reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We begin tonight with the horrific discovery at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia. They would shave our heads and beat the hell out of you. These are crime scenes. The residential schools was a genocide of our people. 215 children were found in unmarked graves. The federal government is ready to dispense $10,000,000. $8,000,000. $27,000,000 to find unidentified burial sites. We will follow the evidence. We will follow the science. We are here for truth telling. Neotribal elites are pretending that it's been found that there's 215 children. There's a difference between murders and children dying in the building. There's no list of names of missing children at any of these schools.

The speaker states that they are not saying the organization lost 85,000 children, but that contact was lost with them and their whereabouts are unknown. The speaker asks if that is a fair statement. The speaker asks if, after making three calls on average to check on 85,000 children placed by the organization, there was no response. The speaker then asks if it is fair to say that contact was lost with over 85,000 kids. The speaker asks for a yes or no answer. The speaker states that the organization does not know where 85,000 of the children are. The speaker then says they will move on after receiving no answer.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

Speaker 0 suggests there was potentially the biggest setup and one of the greatest crimes against the American people in the history of the country. Speaker 1 agrees it's important to get the truth and states they are working to uncover the cover-ups that happened after January 6th. Speaker 0 asks about Republicans involved in those cover-ups, acknowledging it's hard to address one's own party. Speaker 1 responds that they're going to go where the evidence leads, no matter what. Speaker 0 states they will hold Speaker 1 to that.

Speaker 0 asks about the danger to US communities from 13,000 people convicted of murder who crossed the border illegally. Speaker 1 responds that the numbers being reported are a false representation of the data. Speaker 1 states that total returns and removals in the past year have been higher than every year under the previous administration since 2010. Speaker 1 insists that data should be reported accurately to avoid confusing or lying to the American people, and that the misrepresentation has been fact-checked and debunked by multiple outlets.

Speaker 1 questions why radical transparency in elections wasn't proposed four years ago and accuses the former president of trashing the system for four years, stating there were dangerous consequences to the president's lies and that people died on January 6th. Speaker 0 claims the only person who died on January 6th was Ashley Babbitt, who was murdered. Speaker 1 acknowledges there were injuries. Speaker 0 asserts people who broke into the Capitol are responsible for their actions, not Donald Trump. Speaker 1 says they don't have to yell.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly apologize. Speaker 0 emphasizes not lying about evidence and wanting to provide more information. Speaker 1 mentions paying for something and Speaker 0 agrees, mentioning a forensic audit. Speaker 1 mentions needing more time, but Speaker 0 declines. Speaker 0 concludes by urging the audience to listen because they have facts.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of avoiding a major scandal and focusing on insignificant matters. Speaker 1 claims the scandal cannot be verified. Speaker 0 insists it can be verified, citing the discovery of the laptop. Speaker 0 states that the family on the laptop has gone into hiding for five days. Speaker 1 suggests the person is preparing for a debate. Speaker 0 doubts it would take five days to prepare.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the central event and its factual claims (Kamloops discovery, 215 unmarked graves). - Catalogue the competing viewpoints and claims (genocide vs not, murder vs not, truth-telling vs denial). - Note government actions and policy references (funding amounts, Bill C-15, UNDRIP, land rights concerns). - Highlight conflicts over money and governance (revenue, where money goes, band involvement). - Preserve direct quotes for key, pivotal statements to maintain precision. - Exclude evaluative judgments; avoid adding or interpreting beyond stated claims. - Emphasize unique or surprising elements (denialism, political gains, protracted reconciliation). - Keep within 374–468 words; translate if needed (not needed here). Summary: The transcript centers on a broadcast about the horrific discovery at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia. It begins with the claim: "215 children were found in unmarked graves." Speakers frame the site in stark terms: "They would shave our heads and beat the hell out of you," and "These are crime scenes." Another speaker declares: "The residential schools was a genocide of our people." Amid the testimony, debate erupts over truth, privilege, and interpretation: "Because of your white privilege, you can't take our truth." Financial and policy implications surface as the federal government is described as ready to dispense funding: "The federal government is ready to dispense $10,000,000. $8,000,000. $27,000,000 to find unidentified burial sites." A commitment to evidentiary process is expressed: "We will follow the evidence. We will follow the science. We are here for truth telling." Yet a counter-narrative questions the framing of the events: "Neotribal elites are pretending that it's been found that there's 215 children." Another speaker distinguishes: "There's a difference between murders and children dying in the building." Questions about documentation and causation follow: "There's no list of names of missing children at any of these schools. ... There wasn't murder. There wasn't genocide. Why do you think they are holding to this mass grave story?" The dialogue suggests perceived political gains from the narrative: "There have been all kinds of political gains as a result of this story." The discussion advances to legislative and sovereignty issues: "This week, the senate passed bill c 15 aimed at aligning Canadian law with the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous people." The claim about sovereignty is asserted: "That law was a surrender of the province. They have a right to the land. They own it. All of it. So is that what we're saying?" There is worry about land rights and the so-called "Drucker legislation," along with concern about property rights: "You're not getting the truth," and "They're worried about property rights and how it could possibly affect them with the Drucker legislation." A charged atmosphere is conveyed: "The reaction from those with various kinds of interests will be fierce. This incoherent and consistently racist posturing in this house against indigenous and first nations." The phrase "Denialism is hate" appears, followed by questions about reconciliation: "Is there an end? Are we ever done reconciling? Why haven't you dug in the ground yet with the millions of dollars you see?" The dialogue closes with concerns about funding and accountability: "All these millions that are that revenue are going through my band. It's not empowering aboriginal people at all. Because we have no idea where all this money is going." The concluding note affirms a long-term process: "The journey of reconciliation is a long one, but it is a journey we are on."

