reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims the president is determined to defy experts and embrace a myth of America that overlooks historical injustices. This myth suggests America treated people well and was founded solely on its own merits, which the speaker says is a lie. The speaker asserts that celebrating America's independence occurs on stolen Native American land, overseen by presidents who owned slaves or desecrated native lands. They state that Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan disturbed many, especially people of color, because it appeals to white resentment and those worried about America's future and "browning." Instead of acknowledging America's true history, the speaker believes President Trump is choosing to side with this myth.

The speaker claims the idea that Native Americans were peaceful before white settlers arrived is a false legend. They assert that Native American tribes were killing each other and conquering each other's land long before white settlers arrived. The speaker equates this to white settlers conquering Native Americans, stating it was done with no less noble authority. The speaker declares this to be the truth, not a legend, and "your story of my people."

Political science professor Wilfred Riley's new book, "Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me," challenges the romanticized view of Native Americans as peaceful stewards of the environment. He argues that government guides and textbooks falsely portray natives as living in harmony with nature, not killing anything they couldn't use. Riley claims this is untrue, citing examples of buffalo hunts, intertribal warfare, and even cannibalism. The transcript asserts that natives manipulated their environment through practices like setting large forest fires. It also claims that some tribes practiced slavery. The speaker suggests that the myth of peaceful natives persists due to Marxism and critical race theory, which allegedly promote the idea that Western values are inherently bad. The speaker concludes that while white people committed atrocities against Native Americans, such behavior was not unique. They state that nearly every society had slavery, cruel wars, and environmental destruction. They also state that the West led the world in making things better, citing the Geneva Convention and capitalist countries lifting people out of poverty and protecting the environment.

Nigel Farage is said to be the subject of an in-depth investigation in The Times into “illicit funding,” undeclared and running into millions, attributed to a convicted criminal. The betting markets are described as nearly closed on the proposition that Nigel Farage is poised to resign over mounting financial scandals. The speaker predicts that reform is finished “with Nigel Farage,” especially if he is forced out by House of Commons authorities. The speaker then claims that the BBC has used “the law to force you to pay them,” and says the BBC has informed YouTube that it must prioritize “trusted news sources.” The speaker argues that prioritizing BBC One, BBC Two, Channel Four, Sky News, and “Uncle Tom, Cobbly and all” would deprioritize other outlets, and claims YouTube must comply “on pain of financial sanction or worse.” The speaker adds that after this, a BBC license fee may be charged for watching YouTube, which is currently exempt. They say many people watch television only on computers via YouTube and other platforms and therefore avoid a license fee, but predict this will not last. The speaker moves to international stories, describing the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Sayyid Ali Khamenei), the leader and theologian of Iran, and says he was slain by “the United States and Israel” on the first day of the Ramadan war. The speaker claims Khamenei’s wife, daughter, and her children were also killed, and says a 14-month-old granddaughter was burned to death while playing with toys. The speaker further claims Washington, D.C., and “occupied Tel Aviv” were locations of attacks involving children, and says 160 schoolgirls were murdered in Minab while sitting at desks. They describe a funeral process lasting six days because coffins of Khamenei’s family are moved around cities in Iran, then to Karbala in neighboring Iraq, and finally back to Mashhad where he will be buried. The speaker says funeral commemorations involve “10 million people” in Tehran and calls it “the biggest funeral in human history,” adding that Trump’s July 4th celebrations were overshadowed. According to the speaker, Donald Trump reacted to Axios accounts of “millions of people weeping,” despite claims that they “didn’t like him.” The speaker says Trump is now seeing the same pictures, and claims the grieving crowd is shifting toward revenge, with “red flags of revenge” replacing other flags. They argue the chant “death to America” would be expected because, they say, it was America that caused the funeral and murdered Khamenei and others, leading to further war dynamics. The speaker then delivers a history of “American imperialism,” saying the U.S. is 250 years old and that only 19 years have passed without the U.S. being at war with other people. They claim the U.S. and Western Europe have invaded other countries, “stealing their land,” “stealing their wealth,” and taking people as slaves, and they assert that the U.S. was founded on “the genocide of the Native American people.” They claim Spanish, French, English, and “Western, settler colonialism” murdered “a hundred million Native Americans,” and say Africans were taken into slavery and later subjected to apartheid systems “until this day.” They also mention celebrations by people in Beirut and by “lunatics in Japan” after U.S. atomic bombs. Finally, the speaker returns to Trump’s July 4th events, calling him a “thief,” a “betrayer,” and accusing him of abusing women and allegedly “little girls,” associating him with “Epstein class degenerates,” and says it is a misfortune that the time has been “Donald Trump.” They end by saying two guests will appear, beginning with Professor Mohammad Marandi, “direct from Tehran.”

