reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I want you to know that everything will be shared on social media. I have twenty thousand followers myself. The money is there, look, the money is right there.

Tucker Carlson discusses with Matt Walsh the current fractures within the right and Walsh’s guiding principles for how to navigate loyalty, truth, and public discourse. Key points and exchanges - Leadership vacuum after Charlie’s death and its consequences - Walsh says Charlie’s death created a leadership vacuum in the right; the immediate post‑death unity faded as realities set in. - The attempt to turn Charlie’s killing into a catalyst for more Charlies backfired; Walsh notes that assassination “works” as a strategy, and the result is the loss of the glue that held the coalition together. - The organization Walsh admires—TPUSA—remains intact, but the leadership that bound people together is gone, leading to heightened internal friction. - Loyalty as a principle - Walsh asserts he will not denounce friends or disavow colleagues, arguing loyalty is a fundamental principle and a duty to those who have consistently backed him. - He defines loyalty as having a personal relationship with someone who has had his back and whom he would defend; betrayal, not disagreement, is what he rejects. - He uses examples (e.g., if a close family member committed a serious crime) to illustrate that loyalty does not require endorsing wrongful acts publicly, but it does require private accountability and support. - Leftism vs. conservatism; the core “enemy” - Walsh defines leftism as moral relativism (the idea of “my truth” and rejection of objective truth) and as an ideology that opposes civilization, Western identity, and foundational institutions like the family and marriage. - He argues leftism rejects the intrinsic value of human life, portraying life’s worth as contingent on circumstances (e.g., whether a mother wants a child), which he calls a fundamental leftist position. - He contends the fight on the right is against that leftism, and aligns with Walsh’s interpretation that preserving Western civilization, American identity, the sanctity of life, and the family are core conservative aims. - Israel, Gaza, and internal right disagreements - On Israel, Walsh says his stance is “I don’t care” (a position he reiterates as his personal view) and stresses that the debate should not be about Israel per se, but about whether right-wing conservatives share foundational values. - Walsh argues that some conservatives defend mass killing in Gaza, which he brands as a leftist argument, and he distinguishes it from more traditional right-wing concerns about strategy and casualties. - Walsh acknowledges there are conservatives who defend Israel’s actions but reject the premise that civilians are mass-killed intentionally; they may minimize or challenge casualty claims without endorsing mass murder. - He emphasizes the need to distinguish between true disagreements over policy and deeper disagreements about whether certain universal values (truth, life, and Western civilization) prevail. - The moral status of violence and justice - The conversation touches on the justification of violence for justice. Walsh acknowledges that violence can be a necessary tool for justice in some contexts but warns against endorsing violence indiscriminately. - He invokes Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ actions in the temple to discuss the moral complexity of violence: turning the other cheek is not a universal solution, especially when innocent people are involved. - The exchange explores whether state authority should compel action or whether individuals should intervene when the state fails to protect the innocent, using examples like Daniel Penny’s subway incident as a test case. - The state, justice, and governance - The two guests discuss the legitimacy of the state and what happens when the state fails to enforce justice or protect the vulnerable. - Walsh argues that if the state does not act, it can lead to mass action by citizens—though he concedes this is a dangerous path that should be avoided if possible. - They reflect on how the state’s authority is God-ordained, but acknowledge moments when civil disobedience or private action might be morally justifiable if the state abdicates its duties. - Cultural realism and media dynamics - Walsh and Carlson discuss how political labels (left/right) obscure shared concerns and how many conservatives actually share core aims with others outside the traditional conservative coalition. - They critique the media and pundit ecosystem for being out of touch with everyday life, citing deteriorating quality of goods, services, and infrastructure as real-life issues that affect families directly. - They argue that many pundits live in insulated environments—whether expensive urban enclaves or rural enclaves—without appreciating the middle-class experience and the practical hardships faced by ordinary Americans. - Demographics and national identity - A recurring thread is the argument that modern politics has become entangled in demographic change and questions of national identity. - Walsh contends that Western civilization and American identity rest on belief in objective truth, the sanctity of life, and the family; failing to defend these leads to a broader cultural and civilizational crisis. - The discussion includes a provocative point about indigenous identity in America and the claim that “native Americans” are not native to the country as formed; Walsh argues for reclaiming the term “native American” to describe the founders’ European-descended population. - Economics and social policy - Walsh describes himself as libertarian on many economic questions, opposing the welfare state and taxes, while acknowledging that conservatives can disagree on policy tools if the underlying motivations remain aligned with preserving family, culture, and national identity. - He suggests that a welfare state is not incompatible with conservative aims if its purpose is to strengthen family formation and national viability, though he believes it ultimately undermines family stability. - Internal dynamics and personal impact - Walsh discusses the personal toll of being at the center of intra-party debates: frequent public attacks, misattributed motives, and the challenge of remaining loyal without becoming embittered. - He emphasizes prayer and structured routines as practical means to maintain perspective and resilience in the face of sustained public scrutiny. - Toward a path forward - Both speakers stress the importance of clarifying the conservative catechism: defining what conservatives want to conserve and aligning around a shared set of non-negotiables. - They suggest that if people share core commitments to objective truth, the family, and American identity, disagreements about methods can exist, but collaboration remains possible. - If, however, people reject those core commitments, they argue, conservatives may be on different sides of a fundamental civilizational divide. Notes on the interaction - The dialogue weaves personal anecdotes, philosophical stances, and political diagnostics, with both participants acknowledging complexity and evolution of views. - The emphasis repeatedly returns to loyalty, truth, and civilizational foundations as the ultimate frame for understanding intra-right tensions and for guiding future alignment. (Throughout, promotional segments and product endorsements were present in the original transcript but have been omitted here to preserve focus on substantive points and to align with the request to exclude promotional content.)