Speaker 0 recounts a recent sit-down podcast-style interview with Andrew Callahan for Channel Five. He says the posted video is only an hour long, but the actual conversation lasted around two and a half hours, and he notes that the posted clip does not reflect what happened. He points to a clip where the question is “Why American city is prospering right now?” and a list of cities is discussed, with responses suggesting prosperity correlates with low state taxes and non-Democrat control. He notes that Denver is described as not prospering, and argues that Andrew did not include this response in the posted clip, implying it would upset his audience. Speaker 1 presents the clip and asserts: “Why American city is prospering right now? Austin. Austin? Name another one? El Paso, Texas.” The dialogue continues with “El Paso, Texas is prospering? Yeah. Nashville. Nashville's doing good. Phoenix is doing good.” The claim follows that “Basically, any place with low state tax is getting a lot of” and then another line, “In any place that's not Democrat.” The exchange then asks for a Democrat city that’s prospering, with the response that Denver would have to be affordable and prospering, and Speaker 1 questions, “Denver. Why are you smirking? It’s not prospering.” The two acknowledge that the Democrat-run states are not prospering, and Speaker 0 notes it’s odd Andrew didn’t include this in the post, suggesting a potential bias or misrepresentation. Speaker 0 then shifts to a separate topic about Somalians and fraud in Minnesota. They state, “89% of the fraud that has been charged inside of Minnesota is by Somalians.” Speaker 1 asks for the source: “Where exactly is that statistic from? You can pull it up on the screen.” They discuss verifying the statistic, with Speaker 1 offering to find it, and Speaker 0 emphasizes that the statistic is presented while noting, “I just wanna make sure we have the exact.” There is a moment where Speaker 1 says, “Oh, do you want me to find it right now? For sure. Just so I can I I don’t know? I I I believe you.” The exchange then shows Speaker 0 claiming that Andrew had to redo or correct the segment due to the fraud claim, and that Andrew’s response seemed to misrepresent the fact. Speaker 0 concludes that these are two examples from the interview where Andrew “literally went out of his way to try and make me look bad,” and asserts that, if he interviews anyone, “you’re gonna get the full product,” claiming to be benevolent in allowing full footage. He encourages viewers to watch the full interview on his second channel.