Political science professor Wilfred Riley's new book, "Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me," challenges the romanticized view of Native Americans as peaceful stewards of the environment. He argues that government guides and textbooks falsely portray natives as living in harmony with nature, not killing anything they couldn't use. Riley claims this is untrue, citing examples of buffalo hunts, tribal warfare, and even cannibalism. The transcript asserts that Native Americans also practiced slavery and manipulated their environment through large-scale forest fires. It suggests that the myth of peaceful natives persists due to a "brain virus" among those who want the myth to be real and that this thinking is downstream from Marxism and critical race theory. The transcript concludes by stating that America's sins were not unique and that the West has led the world in making things better, lifting people out of poverty, and protecting the environment.

The speaker claims the president is determined to disregard experts and perpetuate a myth of America as a nation that treated people well and was founded solely on its own merits. They assert that America's independence is celebrated on stolen Native American land, overlooked by presidents who owned slaves or oversaw the desecration of native lands. The speaker suggests that Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan resonates with white resentment, offering a sense of victimhood to those worried about America's browning. Instead of embracing a future that acknowledges America's true history, the speaker believes President Trump aligns himself with the myth of America.

The Afrikaans people have no other home, and their language is unique to them. They are descendants of Dutch settlers who arrived in South Africa before the British. The speaker argues against rewriting history to pretend that African tribes didn't compete for resources before settlers arrived. They recount a story about Zulu tribesmen questioning why white men cared more about rhinos than their own land. The speaker questions who has a legitimate claim to land, as they believe humanity's presence is increasingly viewed as an aberration. They claim that when farmers arrived in South Africa, the land was uninhabited and transformed into fertile land. They warn of the consequences of governments taking land without compensation, citing Zimbabwe as an example where land seizures led to violence, cronyism, and agricultural collapse. The speaker suggests that simply being Black does not qualify someone to manage a commercial farm.

Speaker 0 argues that white Americans will soon be a minority, and that this is great. Speaker 1 counters that whites will not be the majority and describes it as an exciting transformation and evolution, a progress of the country. Speaker 2 states that whites will be a minority very soon and says, “I'm okay with that.” Speaker 1 asks, if the white working class is in trouble, whether new Americans should be brought in. Speaker 3 predicts America will look very different in a hundred years, with racial labels becoming less distinct (“You're black, you're white, you're Hispanic, you're Puerto Rican, whatever”), and says that complexity will be good in the end. Speaker 2 contends that white Americans feel they are losing their country and ownership, and that they are, in the end, not the future. Speaker 3 asserts that for the first time in American history, the number of white people went down; “White population is declining for the first time in history in America.” Speaker 3 cautions that white people will not be the majority in the country anymore, noting it will be the first generation with whites as a minority. Speaker 1 proclaims, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Speaker 3 proclaims that to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people. Speaker 1 contends that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate. Speaker 3 declares, “We gotta take these motherfuckers out.” Speaker 2 asks whether it was the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies. Speaker 3 responds, “We have to kill white people,” and, when pressed, mirrors that sentiment with, “When we say we wanna kill whites, we don't really mean we wanna kill whites. We do. We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem.” Speaker 1 comments, “When do we start killing white people?” and then, “start killing all white folks, but maybe?” Speaker 3 reiterates the extermination goal, stating, “We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem.” Speaker 5 adds, “An unrelenting stream of immigration. Nonstop. Nonstop. Folks like me who were Caucasian of European descent will be in an absolute minority in The United States Of America. Absolute minority.” He concludes that this shift is not a bad thing and calls it a source of strength.

