reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speaker addresses disturbing letters received from mainstream media outlets, accusing them of attacking and undermining the news. The speaker denies serious criminal allegations made against them, stating that their past relationships were always consensual. They question if there is another agenda at play, citing previous coordinated media attacks on individuals like Joe Rogan. The speaker believes there is an agenda to control voices like theirs and urges viewers to stay awake and free. They mention witnesses who contradict the narratives being constructed by the media outlets. The speaker promises to investigate the matter further.

The discussion centers on the case involving former high-ranking official Joris Demming, who, once again, has prompted a new victim claim. This time, journalist Fred de Brouwer died in a scooter accident in Thailand this weekend. De Brouwer, together with Henk Krol, was among the first to write about the alleged child abuse by Demink. For Henk Krol, it is hoped that this latest incident is purely a coincidence. Meneer Krol expresses condolences on the “film” and calls the development crazy. He notes that Fred had been in dialogue with several Dutch media outlets, because those outlets were finally prepared to relay the story the way it had come to him. Is it an accident, or is there more behind it? Speaker 1 says: “Nee, dat weten we niet.” The report from bystanders in Thailand claims De Brouwer was followed by a white car and then run over; the driver has not been found. This is described as “op zijn minst een merkwaardige dood” — at least a remarkable death. Asked whether he fears for his own life, Speaker 1 replies that in his circle there are many who say not to do it, “want je ziet hoeveel mensen er omgevallen zijn.” Yet he hopes it was all coincidence. If in the future it turns out that something happened to him as well, it would become harder to believe it was coincidence.

This is a plea to the police, hoping they have recorded the incident on camera. The speaker identifies it as a call to action from the Islamic Jas, which is considered a crime in this country.

This is a peaceful town hall. The speaker introduces the first video.

I have some horrible news to share with the Infowars community. Jamie White, a great reporter and researcher for Infowars, was murdered last night outside of his home near our studios. He was working late and even posted on X responding to Elon Musk. Our crew found the crime scene this morning when he didn't show up to work. Police responded quickly and got him to the hospital, but he died shortly after. The police are investigating. Off the record, police officers have told us that funding for violent crime units has been cut significantly in recent years. They arrest serious criminals, but the Soros-backed Austin DA does nothing, intensifying the problem. The governor even had to send in state police, but they mainly write tickets. Crime has exploded in Austin.

A creator states they went to the police station because a prominent creator incited mob violence against them, their property, and family due to differing views on pesticide use. The speaker claims their phone and social media accounts were flooded, and they received death threats, which have been reported to the police. The speaker alleges the other creator is targeting them for posting about not using pesticides like glyphosate on their Facebook page. They claim the creator wants the posts removed and has threatened to continue doxxing them and ruining their life and business if they don't comply. The speaker says the creator commented on their appearance in a video. They state they are now working with the police and attorneys and that people are sending them screenshots and emails expressing fear for their safety due to the mob violence allegedly encouraged in the creator's Facebook group.

In this video, Speaker 0 discusses an artifact without a detonator and introduces three individuals: Wellington, Jorge Washington, and Alan Diego. Speaker 1, Alan Diego, expresses fear for his life and explains that he carried the artifact to protect his family. Speaker 0 mentions a confidential police report linking Alan Diego to money laundering and drug trafficking. He also highlights the suspicious connection between a criminal faction in Ceará financing buses to bring protesters to Brasília and Alan Diego receiving money from a drug trafficker. Speaker 0 calls for further investigation into these matters. The video ends with Speaker 0 thanking the audience and Speaker 1.

The speaker asserts that Texas lied to prosecute the T-Mobile whistleblower and that the case exposes information Americans aren’t supposed to know. A key claim is that a conservative constitutional judge from Collin County was replaced days before the trial with a retired liberal judge from Dallas, which the speaker suspects allowed a juror to be planted in the jury. During jury selection, defense and state weeded 50 people down to eight, but the judge ultimately selects the jurors. The state prosecution allegedly lied about the gated community entry, claiming a security guard was present and that the speaker snuck in, a claim the speaker says is false and used to portray him as a dangerous stalker. The T-Mobile executive allegedly stated he feared for his life and his family’s safety, yet the speaker notes the executive flew to Bellevue, Washington, to T-Mobile’s headquarters the next day, arguing it contradicted the notion of a genuine threat from the speaker. The state prosecuted by obtaining all of the speaker’s social media from Ex Twitter, Instagram, Substack, and the speaker learned of this only when Instagram notified him. The state and T-Mobile labeled the speaker a violent threat for discussing his guns in self-defense, with a cited tweet and related materials used in the case. The speaker claims that his communications—tweets, videos, a long-form website—were censored, and that he then went guerrilla with flyers and a self-defense stance described as “staccato for self defense.” During sentencing, the state subpoenaed a police officer who arrested the speaker sixteen years earlier for a felony marijuana charge, with deferred adjudication and probation completed in 2008, to portray the speaker as a still-active drug dealer. The state reportedly shared some of the whistleblower story but downplayed that T-Mobile violated Texas Health and Safety Code chapter 81 d by discriminating against the speaker for being unvaccinated. The speaker concludes by urging viewers to share the story, claiming it exposes corruption among elected officials and corporations.

