reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 centers on a political figure described as the woman taking over Venezuela. He asserts she is pro Israeli and pro Likud, noting she signed a cooperation deal in 2020 with Netanyahu's Likud party and fully supports Netanyahu's war on Gaza. He questions whether this alignment explains ongoing bombing activity “right now.” Speaker 1 broadens the critique to international responses to violence. He claims the UN has allowed bombing and destruction in Beirut and Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, implying ongoing Western complicity. He then probes what major capitals—Berlin, Paris, London, Washington—will say or do, suggesting they may “keep encouraging the Hitler of the twenty first century now against the noble peaceful people of Iran.” He declares, on behalf of the Bolivarian humanist peaceful people of Venezuela, a stance of resistance to war: “This madness must be stopped.” He calls on the people of Israel and Jews, addressing them as a Christian and Sephardic heir, to stop Netanyahu’s madness, asserting that only the people of Israel can stop this madness and questioning where warmongering will lead. Speaker 1 condemns racism, intolerance, hatred, and violence, asking where such actions will lead and whether missiles and bombs will subdue the will of the world’s peoples. He warns about the consequences of destruction and urges an end to aggression, appealing to the concept of a world court of Israel’s Jewish people and labeling the war as immoral and criminal. He concludes with a call to stop the aggression and ends with a conditional expectation: “We shall see.”

The speaker targets Netanyahu with vehement accusations and vows defiance. 'There you are, mister Netanyahu. Just who do you think you are? Killing thousands and flattening neighborhoods, then wrapping yourself in Judaism like it's some shield from criticism. You're making life for Jews miserable and life for American Jews impossible. Oh, don't you roll your eyes at me, mister.' 'You know what you're doing, and you're doing it on purpose.' 'Well, now you can just sit in that chair because I'm not going anywhere, I've been to every BPA meeting, every school board meeting, and I can go all day.'

Speaker 1 accuses a congressman of physical assault for speaking out against Israel's actions. She filed a complaint with Capitol Police, stating they are fighting against violence and suppression. They aim to stop funding Israel with taxpayer money.

A protester disrupted an event, with the speaker identifying them as a "code pink lunatic" who believes that funding Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. The speaker claimed that Code Pink is funded by communist China.

Speaker 0 recalls writing a resignation email. Speaker 1 states: "That report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on a Biden administration report on whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. "I was shocked to see that it said in very clear terms, it is our determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance." The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. "We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." And after reading, she said: "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again, and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that."

Hillary Clinton was accosted and accused of being a "super predator" responsible for millions of deaths. She was called a genocide supporter and accused of facilitating the genocide of Palestinian people. The speaker demanded to know what Clinton had to say for herself.

Speaker 0 argues that free speech is not a free fall in Europe, contending that two anti free speech movements have coalesced. One movement is in Europe, which has “laid waste to free speech” in countries such as Germany, France, and England, and also in places like Canada. The other movement is described as the US anti-free-speech movement, which began in higher education and then metastasized throughout the government, but which has “all reached our shores now.” The speaker notes that the Berlin World Forum followed remarks on free speech by Vice President Vance, and that the EU was “red hot.” They describe the forum as “the most anti free speech gathering I’ve ever been part of,” with only two attendees from the free speech community, but those present are “committed.” Hillary Clinton is identified as being there and said to have fueled the anger. A key claim is that when Twitter was purchased by Elon Musk, Clinton called on the EU to use the Digital Services Act, described as “one of the most anti free speech pieces of decades,” to force censorship of American citizens and to compel people like Musk to censor. The speaker characterizes this as “an extraordinary act by someone who was once a presidential candidate in The United States,” and asserts that Clinton’s position reflects a commitment to censorship. The speaker further claims that after the World Forum, this effort was globalized, and that they are “threatening companies like ACTS with ruinous fines unless they resume censoring American citizens.” The overall message emphasizes a belief that anti free speech forces are expanding globally, using regulatory tools such as the Digital Services Act to compel censorship and penalize platforms that do not comply, with the World Forum acting as a catalyst for broader international pressure.

According to the speaker, the situation in Gaza is the worst man-made medical disaster in human history. Israeli occupation forces perpetrated over 1,000 attacks on health care in Gaza and the West Bank in the last year. The speaker claims that the systematic starvation and thirsting of 2.3 million people, especially children, is a systematic genocide. The speaker believes the only language Israel understands is sanctions, economic crisis, and a stop to weapon supplies. The speaker states that this systematic genocide is signed off by the United States of America and Israel, with silent support from EU governments, and is one of the greatest human disgraces and a complete moral collapse that will stain history.