The speakers discuss the origins and identity of the United States. One speaker asserts the country's foundation is rooted in the "European mind" and Western European Christian descent, not any other group. Another speaker questions the concept of a "Chinese mind" and suggests the USA would be different if founded by another group. One speaker believes America's unifying principle is not race or ethnicity, but the doctrine of human rights. Another speaker believes that people inevitably bring their culture with them. They argue that the "Anglo Saxon culture" started the country and that culture and philosophy are inseparable. This speaker identifies with the Western Anglo-Saxon culture and philosophy as the defining characteristic of America, more so than its geography.

Political science professor Wilfred Riley's new book, "Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me," challenges the romanticized view of Native Americans as peaceful stewards of the environment. He argues that government guides and textbooks falsely portray natives as living in harmony with nature, not killing anything they couldn't use, and lacking prejudice or major wars. Riley claims that natives manipulated their environment through large-scale forest fires, practiced slavery, and engaged in cannibalism. He points to the Aztec capital's towers of skulls as evidence against the notion of universal peace. The speaker suggests that the persistence of the "peaceful native" myth stems from Marxism and critical race theory, which promote the idea that Western values are inherently bad and that white Americans have gained advantages through racism. He concludes that while America has its sins, they were not unique, and the West has led the world in positive advancements like the Geneva Convention and lifting people out of poverty.

The speaker discusses the expansion of Israeli settlements into the Jordanian territory and expresses their belief that the borders of Israel should extend from the Nile to the Euphrates. They state that any land conquered by Israel will become part of the country and that the role of the Israeli people is to conquer the land and remove non-Jews from it. The speaker openly admits to being racist, preferring Jews over Arabs in various aspects of life. Another speaker briefly mentions the American conquest of Native American territory.

White people fear letting go of power because they believe domination is human nature. However, history shows that black and brown people existed without subjugation before white colonialism. The speaker advocates for moving beyond whiteness and imagining a world without it. They emphasize that whiteness has a beginning and will have an end, and that black and indigenous cultures existed long before white colonialism. The goal is to overcome the historical tragedy of whiteness and create a better future.

The speaker acknowledges Indigenous Peoples' Day and the need to speak truth about the nation's history. They state that since 1934, the U.S. has recognized the voyage of European explorers every October. However, this is not the whole story, as these explorers ushered in devastation for tribal nations through violence, land theft, and disease. The speaker emphasizes the importance of acknowledging this shameful past, shedding light on it, and addressing its impact on native communities today.

The speaker asserts that “The Bush regime was front for the Vatican” and that “The most important enemy this country has today, people will never understand it, but the biggest enemy that this nation today has is the Vatican.” They question the origin of the nation’s founders, asking, “What do you think the founding fathers … where did they come from?” and answer, “they came from Europe.” The speaker traces history back to “twenty five hundred years Rome under the Caesars of Rome,” stating that “after the fall of the Caesars in the fourth century and with the coming of the Vatican in the fifth century,” Europe has been dominated for that same span. The claim is then made that “All of Europe has been dominated for over two thousand five hundred years by Rome and Europe has dominated the world for two thousand five hundred years.” The speaker urges listeners to “start looking at the Holy father, and you better start finding out the connection between the Vatican and the Nazi party of Adolf,” tying the Vatican to broader historical influence and power. The overarching assertion is that “The Bush regime was front for the Vatican,” and that the Vatican represents “the most important enemy this country has today.”

The speaker asserts the dominant narrative in America is that white people are evil and should be ashamed. The other speaker believes people should take responsibility for the system they've created. The first speaker calls it the best system in the world, but the second speaker disagrees, citing many European countries are better off. The first speaker asks if they mean European countries with a higher density of whites, like Northern Europe, which the second speaker seems to confirm. The first speaker points out the better systems aren't in Turkey or communist Eastern Europe, implying the only systems considered better than America are more white than America.

Speaker 0 argues that “tribalism is driven by external hostility,” not only in the context of Jews, the Holocaust, and antisemitism, but broadly. He says the United States does not have “white race consciousness” because white Americans have been a majority and “there’s really no such thing as white people.” He claims America was settled by the British and then colonized, with multiple subsequent waves of European migration—“Even more Germans,” then the Irish, then the Italians. According to him, these migration waves did not see themselves as one group of people. He adds that what is now an emerging “white consciousness” is occurring because of opposition to a historically diverse set of people, who are being treated as one group. He compares this grouping to the term “Jew,” saying it functions as an umbrella term because “Jews are different people.”

