reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker opens with a familiar lyric refrain before stating a provocative claim about a rumor and concluding with a denial. The speaker begins with the lines: 'You can run on for a long time. Run on for a long time. Run on for a long time. Sooner or later, gotta cut you down.' It then addresses a claim: 'Well, somebody has fabricated a monstrous big lie that Israel had something to do with Charlie Kirk's horrific career.' The speaker concludes with: 'This is insane. It is false. It is false.' The excerpt contrasts a lyric with a claim about Israel and Charlie Kirk's career and ends with a denial.

The speaker launches a vehement tirade against Israel and the Israeli forces (IOF), addressing a perceived audience that supports or defends them. The central accusations are that Israel/IOF are complicit in killing babies, raping women and children, and committing acts that the speaker equates with a Holocaust, while insisting that “You created a Holocaust. Slaughtering Palestinians.” The speaker asserts that the audience members have records of these acts, noting: “You record it. You put it on your fucking pin. Saying a Broadway they say? A Broadway gun.” They label the Israeli side as “sociopathic” and accuse them of perpetuating violence against Palestinians. The speaker rejects the claim of having experienced the Holocaust themselves, stating that the Israelis are creating the Holocaust in real time. They repeatedly demand “Free Palestine. Free Palestinian motherfuckers,” signaling a strong pro-Palestinian stance and opposition to Israeli actions. The mood shifts to contempt for what is described as a “baby killing spree,” followed by sarcasm about how those responsible “get to just come to New York City and fucking chill” after their alleged violence, noting that no one apparently screened them upon entry into the United States. There is a blunt reinforcement of anti-Israel sentiment: “Fuck Israel. Fuck Israel until the day I die,” with the speaker calling Israel a “settler colonial project” and asserting that their taxes go to support Israel. The speaker repeats the accusation that the Israeli people are “baby killers,” and declares a lack of knowledge or denial by opposing individuals, but then assertsively counters, “Yes,” confirming the belief in those abuses. The exchange includes expressions of frustration at being forced to endure the confrontation, telling the other party to “Quit harassing us,” and then telling them to “Shut the fuck up,” followed by a fragmented line “Shut the spider man.” The overall tone is incendiary, accusatory, and accusatorily focused on alleged atrocities attributed to Israel and its supporters, with calls for Palestinian liberation and a rejection of Israeli actions and legitimacy in the speaker’s view.

The speaker says that children are collecting the body parts of a little girl, describing this as “the Israeli crimes.” They assert that civilians are being targeted and that people are beheaded. They state, “This is Israel,” and “This is the occupation,” emphasizing that the actions are connected to Israeli conduct. The speaker also interjects with, “Beheaded, Garrett, as you can see,” reinforcing the claim of beheading.

Someone is being assaulted. The speaker denies involvement, stating, "I wasn't there." The speaker accuses others of assaulting an innocent person and claims they caused the situation. The speaker also states, "You just touched me. Do not touch me."

The speaker denies saying that Europeans are parasites. They state, "I didn't said I don't know what didn't say it. I don't even know what you're talking about." The speaker then urges to move on to the next topic.

The speaker addresses accusations of being Jewish and receiving negative messages due to their religion. They challenge the integrity of those who made these accusations and ask them to speak up. Another speaker asks about the speaker's alleged involvement with an Israeli intelligence firm, but the speaker denies it. They want to focus on specific points and express confusion about why the conversation keeps shifting.

The speaker expresses a belief that the Palestinians are terrorists and questions why they are labeled as such. They repeatedly emphasize this point and ask if the listener has been to the West Bank.