Speaker 1 visits Speaker 0’s home briefly and obtains Speaker 0’s number. They mention receiving a message from someone in Noord-Nederland about a social media post concerning Ter Apel and express curiosity about the video’s intent. Speaker 0 explains they create videos and post them online, including on YouTube, and that they were in Ter Apel to film a video about the situation. The video was made about one to two weeks ago. They acknowledge Speaker 1’s work and ask why Speaker 1 is calling, seeking the purpose of the call. Speaker 1 asks what the video aims to do and what it will show. Speaker 0 answers briefly: the video will present reality, noting that mainstream media write a lot and omit much, and that the video will show how things unfold without breaking rules. They invite Speaker 1 to watch the video to understand the intent, mentioning it will be posted at 5 PM. Speaker 1 questions whether Speaker 0 makes documentaries or something similar. Speaker 0 clarifies that they don’t want to call it a documentary; they film what they encounter on the street and suggest checking their YouTube channel to understand their work. Speaker 0 then expresses a feeling that the call seemed like a “big secret” that should not come out, especially now, and that being contacted just before the upload gives a strange sensation. They reflect that in 40 videos they have produced, they have not been approached by the police about their uploads, and they wonder where the curiosity was previously. Speaker 1 says they are simply doing their job and thanks Speaker 0 for the call before ending the conversation. Speaker 0 wishes Speaker 1 a good day and ends the call.

The speaker expresses anger and frustration, telling someone to shut up and get out. The speaker claims people have been "psyched" and "psychologically manipulated." They state the same number of people died this year as in previous years. The speaker says they are trying to wake people up and that the person they are addressing has been "psyop-ed," referring to a psychological operation. The speaker mentions the incident has been filmed and suggests the other person committed a crime. They then state they are going to take a photo of the person and a code.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 address a viral video about Charlie’s chief of staff, Mikey, and explain why they are discussing it. - The video in question attacks Mikey, Charlie’s chief of staff, claiming based on a few seconds of clips that he allegedly has a nonchalant or calm reaction to Charlie’s murder. They describe this as a “extremely disgusting attack.” - Speaker 1 recounts what happened: they were at the scene when a shooting occurred. The loud crack is heard; they turn and see Charlie has been shot. They realize there is a shooter on the scene. They decide to get out of there rather than be shot, noting Charlie had a security team that leapt into action to get Charlie out. - Speaker 0 notes their own actions: he, too, considered getting into the car, but decided against it. He was ahead of Mikey as they left. He recalls a moment where he paused to assess the situation, then saw Mikey, who was profoundly freaked out. Mikey’s lip was quivering, and he said, “I need to call Erica,” then took his phone and began calling Erica. Speaker 0 also called his own mom, saying there had been a shooting and that he was okay. - They describe Mikey’s later actions: after the initial shock, Mikey took charge like a “general directing a battle,” coordinating hospital transport and information flow, and directing people where to go. When they learned Charlie had died, Mikey told them, “now none of you can say anything that you've heard because it is Erica is not going to hear about this from anyone except me.” - Speaker 2 asks if Mikey could be involved in a conspiracy to murder Charlie. Speaker 1 responds that such accusations are vile and describes how some people online fuel such narratives, comparing the mindset to getting a “high” from dangerous or provocative content. - The speakers emphasize Mikey’s heroic actions: Mikey was distressed but stepped up to direct people and communicate with Erica and others. Speaker 0 notes that he, too, was traumatized after learning of Charlie’s death and rushed to be with Erica and the team. - They address the specific allegation that Mikey was on the phone immediately during the incident; they state he was not on the phone but was taking social videos to share with their group chats. He would send updates to Charlie’s social media during the event while the crowd was changing, then, overwhelmed by the noise and shock, he put his fingers in his ears but his phone remained in his hand as he moved away. - They describe the scene as a cordoned-off area with a narrow gap that people used to exit, where Mikey walked briskly or ran as he processed the trauma and continued to direct actions. They reiterate Mikey “turned into a general on a field marshaling the troops.” - Speaker 1 closes by urging readers who propagate narratives attacking Mikey to reconsider, stating that such narratives are bad and gross and a choice that shouldn’t be made.

Speaker 0 announces that they have released the most dangerous discovery that explains everything, and that the video is in their bio.

Take a look at what happened in Orlando. What happened? They mentioned something significant. What exactly occurred? Let's explore the details of the situation.