A recurring historical pattern is presented: Jews have repeatedly faced expulsion and exclusion across civilizations. The first speaker traces this motif through time, noting that a pattern emerges in which Jews “fled” and “hosted no more,” with December marking a century passing and England issuing an edict that “sent them free.” They reference “1,032 times toll from ancient days to years of old” as a tally of migrations or expulsions recorded in history. The speaker also points to a decisive moment in 1492, noting that “a decree, Spain's Alhambra forced Jews to flee,” highlighting this as a landmark event in the long arc of expulsions. The overall message emphasizes a long historical continuum of Jewish displacement and shifting fates tied to political decrees and social pressures. The second speaker shifts the focus to contemporary experiences of exclusion, presenting a charged argument about schooling and social integration. They question what happens when a child is “thrown out from every single school in the tri state area,” suggesting that at some point “the principal is gonna tell you, it's not the schools.” They claim, “Jews have been thrown out from every single country they ever lived in besides maybe five,” naming places including “New Zealand, Australia, America, maybe another two.” They challenge the listener to identify “one country in the world that they lived, they weren't expelled from.” They then urge a moment of self-reflection, stating, “So at some point, you gotta look at yourself and say, you know what? Maybe it's us. So you become a self hating Jew.” They describe a cumulative history of expulsion, declaring, “Two thousand years of being thrown out of every school,” and conclude that there is an issue to be faced within the community. The third speaker reinforces the theme with a concise assertion: “We are a people that has been kicked out of every place we've ever lived for two thousand years. Every single place.” This reiterates the claim of pervasive displacement across eras and locations, emphasizing the enduring, uniform pattern of expulsion claimed by the speakers.

The discussion opens with a claim of “a massive pyramid right next to St. Louis” and references “boots on the ground footage” in episode 45. It then pivots to an article titled “the Mounds Complex, Ancient Open Air University of North America for teaching navigation and cyclic astronomy,” quoting a paragraph stating that in the 1880s archaeologists found extensive skeletal evidence in mounds, including very large individuals in deep chambers “achieving heights of seven to eight feet,” with “six fingers, six toes, and double rows of teeth where hair was still present,” described as often red or blonde. The speaker then connects this information to a claimed cover-up, naming John Wesley Powell as “the first director of the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology at the Smithsonian Institute,” and asserting that Powell decided what people would learn, including claiming that Indians were the only people in the Americas prior to Columbus and that Indians were responsible for the mounds. The speaker also claims that “fully documented reliable accounts” exist of Smithsonian personnel traveling to 1800s communities in middle America to take possession of large skeletons exhumed from the mounds, with documentation in papers. The transcript then moves to a timeline challenge involving a 1771 Catholic temple reference and comparisons to Coquitlam/“St. Clair County,” described as not being found until April 27th, 1790. The speaker claims this creates confusion about how many temples existed in a small town in 1771 and proposes that the temple might relate to “giant bones” or outlines found “24 inches under the dirt.” Next, the speaker focuses on Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio, describing Joseph arriving from Germany in 1867, becoming a priest in 1870, and founding what is described as the St. Joseph Orphan Asylum. The speaker describes rapid growth, moving closer to the railroad after five years to disperse children, and claims the operation functioned through churches, managers/priests from Europe, provided houses and resources, and acquired new buildings “given” rather than built. The speaker argues that the orphan system served as repopulation by training or teaching trades, and claims this pattern occurred across many locations simultaneously for 12 years. Additional examples are provided: - St. Vincent’s Infant Asylum in Baltimore, described as having tunnels under the ground in the mid-1800s; the speaker claims it was converted to apartments in the early 1900s, lit during a 2015 fire attempt, and then demolished without a permit in 2018. - St. Mary’s Orphan Asylum in Galveston, Texas, described as “haunted,” framed as discouraging investigation; the speaker adds that there was a fire in 1875 and continues to link these as part of mid-1800s repopulation. The transcript then shifts to Germany, referencing kindergarten (“Kinder Beware” / “kindergarten”) and asserting kindergarten as a tactic to teach new social structures by taking children from their families and testing compliance. It claims self-worth and social pressure would be tied to performance, and says kindergarten began in Germany around the mid-1800s. The speaker links this to broader claims of worldwide coordination, including education being influenced by Germany, and discusses borders as possibly not existing in the “previous civilization.” The discussion returns to the orphan system scale in the United States, claiming more than 1,600 institutions (partly supported by public funding, usually run by religious orders) and “more than five million American children” passing through in the 1900s alone, peaking in the early 1900s. The speaker ties the destruction of minds to World War I (1914–1919), citing draft/volunteer numbers and referencing “shell-shocked” effects. Later, the transcript focuses on London’s Royal Courts of Justice, describing a design competition beginning in 1866 and ending in 1867. It emphasizes claims about 12 architects, extensive rooms and corridors, and names “George Street” as the contest winner. The speaker highlights a repeated pattern of contest winners dying before completion and argues that recurring builder names suggest an “AI” generating names across projects. It then claims that George Street is “Mr. George Edmund Street” and asserts implausible dates and ages for his supposed works, while also identifying “George Street” and “George Prine” as additional repeated “George” naming. The speaker further claims that a nearby castle story connects to Windsor Castle. Finally, the transcript cites “Windsor Castle” as being built in 1070 as a fortress, covering 484,000 square feet with about 1,000 rooms, plus figures such as “300 fireplaces and 379 clocks,” using these to argue that the historical timeline is inconsistent and that the “reset” began around 1800 or earlier, repeatedly contrasting claimed “previous civilization” capabilities with modern limitations.