We now possess the official 1929 Chicago Tunnel Network map, revealing exactly which buildings the Chicago Tunnel system connects to, and no longer needing to ask others about tunnel connections. The map, hidden in the Chicago History Museum and never digitized until today, is shown in full to identify buildings with current tunnel connections. The presenter asserts that the old-world buildings were connected by a vast underground web, not just independent structures, and that the tunnels predate roads and selective routing suggests a purposeful network rather than a mail-centric system. Key points and claims: - The 1929 map shows tunnels linking to various buildings in Chicago, and the presenter emphasizes that these tunnels were already present before the roads and were not built merely to transport mail. - The official narrative claims that the interconnected tunnels were constructed in the 1890s to transport mail and move freight, and were officially shut down in 1959; the presenter finds this story illogical and inconsistent with the evidence of widespread tunnel connections and reliance on underground transport. - The map’s black lines are tunnels, not roads, and the tunnels appear to skip entire blocks and connect specific buildings rather than following streets or uniform routes. - Examples highlighted on the map and in accompanying discussion: - The Palmer House shows two tunnel entrances. The presenter questions the repeated construction of multiple Palmer Houses on the same site, and notes the Palmer House entrances on the map. - The Temple (33rd Lodge) is discussed, with the building demolished in 1939 due to “poor internal services,” and replaced by a Walgreens. - The La Salle Hotel and the Stock Exchange are shown with a tunnel between them; the Stock Exchange building was demolished in 1972. - The Rookery Building is examined; 1891 photos show subterranean features and an alleyway that is identified as a tunnel connection between the Rookery and nearby structures. - The map indicates that these tunnels existed under streets that were surface-dirty and congested in the early 1900s, suggesting underground transport as a primary mode. - The presenter argues that access to publicly funded buildings (like City Hall) is possible for tunnel entrances and intends to press for access to sub-basement plans, arguing that publicly funded buildings are subject to public records and tours. - The plan includes visiting the actual buildings to verify tunnel entrances visible on the map, leveraging public records requests to uncover entrances that may be overlooked or unknown by building administrations. - The presenter claims that the underground network extends beyond Chicago and suggests a similar web exists in cities worldwide, implying that the 1929 map is a snapshot of an ongoing, larger network that has expanded since. - The upcoming work involves contacting publicly funded buildings to request tunnel-entry information and documenting the responses. Note: The transcript includes sponsor and channel-promotional material, which has been omitted from this summary per content guidelines.

We must not allow the elimination of cash. If we rely solely on central bank digital currencies, the computer will anticipate our actions and prevent us from doing certain things. For instance, if there is a restriction on traveling beyond 5 miles from home and you attempt to buy water 6 miles away, you will be denied. There are numerous reasons why it is important to keep cash.

There is a question about whether there will be a limit on the amount that someone can invest in Ethereum.

A developer states they promised never to sell and have kept that promise. They claim there are costs to running a website, and they personally pay for boosts on Dexscreener, which cost between $1,200 and $5,000. The speaker claims to have paid for these boosts at least a dozen times. They state these activities, along with paying influencers, have real costs.

Some affiliates of this network may be influenced by sponsorships from a wellness company, potentially compromising their message due to financial incentives. It is unclear how much money they make or if they are aware of the company's true intentions. The speaker does not accuse them of wrongdoing, but questions the impact of these affiliations on the information they share.