A speaker points out that poll data adds up to 110%. They ask if this is intentional or an error and yield for clarification. Another speaker responds that the data is from a Quinnipiac poll held two weeks prior, noting it contains information about Donald Trump's falling poll numbers. The first speaker reiterates that the data adds up to 110% and calls the poll "fake."

Speaker 1 states that to be convinced there is no white genocide in South Africa, President Trump would need to listen to South African voices, including those of his friends. Speaker 1 believes that if there was an Afrikaner farmer genocide, his minister of agriculture would not be present. Speaker 0 claims there are thousands of stories, documentaries, and news stories about the genocide. Speaker 0 offers to show articles as evidence. Speaker 1 states that with or without parliament, people are going to occupy land.

Speaker 0 told Speaker 1 they need to read a book because they have no understanding. Speaker 0 then called Speaker 1 an incompetent journalist and said CBC has sunk. Speaker 1 responded that the accusations and shouting were not helpful to the case. Speaker 0 denied shouting and said they were just telling Speaker 1 something as someone doing an interview on the case. Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

Ansel from the community asks Frances Widdowson about a press release regarding unmarked graves at Kamloops Indian Residential School. Council members dismiss her question due to her controversial past and refuse to engage in discussion. Widdowson persists, questioning if spreading misinformation is acceptable. The council avoids answering and moves to adjourn the meeting.

We discussed a sonar scan of land next to a church on an Indian reservation, where something “must be bones” was found and described as a mass murder with bodies dumped there, suggesting it spread across the country. Then we hear about the prime minister apologizing for the mass murder of a Canadian Indian people and ongoing coverage about churches being burned, including Catholic and other churches, with reporters repeatedly presenting new details. There’s talk of the residential schools and how terrible they were, and the narrative is said to go overboard with fabrications that have no evidence whatsoever, claiming not one bone has ever been found and labeling the whole story a hoax. It’s argued that this is acceptable because it criticizes “the evil white settlers” and similar notions, implying a political climate that allows certain criticisms at great length. The discussion moves to the idea that reports can be extended and sensationalized, highlighting the existence of double standards. For example, it’s claimed that the New York Times had a significant piece asserting that photography is racist, with examples like walking dogs being described as a white man’s activity. There’s also mention of Vancouver being characterized as the “anti Asian hate crime capital of the world,” based on statistics described as dubious. The speaker suggests that you can invent such things. In contrast, the speaker argues that when someone blows up an airplane and engages in separatist activity and threatens the leader of India—described as a rather important foreign partner—there is a reluctance to say anything. This is presented as evidence of hypocrisy and double standards that exist in discourse. The overall point is that there are selective criticisms and narratives shaped by political considerations, allowing some topics to be explored at length while others are suppressed or avoided. Key claims repeated include: the sonar finding of bones and a mass murder on land near an Indian reservation; widespread reporting of mass murder and church burnings tied to residential schools; the assertion that not one bone has been found and that the whole story is a hoax; accusations of fabrications with no evidence; the New York Times’ stance on photography as racist; the claim that walking dogs is a white man’s activity; Vancouver as the anti-Asian hate crime capital of the world based on dubious statistics; and the assertion of hypocrisy and double standards when comparing domestic issues to actions by actors related to India.

Speaker 0 states this is the most important election in most of their lifetimes. They claim Trump has made unacceptable threats against the economy, workers, and sovereignty. They believe a particular leader can address these issues and needs support. Speaker 1 accuses Catherine McKenna of losing track of 20,000 contracts worth $236,000,000,000, which they claim is why she is no longer in parliament. Speaker 1 repeats the accusation and insults Speaker 0. Speaker 1 continues to harass Catherine, repeating the $236,000,000,000 figure and using abusive language. Speaker 1 then states that everyone is "fucking retarded."