The transcript is a sprawling, high‑tension discussion in which the speakers elaborate a globalist–style scenario of escalating crisis, famine, and war, with frequent references to geopolitics, historical precedent, and provocatively conspiratorial interpretations. Key points and claims: - Catastrophic deaths and cascading conflict: The speakers repeatedly state that billions could die at the current pace, with the rate likely to be “the big time,” not merely tens of millions. They describe a trajectory toward full‑scale war and famine that could intensify over years. - Nuclear war and false flags: They suggest some actors “actually want to have a nuclear war,” and discuss the possibility that a false flag in the United States could trigger broader conflict. They claim globalist actors are manoeuvring toward such outcomes. - Global famine and migration as a driver of conflict: The conversation centers on famines as the trigger for massive migration pressures. They describe famine as creating “human osmotic pressure” that drives migration through routes like the Darien Gap, potentially to the United States, with ships possibly coming up the Mississippi and other routes to drop off tens of thousands of migrants. They warn Americans will be killed if authorities don’t stop this. - Military escalation and re‑armament at home: They predict the United States will see a military draft “as they’re gonna Ukraine it,” with native populations replaced by migrants who crossed through places like the Darien Gap. They describe the creation of new foreign armies or “Ukrainian” style armies within the U.S. and even in places like Ireland and Hispaniola. - Special forces and foreign armies: The discussion invokes Green Berets and OSS history to claim special forces are used to raise up foreign armies or internal resistances, including examples from Iraq and Afghanistan. They argue this is a normal pattern repeated worldwide, with implications for how futures might unfold. - Strategic chokepoints and “closing” maneuvers: They discuss the closing of major maritime chokepoints—Strait of Malacca, Hormuz, Turkish Straits, and potentially the Danish Straits or Kra Isthmus Canal—as mechanisms to pressure China and other powers into famine or surrender. The claim is that closing these routes would dramatically affect global trade and food supplies, accelerating collapse. - Iran–Israel–U.S. dynamics and a broader war: They describe a confrontation involving Iran, Iran’s missiles, and attacks near Dubai/UAE, with references to Trump’s shifting stance from “we’re done” to “total war.” They assert that the war could involve the Strait of Hormuz and broader campaigns against multiple nations, including threats to reset the entire geopolitical order. - attribution of responsibility and power dynamics: They argue Zionist actors are using the United States and other nations to fight China and Russia or to push for famine and disruption. They claim “the Zionists are using The United States against China and Russia” and that Israel is pursuing “Greater Israel” ambitions, with fluctuating opinions within Israel about the approach. - Argentina, Brazil, and South American pivot: They predict expansion of influence or conflict into South America (Argentina, Brazil), with implications for Chile, Paraguay, and the Drake Passage. They suggest Argentina could become a new focal point for Zionist–Chinese strategies and that Israel may seek relocation of power through places like Argentina or Ukraine in the event of a broader collapse. - Economic and fertilizer considerations: They note fertilizer shortages impacting the global economy, stressing that 30% of global fertilizer production is affected, contributing to the risk of widespread food insecurity and social unrest. - Historical and anthropological framing: The speakers frequently frame current events as a continuation of “manifest destiny” and globally systemic strategies to divide, conquer, and reallocate resources. They discuss “anthropological warfare” as a technique historically used to acquired land or resources, and they reference archival sources (e.g., Smithsonian ethnographies, War Department reports) to illustrate how populations have been managed or manipulated in past expansions. - U.S. domestic and cultural factors: They claim the United States faces domestic upheaval including potential draft scenarios, civil unrest, and demographic shifts tied to migration and military restructuring. They describe the American political and military establishment as being targeted by a broader plan to destabilize and collapse state structures. - Trump, Netanyahu, and political leverage: The conversation frames Trump and Netanyahu as central players whose actions are instrumental in the ongoing strategic dynamic, including alleged manipulation by Netanyahu to shape U.S. policy. They argue the broader crisis is designed to “kill the recovery” and enable a “great reset.” - Media, narratives, and stagecraft: There is repeated skepticism about staged events or what they regard as propaganda—examples include discussions of a controversial event at the White House and the portrayal of security and intelligence actions as orchestrated theater. They assert that real action is at the strategic level of infrastructure destruction, famine, and war rather than political theatre. - Personal and historical anecdotes: Michael Yon is introduced as a guest with a long background as a Green Beret and combat photographer; he and the hosts discuss historical episodes (e.g., the OSS, U.S. expansion, and the role of “Scots‑Irish” in American history) to illustrate patterns of colonization, military strategy, and “the globalist Thunderdome” that have shaped past and present dynamics. - Call to action and media strategy: The speakers urge listeners to support their network and products as a practical means to sustain reporting and analysis. They frame listeners as “the brains, the guts, the eyes, the blood” of a resistance movement and emphasize rapid sharing of content and recruitment to counter narratives they label as globalist control. - Closing tone: The speakers insist that the crisis is already underway, with famines and wars advancing, and they insist there is little chance of peaceful resolution unless drastic changes occur. They emphasize preparedness, historical awareness, and continued dissemination of information as essential. Overall, the dialogue presents a densely interwoven view of imminent famine, geopolitical manipulation, and multipolar conflict, punctuated by strong, conspiratorial framing of Zionist influence, the role of Israel, and the use of historical patterns of conquest and “anthropological warfare” to justify a foreseen, protracted crisis with major implications for global order.