The speaker expresses frustration with being constantly lied to and mentions an incident involving Rashid Zalay claiming that Israel blew up a hospital. The speaker questions the need for exaggeration when there is already enough chaos and suffering. They mention being shown videos and feeling like an earthquake occurred due to the constant lies. The speaker specifically mentions the hospital incident, where initial reports claimed a blast destroyed the hospital, but later it was revealed to be a rocket misfire causing damage in the parking lot. The speaker concludes by stating that the claim of 100 deaths was also untrue.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about a controversial statement made regarding Israelis and Arabs. Speaker 1 admits that the tweet was dumb and clarifies that it specifically refers to the Hamas leadership. Speaker 0 disagrees, pointing out that Speaker 1 also made derogatory comments about Palestinians. Speaker 1 denies this and emphasizes that it was only directed at those who oppose Israel. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 mentioning Speaker 1's statement about the Palestinian Arab population being rotten.

The speaker discusses being accused of horrible things due to being Jewish and receiving messages questioning their trustworthiness as a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen. Another speaker asks if they work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube, to which the speaker denies. The conversation shifts to a specific point that the speaker didn't fully answer before abruptly ending.

The speaker states their love for Jews and Israel has nothing to do with the question of whether people are killing or murdering a hundred children a day. Another person calls the speaker a terrorist.

The speaker discusses being accused of horrible things due to being Jewish and receiving messages questioning their trustworthiness as a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen. Another speaker asks if they work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube, to which the speaker denies. The conversation shifts to a specific point that the speaker didn't fully answer before abruptly ending.

The speaker was asked why not blame Hamas for the atrocities. They explained their mission was to gather information, not assign blame. The speaker acknowledged the frustration of the people of Israel and emphasized the need for the government to provide access for further investigation.

Speaker 0 denies something, stating "She did not. That is not what happened." This is repeated for emphasis. Speaker 0 then abruptly demands the contact information of an unidentified person, but immediately retracts the request. Finally, Speaker 0 declares an intention to provide a "sign" to someone.

Speaker 0 states: "We on the fight, they call the shots from Tel Aviv." They claim that "when the boys hit the sandwich, the blue and white sleeve" implies involvement, but then assert "No IDF in Fallujah." They add "No Hebo in the dust of candor." The passage concludes with "Just the kids coming home in boxes. Under a porn star."

The speaker discusses a theory that a horrible event was falsely attributed to Muslims, when in fact it was carried out by a cunning and ruthless Israeli individual. They claim that this theory is not their own, but rather based on a US army report published the day before 9/11. The report allegedly warned about Israel's capabilities. The speaker invites criticism but emphasizes that this information comes from an official source.

Speaker 0 claims there were internal problems within the IDF related to the October 7th attacks. They allege soldiers were told to stand down, suggesting "something bad happened" and "it was an inside thing." Speaker 0 states they have inside knowledge of Israeli border security and operations, asserting the breakdown on October 7th wasn't due to mistakes. They believe Israel will have to confront these internal issues. Speaker 0 also claims the American people are growing tired of constant focus on Israel, despite Speaker 0's personal support for the country and past involvement with Israeli intelligence. Speaker 1 expresses shock at the stand down claim and emphasizes the sensitivity of the issue.

The speaker was asked if they believed students protesting were motivated by anti-Semitism or horror at the Gaza slaughter. The speaker dismissed the idea of students being driven by horror and refused to continue the conversation if it was being recorded.

The speaker argues that there is overwhelming evidence that Egyptian planes regularly fly in and out of Israel. They state they will present that evidence tomorrow, expressing strong confidence in this claim: "these Egyptian planes are flying in and out." The speaker explains that by connecting people who were on those planes to other Egyptian planes, it became clear that these planes are flying in and out of Israel and turning their transponder off each time that they do it. This, the speaker says, now makes perfect sense of why there was mass panic. The speaker also notes a perception of an Egyptian lobby in the United States, suggesting that "these are the usual suspects that act if something is a threat to Israel." They criticize others for not being forthcoming and for gaslighting, adding, "they're trying to gaslight us" and "frankly just pissing me off." The speaker describes themselves as becoming locked in on these Egyptian planes and asserts, "If you keep pushing me and keep pushing me, I will become an expert on these planes. I'll learn how to build an Egyptian plane." Finally, the speaker reiterates their plan: "tomorrow, I will show you how these planes tie back to Israel."