Dr. Hassan Abusita was barred from entering Germany to speak at a conference on Palestine. He was questioned for 3.5 hours, had his passport confiscated, and was told to leave the country. He believes Germany is complicit in silencing witnesses of the genocide in Gaza. Abusita emphasizes the importance of speaking out against atrocities to uphold humanity. The crackdown on free speech in this case sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Speaker 1 states there is no genocide in Gaza and that Palestine is a name invented by the Roman Empire. Speaker 0 says this view is not shared by the rest of the world. Speaker 1 responds that they are glad Speaker 0 speaks for the rest of the world. Speaker 0 mentions the United Nations General Assembly. Speaker 1 says the United Nations sends people in blue helmets to rape little girls in Africa and that the United Nations could be pushed into the Hudson. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 thinks of the UN. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's claim to represent the world's opinion.

The speaker tells Israelis watching the video to understand that they are hated internationally. They state that the whole international community loathes them, and that young American citizens in the country—both left and right—loathe them. The speaker emphasizes that these are the people who will come into power in the future, and warns listeners not to be mistaken by propaganda from American media, which the speaker says does not represent how the American people feel about Israelis. The speaker asserts plainly: “You’re hated.” They add that this sentiment isn’t because of Judaism, but because Israelis “slaughter innocent people.” The speaker accuses Israelis of thinking they are “God’s chosen people when you act like absolute demons,” asserting that Israelis “slaughter people and steal land,” and that they think they are “better than everyone else.” Further, the speaker claims Israelis feel entitled to everything, including “our tax dollars,” and describes this mindset as “disgusting.”

Speaker 0: Speaker 0 says that the blessing passage being cited is “not what Genesis says,” asserting instead that “it says, I will bless those who bless Abraham,” and that the person referencing it “couldn't even quote the passage properly.” Speaker 0 argues that the authority used to justify a required action is unreliable, describing it as “preposterous” that someone would misquote scripture while claiming it instructs what to do. Speaker 1: Speaker 1 says the “effect” is to “distort American politics” and references the “Russia hysteria of the last administration,” arguing it was wrong and illegal for a foreign government to control American politics. Speaker 1 contrasts that prior agreement with what they describe as current reality, stating that the focus of the national conversation is “this tiny, totally irrelevant little country” with “one great city, Jerusalem,” which Speaker 1 describes as geopolitically irrelevant yet “at the behest of a foreign government.” Speaker 1 claims a foreign leader is “openly saying, you don't agree with us? We're gonna censor you,” and asks how that “can stand.” Speaker 1 further claims that foreign calls for censorship of American citizens are supported by “all those little satellite groups,” naming the ADL and APAC, and that “the congress obeys.” Speaker 1 concludes that this situation “seems to me that's gotta be a red line.”

The conversation centers on accusations about Venezuela’s leadership and the international response to Middle East conflict. Speaker 0 asserts that “the woman” who is supposedly taking over Venezuela is pro Israeli and pro Likud, noting she signed a cooperation deal in 2020 with Netanyahu’s Likud party and fully supports Netanyahu’s war on Gaza, asking, “This is why we're seeing the bombing of them right now?” Speaker 1 counters by outlining a pattern of what they view as permissive international inaction. They assert that “The UN has allowed the bombing and destruction of Beirut and Lebanon. They've allowed the bombing and destruction of Syria. Every day, they permit the bombing of Yemen's Arab people.” They then ask what major Western capitals—Berlin, Paris, London, Washington—will say as they “keep encouraging the Hitler of the twenty first century now against the noble peaceful people of Iran.” They declare, “The Bolivarian humanist peaceful people of Venezuela say no to war,” urging that the madness must be stopped. Speaker 1 then addresses Israelis and Jews directly, framing themselves as a Christian and Sephardic heir who tells them to “stop Netanyahu's madness.” They state that only “the people of Israel can stop this madness.” They question where warmongering will lead and warn about the consequences of racism, intolerance, hatred, and violence. They ask whether missiles and bombs will subdue the will of the world’s peoples and call for an end to aggression against Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Yemenis, and the noble people of Iran. The speaker emphasizes that “The ball is in the court of Israel's Jewish people” and urges an end to this “immoral war, this criminal war.” The exchange conveys a sense of urgency and moral appeal, framed as a call for stopping perceived aggression and imperial complicity, while highlighting the interconnections between Venezuelan solidarity with peaceful movements and opposition to ongoing bombardments in the region. We shall see.