The blood in our veins is the same blood that fought at the Alamo and Valley Forge, wrote Shakespeare and Beethoven, invented electricity, and spread Christianity. This blood laid the foundations of our country, and now that heritage is in danger. The enemies of our heritage, the masters of hate, accuse us of hate. But we endure attacks and fight against the media, government, money, and political privilege, not out of hate, but out of deep love.

The speaker argues that "As a nation, they'll cease to exist, even as individuals. Every individual, no survivors." They add, "Not only as a nation, they'll cease to exist, even as individuals." They claim, "In modern terminology ... they call it cultural genocide," and that "There's a term for it ... It's called cultural genocide, and it's actually used the word genocide" by progressives. The speaker concludes that "So that's the the opinion who says that they'll be annihilated, They basically learned there's gonna be cultural genocide." The overall claim is annihilation of both nation and individuals, framed as cultural genocide attributed to progressives.

The speakers discuss a perceived rapid demographic shift in Middle America, noting a conspicuous decline in white people at familiar places like rest areas, Walmart, and the DMV, and describe this as part of a broader demographic change across the country. They argue that visiting places where “everybody goes” reveals that the country looks very different now, with fewer white people than in the past, and that this change feels intentional rather than accidental. They describe it as an emblematic problem and suggest that those who have never experienced such places are out of touch with what is actually happening in America. They debate whether it is appropriate to notice these changes, with one saying there is overwhelming pressure not to notice obvious things, and the other acknowledging the change as fast and profound. They question why acknowledging the shift should be considered good if it involves reducing the white population, and they compare it to how people would react if a similar change happened to other races in their native countries. The conversation then broadens to a comparison across demographics: if Nigerians were disappearing from Nigeria, or if Amazonian horned owls were disappearing, most people would deem that bad and question why those populations should vanish. They point out that, unlike other races or species, white people are told they are not native anywhere, and thus there is no recognized indigenous white population. They argue that this leads to the suggestion that white people should not be present in the United States or elsewhere, and they question where whites should be if not in the country that was formed by people of European descent. A central claim is that the people who formed America—“almost exclusively white people of European descent”—were the natives of this country, while the current Native Americans are described as not native to America in a historical sense because America existed as a nation only after it was formed. They contend that the true natives of the country are those who established the nation, implying that those of European descent are the true natives of America. They emphasize that the concept of “native” is tied to the formation of the country, and argue that the natives of America are defined by the nation’s origins rather than by preexisting populations.