Speaker 0 says, “They doing too much, man, and they keep pushing people. You know?” Speaker 1 erupts, “Oh, shit. What the fuck? They killed my did they fucking kill that guy? Are you fucking kidding me, dude? Not again. Are you fucking kidding me? That guy's dead. Yo. We need people on”

Speaker 0 urges everyone to make noise, stating that if anything happens to them, it will be another war crime added to Israel's list. Speaker 1 reports they are being intercepted, assures everyone present is safe and unwounded, and emphasizes that no one was wounded until the time they ordered their vote. Speaker 1 asks to raise the alarm.

The video shows a journalist being violently attacked during a protest. The journalist turned his back and asked to be hit. There were several intense interventions, including a person pointing a gun. The journalist was hit hard with a stick. The video ends with medical professionals arriving at the scene and sadly stating that someone was seriously injured.

The speaker questions the viewers about their knowledge of the cameraman and suggests that they may not know who is behind the scenes. They mention the possibility of being dead by the time the viewers watch the video and emphasize that the viewers don't know what the cameraman wants them to see. The speaker advises the viewers to destroy their television sets and states that they can only share the message of not following any orders at this point.

The speakers state they are being supported and tested, and then intercepted. They emphasize that if anything happens to them, it would be another war crime committed by Israel. They assert that everyone present is currently safe and unwounded, but urge listeners to raise the alarm.

In the wake of a tragic incident, a family says they are under attack, facing threats, harassment, and lies. False accusations have endangered the family, the community, and those involved in the investigation. Their address and the husband's former employer's address have been shared on social media. The husband has taken a leave of absence due to fear, and his mental health is declining. The family has received death threats, and their daughter is afraid to sleep in her room. Claims about using public donations to buy a home are false; they have not received any money from the GiveSendGo fundraiser. The speaker doesn't know why they are being targeted before a fair trial, stating their son deserves the same rights as everyone else. They believe in the legal process, where the truth will emerge. The speaker extends their heart to the family who experienced the loss and thanks those who have supported them, asking for continued support, patience, and prayers.

The speaker thanks everyone for attending the private viewing and promises to show evidence of deadly terrier attacks. One person expresses frustration about previous false information and losing followers. The speaker assures them that the evidence is coming but first mentions that the incident on October 7th is considered worse than the Holocaust. The group urges the speaker to show the evidence, emphasizing the urgency due to their declining credibility. The speaker hesitates, suggesting that the evidence is too disturbing to be shown. The group becomes more frustrated and demands to see the evidence. The transcript ends with someone acknowledging the overwhelming nature of the situation.

Speaker 0 states that someone is killing people and something happened to a guy, which they dislike. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 about a report that a Russian commander said Putin was almost caught in a drone attack from Ukraine. Speaker 0 responds that they haven't heard about the drone attack report, but it could be a reason for the killing.

Speaker 0 states they don't want to be part of what they see as a mass genocide, believing the current time will be remembered as worse than World War II. They express hope that they are raising doubt about a vaccine and invite someone to meet in three years to see how they are doing, suggesting it is probable they will not be alive due to the vaccine. Speakers 1 and 2 share news of the passing of CNN journalist Drew Griffin. Griffin, a colleague and friend, had been with CNN for nearly two decades and was responsible for impactful journalism in politics, sports, government, and big business. He asked tough questions and made a real difference in people's lives.

Speaker 0: Let's say it clearly, it's murder. We can even call it a massacre. We have to say it, even if it's extreme. If we don't, people might not wake up to what's happening. Each and every citizen needs to understand that democracy is at stake. The only option we have is to speak up and tell the truth as it is. Translation: Let's say it clearly, it's murder. We can even call it a massacre. We have to say it, even if it's extreme. If we don't, people might not wake up to what's happening. Each and every citizen needs to understand that democracy is at stake. The only option we have is to speak up and tell the truth as it is.

President Lula's oppressive actions in Brazil have led to arrests and deaths of dissidents. People are scared to speak out. We must use our platforms to support the Brazilian people. Brazil used to be thriving, but now it's under tyranny. We need to keep Brazil in the spotlight. This is a battle against tyranny, not just Brazil. Naomi Zeitz from Germany urges unity. Thank you for sharing this message. This is for all of us. Translation: President Lula's oppressive actions in Brazil have led to arrests and deaths of dissidents. People are scared to speak out. We must use our platforms to support the Brazilian people. Brazil used to be thriving, but now it's under tyranny. We need to keep Brazil in the spotlight. This is a battle against tyranny, not just Brazil. Naomi Zeitz from Germany urges unity. Thank you for sharing this message. This is for all of us.

Rolanda and Rolando are mentioned in the video. There was a shooting incident where a man was killed near a blue water tank. The speaker emphasizes the importance of taking a closer look at what happened.