Speaker 0 said that the person is banned from entry to the United States and therefore cannot use a bank card or a debit card, and cannot receive a payment. Speaker 0 stated that the measures send a message of deterrence. Speaker 0 also said that after the person was sanctioned, authorities identified her husband, who works for the World Bank and shares in her incitement. Speaker 0 further stated that the husband was demoted from his World Bank position for incitement to hate.

- The speaker claims that John Ratcliffe, the CIA, and Mossad are all the same, asserting that CIA and Mossad were involved with the assassination of Charlie Kirk and questioning where Steve Bannon stands on that issue. The speaker lambasts Ratcliffe as a “gosh damn fraud” and accuses intelligence agencies of destroying the country, urging removal, arrest, and charging of these figures. - The speaker recounts past involvement with Steve Bannon’s network, saying they used to be on frequently to discuss border and child trafficking topics, but after shifting to child trafficking, Bannon became unavailable. The speaker asks viewers to comment on whether they should appear on Bannon’s show again when a new documentary on child trafficking is released in November, and claims to have sent many texts to Bannon’s daughter, suggesting a sense of personal outreach that went unanswered. - A request is made for Bannon to show up on the speaker’s channel, with the speaker implying a personal connection and asking viewers to indicate if they think the speaker should appear on Bannon’s show as the new documentary drops. - The speaker urges viewers to watch their video and claims that Ratcliffe is a “gosh damn fraud” and a traitor, arguing that the two-tier justice system exists because intelligence agencies are “destroying our gosh damn country.” - Speaker 1 adds, supporting a broader conspiracy narrative: Witkoff is briefed three times a day by the CIA, and they lie to him. The speaker asserts this is not a marginal intelligence mistake but a deliberate pattern. - The discussion moves to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with claims that Hamas “doesn’t wanna do the deal” and that this comes from the Mossad and Netanyahu. There are calls for Ratcliffe to resign or for a congressional hearing on national television to reveal what Ratcliffe told negotiators. - The speaker references the beginning of a twelve-day war and says what Ratcliffe told the president about it was a lie, supported by a claim from the Times of Israel that cabinet minutes show Netanyahu’s cabinet was two years away from any emergency, not two days or two weeks. The speaker contends there was an emergency to kill negotiators so Witkoff could not meet in Muscat, Oman, on a Sunday, alleging that Mossad controls the CIA. - The closing remark credits Tulsi Gabbard and claims she was targeted or run out of the city, reinforcing the theme of institutional control by Mossad over American intelligence agencies.

Speaker 0 warned that if any ally tries to help the ICC, they will be sanctioned. They said, "we're gonna sanction you," and that "we should crush your economy because we're next." They referenced Justin in Canada and his position, asking, "What should the penalty be?"

The conversation centers on punitive measures allegedly imposed by the United States and the accusations surrounding who is responsible for violent crime and support of extremist groups. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being shut down because of criticisms of people profiting from mass murder. In response, Speaker 1 details a cascade of sanctions and restrictions: “I’m banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.” Speaker 1 adds that health insurance has been suspended “because I’m sanctioned by The United States,” indicating a broad range of denials tied to U.S. sanctions. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1, asking if anything is being left out and probing whether Speaker 1 has engaged in activities such as sending money to Hamas or participating in actions against the IDF, labeling Hamas as “A terror group.” The implication of the question is to suggest that Speaker 1’s sanctions might be connected to support for hostile or criminal activity. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the accusation, stating, “The only one who’s aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.” This assertion presents the United States as the active party in aiding or abetting crimes, according to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 concludes the exchange with a soft expression of concession, saying, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry to agree with you on that,” implying reluctant agreement with Speaker 1’s critical stance toward U.S. actions. Key points emphasize the scope of Speaker 1’s sanctions: travel ban to the United States, financial censorship, inability to use a credit card, inability to receive or make payments, and suspension of health insurance due to U.S. sanctions. The dialogue also highlights a dispute over responsibility for violence and crime, with Speaker 1 asserting that the United States is the one aiding and abetting crimes, while Speaker 0 questions whether Speaker 1 has engaged with or supported extremist activity such as funding Hamas or opposing the IDF. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging agreement with Speaker 1’s critical position on U.S. involvement, albeit reluctantly.