The speaker questions why people often hear about slavery without learning who owned enslaved people, saying they came across the Wikipedia page for the Monsanto family. The speaker references Monsanto as “the company that makes the chemicals that are sprayed on all of our food” and states it “currently has billions of dollars of legal settlements to pay,” noting the company was named after Olga Monsanto. The speaker says they are “just reading from Wikipedia” and advises viewers to consult sources. According to the speaker’s reading of Wikipedia, the Monsanto family was “a powerful banking family in Louisiana in the mid 1700s.” The speaker says the family “had engaged in the Atlantic slave trade and owned slaves at their plantation in Mississippi.” By the 1780s, the speaker states they had “51 slaves.” The speaker says that led by Isaac Monsanto, the Monsanto family was part of “an entire network of slave traders,” and that “many members of the Monsanto family were involved.” The speaker adds that they are not claiming that current people are guilty or bad, and instead focuses on what they characterize as “cherry-picked narratives” in school. They argue that school histories make sure students learn that Thomas Jefferson had slaves and George Washington had slaves, while not teaching other slavery contexts. The speaker claims that “five to 10 million people were enslaved in the Ottoman Empire,” “Four to 10 million people were enslaved in the Trans-Saharan slave trade,” and “Nine to 17 million people were enslaved in the Trans-Saharan slave trade,” along with “10 million people were enslaved in South America.” They then state that, in contrast, only “three to four hundred thousand people were brought from africa to the american colonies in the united states of america,” and repeat “million million million million thousand” multiple times as part of the comparison. The speaker says they believe this framing is designed “to make america look like a uniquely evil place,” and claims it is “a marxist tactic” to make “certain people identify as victims” and “certain people be viewed as oppressors.” They further claim that “the European Christian West” would “lead the march to eradicate slavery,” describing slavery as “normalized across all civilizations for thousands of years” and “practiced by all people.” The speaker concludes that people “owe it to our kids to teach them the truth.”

A speaker identifying themselves as Jewish with critical thinking skills questions where information comes from and asks to see sources. They reference opening the Torah and reading the story of how Jewish people ended up in Israel, then challenge the audience about Abraham’s origins and knowledge of his story. They state that Abraham comes from what is now present-day Iraq, and they question what the story with Abraham, the Jewish people, and God is. They assert that Jewish people are not indigenous to Israel and recount a version of the biblical narrative: God speaks to Abraham and offers a present of “free land” for the Jewish people, telling Abraham to take them to a land filled with milk and honey, and that Abraham leads the people there. They ask what happens when they get to Israel and note that there were already people there. They claim that God told Abraham to slaughter and expel those people from the land, identifying those people as the indigenous inhabitants. The speaker condemns what they describe as others on the app presenting this information as fact, expressing concern that Jewish people themselves may not know their own history or the history of their religion, culture, and land. They juxtapose this with broader historical tragedies, suggesting that if readers have wondered what they would have done during the Holocaust, civil rights movement, slavery, and Canada’s genocide of indigenous people, they should look at what people are doing in the present. They argue that worldwide tragedies and genocide continue because people are afraid to speak out due to social repercussions. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the following core claims: - Abraham originated from a region corresponding to present-day Iraq, not Israel. - The narrative involves God presenting “free land” to the Jewish people and Abraham leading them to this land. - Upon arrival, the land already had indigenous inhabitants. - The divine instruction attributed to God to Abraham was to slaughter and expel those indigenous people. - Many individuals on the app propagate incorrect historical claims as fact, and some Jewish people may lack awareness of their own historical and religious background. - The speaker connects current fear of speaking out to historical and ongoing acts of mass violence and genocide, urging people to speak out rather than stay silent. The speaker ends by linking contemporary social fear to historical injustices, calling for greater courage to speak out.