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they believe white people should pay reparations, claiming Speaker 1 tweeted in January 2020, "Yes, the North. Yes. All of us. Yes. America. Yes. Our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes. Reparations. Yes. On this day." Speaker 1 denies the tweet referred to fiscal reparations. Speaker 1 states the tweet referenced owing much to those who came before. Speaker 0 calls this a bizarre framing of the tweet.

Speaker 0 questions if this could be the biggest setup or crime in the country's history. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of uncovering the truth and the cover-ups post-January 6th, even if it involves Republicans. Speaker 1 commits to following the evidence, regardless of where it leads. Speaker 0 holds Speaker 1 accountable for this commitment. Translation: Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the significance of revealing the truth and uncovering cover-ups post-January 6th, even if it involves members of Speaker 1's own party. Speaker 1 pledges to follow the evidence, no matter the consequences. Speaker 0 reminds Speaker 1 of this commitment.

The video discusses the discovery of a mass grave at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in Canada, initially reported to contain the remains of 215 children. However, it was later clarified that there were 200 probable graves, with no excavations conducted to confirm the presence of bodies. The lack of action from the RCMP, BC coroner's office, and the Catholic Church, which ran the school, is criticized. The speakers express frustration with the difficulty in obtaining information and responses from various organizations involved in the investigations. They also mention the discovery of a juvenile rib bone, emphasizing the need for further investigation and accurate information dissemination. Overall, the community calls for accountability, repatriation, justice, and a proper investigation into the bone discovery.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about calling the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism, despite no official confirmation. Speaker 1 defends their statement, citing media reports and corrections made by CP. Speaker 0 argues that it was irresponsible to make such a statement without proper evidence. Speaker 1 counters by mentioning that CTV reported the incident as terror-related, based on information from security officials in the Trudeau government. Speaker 0 avoids answering the question and ends the conversation.

The speaker says that to be convinced there is no white genocide in South Africa, President Trump would need to listen to the stories and perspectives of South Africans, including his friends. Another speaker claims there are thousands of stories, documentaries, and news stories about it. They show a video of what they claim are burial sites of over a thousand white farmers, with cars lined up to pay respects. They say each white cross represents a white farmer or their family member who was killed. The first speaker expresses unfamiliarity with the scene and asks where it is located. The other speaker says it is in South Africa. The first speaker says they need to find out where it is.

Speaker 0 asks the total number of civilians killed. Speaker 1: "the estimate currently is that there is something in in the realm of one terrorist killed, and in that context, two civilians killed. So that's a very, very low rate." Speaker 0: "Thousand civilians have been killed?" Speaker 1: "Those would be the estimates." Speaker 1 later notes: "there's absolutely no differentiation between terrorists who have been killed and civilians who" and adds "the Gaza Health Ministry, which is Hamas run"—"these are estimates. Nobody knows with any certainty." Speaker 1: "It's approximately two civilians per enemy combatant. Okay." Speaker 0: "So in other words, 60,000 civilians have been killed. Is that what you're saying?" Speaker 1: "Two civilians to one terrorist."

Speaker 0 asks about the amount of money from USAID that went to Wuhan and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the accusation and admits to not having the specific details of USAID funding. Speaker 0 presses for a clear answer, but Speaker 1 deflects and requests respectful questions from the audience. Speaker 0 insists on a denial, calling Speaker 1's response a nondenial denial.

The speaker questions the source of the claim that 20 million lives have been saved. They ask for data and studies to support this number. The response is indirect and the meeting is about to end when the speaker jumps back in to clarify that the 20 million lives saved refers to all vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines. The speaker is unable to ask for further clarification. They find it suspicious that this number is being thrown around without proper explanation. They suggest that these numbers are made up.

Speaker 0 states that whatever a machine tabulates is what it tabulates, and their hand-marked ballot remains the same. Speaker 1 claims ballot images were changed, and that's reflected in the totals, referencing report number 3. Speaker 0 says they've read the reports. Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 knows what they're saying is true. Speaker 1 says their life is on the line. Speaker 0 denies believing Speaker 1 and finds it insulting to have that put on the record. Speaker 1 apologizes, stating that wasn't their intent.