Bensouda, former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and currently Gambia’s High Commissioner to the UK, described 17 years at the ICC, including eight years as deputy prosecutor and nine years as chief prosecutor, during which she faced intimidation, pressure, and threats related to the ICC’s investigations into war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. She said this work “triggers pushback” against the court. She stated that in 2015, after opening an examination into Palestine, she began receiving threats involving both herself and her family. She described an early incident in The Hague when she was still living there: two men visited her house in a car parked not next to the residence. She said she did not know where they were from. The driver took the car’s number plate, and she eventually came out while the men stood outside and did not enter. She said they handed her an envelope containing about $500 and told her it was from someone she had helped, which she interpreted as showing they knew where she lived. She reported the incident to ICC security and to the registrar, returned the money, and submitted the number plate. She said the only established detail was that the phone numbers provided were from Israel. She also said Dutch authorities did not do more investigation “as far as I know.” She said Israel made her feel insecure and that this was the first clear Israeli attempt she knew of to persuade her to stop the Palestine investigations. She referenced other security-related incidents around the time, including someone caught near her house taking photos, and the broader context that she had also requested investigations into the US military regarding Afghanistan war crimes, and that Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire cases were still ongoing. Bensouda said she later met Yossi Cohen, the head of Mossad at the time. She described meeting him first in Munich and again in a hotel in New York during the UN General Assembly period, where she was meeting a head of state. She said Cohen approached and the meeting concerned the Palestine investigations. She said Cohen indicated that they did not want the Palestine investigations to continue and that she should stop. She portrayed the progression of the message as initially friendly and attempts to win her over, then increasingly direct: she said Cohen repeatedly insisted that she stop the investigations and that this was the “bottom line.” She said she responded by keeping it quiet and reporting to ICC security and informing Dutch authorities, while avoiding alarming general ICC staff to prevent panic and protect the work. She said she was not aware of extra support from the Dutch government beyond reporting. She also said some authorities urged her to stop because she could be harmed or killed, but she said stopping was “out of the question” to her. She argued that state parties established the ICC have a responsibility to protect and insulate the court from attacks and to ensure personnel feel protected, but that they were not doing enough, and that justice was being sacrificed to political interests. Bensouda said that in 2019 she announced the investigation in the Palestine case and that soon afterward the United States imposed stiff sanctions. She said the sanctions affected her daily life beyond travel, including blocking her bank account at the UN Federal Credit Union and disrupting simple transactions such as booking hotels and transferring money. She said the ICC registrar, working with Dutch authorities, managed for banks to accept to receive her salary, but she said other banks associated with her, including her mortgage bank, closed down. She also said her son’s account in the Gambia was blocked, and that efforts were made to investigate her husband through photographs and audio recordings to determine whether he was involved in anything illegal. She said the threats and sanctions had an impact on the ICC’s work, noting that even measures taken to keep cases moving cannot fully prevent disruption. She concluded that states should come together with structures that act immediately when attacks happen, instead of waiting and scrambling afterward, and that they do not speak with “the same voice,” with some states refusing to help.

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

The speaker claims, in sworn testimony, to have admitted to lying to the US government about a UN policy. According to the speaker, the UN admits in court filings that this is an ongoing policy. The speaker states they were not fired for lying, but for objecting to the Secretary General's policy, specifically for informing the US delegation and Congress about it. The speaker asserts the UN believes it has the right to lie to the US government, its largest donor, about providing names of US citizens to the Chinese Communist Party. The speaker says they were fired for revealing the truth about this policy.

I'm proposing to reduce Samantha Power's salary to $1. As USAID administrator, Power is a globalist activist pushing regime views. She prioritized diversity, marginalized voices, and responsive aid. USAID now focuses on food security, climate change, and DEI, even installing DEI advisors and scorecards, demanding ideological conformity. Power has met repeatedly with left-wing foundations like Soros' Open Society and the Gates Foundation, exemplifying the Biden administration's close ties to groups executing extreme policies. As UN ambassador, she requested unmasking names linked to the 2016 Trump campaign. Rewarded with a permanent seat on the National Security Council, Power abuses her position to impose a left-wing agenda. This amendment holds her accountable.