The speaker states "that is the land of unconfirmed." They mention "came, we saw, he died," and deny any connection between a visit and the death, while simultaneously expressing certainty of a connection.

Speaker 0 accuses Hamas of lying and emphasizes the importance of other democratic states like Germany, Britain, and France recognizing this. Speaker 1 acknowledges that this is the opinion of Israel, but also mentions that Hamas has denied these claims. Speaker 0 interrupts to clarify that Hamas has indeed lied, and they believe it will continue to do so. They claim to have evidence to support their statement.

The speaker condemns Ian Carroll for making videos that claim Israel is behind conspiracies about Red Lobster, Applebee's, and Burger King, and for a live stream asking, “Where are you Nick? … Why are you with them?” He asks where the evidence is and notes the tendency to attribute almost every event to Israel, stating, “the heuristic seems to be Israel is behind literally everything,” past and future, which he calls ridiculous. He points to a September 7 tweet where Carroll said Charlie Kirk is “working for the Jews that killed Jesus,” and contrasts it with Carroll’s certainty on September 11 that Israel killed him to silence him, questioning what changed in those four days and suggesting Carroll may have ESP or telepathy. He accuses Carroll of grifting, intellectual laziness, and dishonesty, and refuses to be pulled into blaming Israel for killing the number one Israel defender in America. The speaker asserts personal history and credibility, saying, “I’ve been over here. I was at Charlottesville” in 2017, and that in 2019 he led the Gruyper war against Charlie Kirk, labeling Kirk as an “Israel shill.” He claims that from Turning Point’s founding in 2012 to today, the organization has been “owned by Israel and served Israel.” He recounts a June text in which Charlie Kirk told Dinesh D’Souza, “Nick Fuentes is vermin,” and notes the ongoing fight against him for six years, including Kirk’s August statement calling him “anti Semitic garbage” and his refusal to debate. The speaker describes Charlie Kirk’s inner circle and media connections: Kirk’s right-hand man Andrew Colvin comes from Salem Media, a Christian Zionist outlet aligned with Israel, with Melissa Strait having connections to Salem and Prager University and IDF unit 12082. He notes Colvin led a “struggle session about Israel” after a Turning Point SAS conference in July. He claims that when Israel bombed Qatar in contravention of Trump’s foreign policy, Kirk invited Ben Shapiro to present Israel’s position, while Kirk acted as moderator, and on the day Kirk “was shot,” he prepared to defend Israel with his rabbi at Provo as he drafted a book on the Jewish Sabbath. The speaker emphasizes that the person accused of fighting Israel was “the guy that was murdered,” and expresses pity for those who would believe that. He asserts, “I’m right here where I’ve always been, following the facts, following the money, looking at the information,” claiming to be light years ahead of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, and rejecting the idea that their ideology is about Netanyahu or Israel’s foreign policy, concluding, “No, sorry. Absolutely not. That’s totally ridiculous.”

The speakers engage in a conversation about the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." One speaker questions which river and sea the phrase refers to, suggesting that it is important to know the specifics. The other speaker dismisses the importance of knowing the specific river and sea, stating that it doesn't matter. The conversation ends with one speaker apologizing and acknowledging that they shouldn't have engaged in the discussion.

The speaker addresses Tucker, noting a perceived "obsession with Israel" when discussing foreign countries, unlike when discussing China, Japan, the UK, or France. The speaker claims that when Israel is mentioned, the question arises: "What about the Jews?" The speaker anticipates being labeled antisemitic for raising this point. The speaker denies directly asking if Jews control foreign policy, but the other person insists that is exactly what the speaker implied.

Israel is accused of using Judaism as a shield to oppress Palestinians. The speaker believes that the recent assault was not an attack on Judaism, but a response to Israel's occupation and violation of Palestinian rights. They argue that Israel manipulates Jews for control and to fulfill religious prophecies. The speaker calls for an end to the killing of Palestinians, daily raids, detention, settler violence, and dehumanization. They emphasize that many Jews support Palestinian freedom. The actions of Israel, according to the speaker, do not represent all Jews.