alignment or dismissal, and a concerted effort to expose presumed infiltrators or manipulators within the space, framed around debates about support for Jonathan and the integrity of the movement.