The conversation centers on Venezuela and regional concerns. Speaker 0 notes that there were voices suggesting Venezuela isn’t so bad and that Latin America isn’t either, but they remain unconvinced. They ask Abe for good reasons not to be convinced. Abe responds that there are good reasons: Venezuela is getting worse, little by little, as long as oil money continues to flow. Speaker 0 then relays information from experts: Venezuela, apart from Iran, is the only government that propagates anti-Semitism around the world. The claim is that it’s already formalized, first within the country and then outside. The discussion moves to what actions might be taken. Speaker 0 asks whether there is any pressing effort underway. They say they’ve talked to Jesse Jackson, noting the relationship, but it’s not for Kenra; there are other plans, which will be discussed in a moment.

The discussion centers on alleged child sex abuse within the United Nations and how it is handled internally. The second speaker asserts that many UN employees, including those at the UN, treat child sex abuse as “a cost of doing business.” They state that French peacekeepers were abusing children in the Central African Republic, with children as young as eight years old being forced to perform sexual acts in exchange for food. This claim is described as despicable and the opposite of the UN’s mission. The second speaker further contends that, according to their account, anyone involved in cover-ups of child sexual abuse “without exception, has been promoted.” In contrast, those who report abuses or attempt to stop them are said to have been fired or resigned. They claim the UN has spent more than 3,000,000 US dollars on silencing them personally. A broader critique is offered of the UN’s stance on whistleblowing, summarized by the assertion that “the UN's position on whistleblowing, whether it's this, child's excuse, or anything, is destroy the whistleblower.” The first speaker appears to challenge whether such allegations are being spoken about publicly by someone within the organization who knows about ongoing abuse, implying fear of job loss as a deterrent to speaking out. The second speaker presses the point with a direct personal inquiry, noting that an assistant secretary general is “not speaking out about someone he knows who is raping multiple children because he's worried he's gonna lose his job,” and asking, “Yeah. What's his name?” Overall, the exchange attributes a systemic pattern of abuse and retaliation to silence whistleblowers within the UN, highlighting specific alleged incidents in Central African Republic involving French peacekeepers and a broader accusation that reporting abuse is penalized while cover-ups are rewarded.

In a discussion about a Biden administration report on Gaza, Speaker 1 recounts Her resignation over what she perceived as amisleading conclusion. She says, "I said that report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on the administration’s report regarding whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. Speaker 0 notes that Gilbert was asked for input, and Gilbert confirms she advised that the conclusion was not the case. She states, "The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." When the report was released, it "just doesn't include what you had to say?" Gilbert responds, "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that." Overall, the exchange highlights Gilbert’s claim that the report claimed Israel was not blocking humanitarian assistance, despite her advice to the contrary, the removal of subject matter experts, the report being elevated, and her subsequent decision to consider resigning after the public release did not reflect her input.

The UN Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese, is described as having said that America is controlled by the Jewish lobby. The speaker claims that on October 7 she defended Hamas by saying there is a context, and that she repeatedly echoes “the worst blood libels against Israel” on Twitter. The speaker states that Albanese is “the leading purveyor of the genocide libel,” and says their group is “fighting back” by exposing what they call hateful remarks. They claim Albanese has become the first UN rapporteur in history to have been condemned by France, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, Argentina, Hungary, the United States, and other countries including Latvia and Estonia, and that “each condemnation matters.” They say they led a campaign that gathered 120,000 people, including attendees, who signed a petition asking Secretary Rubio to take action because the U.N. failed to act. They say Secretary Rubio announced that, for the first time in history, the United States would sanction a U.N. official on July 9. The speaker asserts that the U.S. sanctioned Albanese and adds that this results in multiple restrictions: she is banned entry from the United States; she cannot use a bank card; she cannot use a debit card; and she cannot receive a payment. They quote Albanese as describing the sanctions as “devastating,” and as saying, “very good, very good,” and that it sends a message of deterrence. The speaker then claims consequences beyond the sanctions. They say that Albanese’s husband, who works for the World Bank and is described as sharing in her incitement, was demoted from his position at the World Bank for incitement to hate. After Albanese was sanctioned, the speaker claims that the head of the Commission of Inquiry against Israel, Navi Pillay, resigned. Finally, the speaker says they heard Albanese has family in the United States and that she was afraid that if she were sanctioned she could not enter the U.S., concluding that she resigned in that context.