"And from a dev who promised never to sell, which I haven't." "There's a cost to putting a website together." "Who do you think pays for boosts on the Dex screener? That's me." "Those cost anywhere between 1,200 and $5,000." "I did it at least a dozen times." "You know, these things have actual real cost to them." "Along with influencers and from a dev who promised never to sell, which I have."

Speaker 0 vents intense anger about the Israel-Gaza crisis and U.S. involvement. He says: we pivoted to the IDF and after two years of war, with brothers and sisters killed and hostages liberated, “for these sick fucks” to turn it into Disneyland and give it to the Palestinians is unacceptable; he cannot pay for it. He notes Qatar and Turkey’s involvement, and a comment by BB that if Qatar can’t come, they’ll bring them; then “Qatar’s on the board of peace,” which enrages him. He proclaims, “We have nuclear missiles,” and threatens North Korea, claiming he will show them a “Jewish North Korea.” He declares “Gaza is biblically ours” and says the new board of peace has pushed him over the edge; he does not want to come back, and wants “full deportation” of Palestinians. He argues for shutting borders for us and our friends only, envisioning Gaza becoming a banking and tax haven, free of wars. He expresses confusion over the Iran situation and asserts that their weaponry is so advanced they can “melt their flesh with our lasers,” yet laments giving Gaza to their enemies and asks, “What the actual fuck?” He ends by saying, “So I’d like to get” before the transcript cuts off. Speaker 1 adds, “to pay for it,” and then, “you forgot about the part where we pay the price tag because nobody else wants to fucking pay for it.”

There's no incentive in government work because the payment system is set up so that if you ask for money, you're just going to get it.

And from a dev who promised never to sell, which I haven't. There's a cost to putting a website together. Who do you think pays for boosts on the Dex screener? That's me. Those cost anywhere between 1,200 and $5,000. I did it at least a dozen times. You know, these things have actual real cost to them. Along with influencers and from a dev who promised never to sell, which I have.

The transcript discusses a formal framework for pattern recognition and deduction in the game of Connect Four, emphasizing a human-like reasoning approach over brute-force computation. It outlines a system of pattern sets and deduction paths used to identify winning moves and counter-moves. Key elements: - Pattern recognition and deduction are applied to Connect Four with a focus on identifying winning moves through a structured pattern set hierarchy. - Pattern sets are labeled (for example, re one PPP, re one REO PP, p set to a one, etc.), and a deduction path is derived from these sets. The path is followed in reverse to generate a pattern set that supports the winning move. - A winning move is denoted as REO (or REO PPP), and after playing this winning move, the pattern set deduced from the pattern sets harunder is produced by reversing the deduction path described earlier. - Deduced pattern sets (p set to a one, re one PPP) lead to a deduction path determined by all columns and the opponent’s possible responses (discommission) at depth rio PPP. - A condition is stated: there exists exactly one column with exactly one empty position that corresponds to the REO position of re one REO PPP. This column is pivotal because all rewon PPP patterns involved are specific columns that do not require a REWON pattern; if the winning move is played, all involved REWON rezero PPP patterns transform into REWON patterns. - The description mentions “pink call one PPP” in an all-columns pattern set for winning moves, with M moves. Most open columns, except the specific ones with additional conditions, are described as either closed or containing a rewon PPP. - Consequently, an opponent’s move on any other open column creates a re OPPP, enabling the current player to win. - After the winning move is played, no pattern set P set of the opponent should imply a faster win for the opponent. If multiple winning columns exist, it is sufficient that no faster opponent win exists after the move on one of those columns. - An example is given: for p sets three dot x dot y (connects four in three moves), no p sets one dot b dot w (connects four in one move by the opponent) may exist after the specified player’s move. - The broader concept presented is that pattern recognition and deduction represent a central paradigm in artificial intelligence because they do not depend on brute-force computing power or memory size; rather, they aim to model and simulate smarter human reasoning. - The speaker notes that pattern deduction attempts to simulate a more human and smarter form of modeling and reasoning than brute force, and signals that the discussion will continue. Note: Promotional requests at the end of the original transcript have been omitted.

We won't lose any viewers due to the YouTube situation, and we'll actually earn more money because YouTube takes all the cash. I want to address the people at YouTube and Google directly. Let's discuss page 3.

They don't really care about us.

A developer states they promised never to sell and have kept that promise. They claim there are costs to running a website, and they personally pay for boosts on Dexscreener, which cost between $1,200 and $5,000. The speaker states they have paid for these boosts at least a dozen times. They also mention the real costs associated with influencers.

Nobody went to the moon, and I want to know why. If it didn't happen, it's important to understand why so we can continue in the future. Money plays a significant role in keeping things going.

James O’Keefe and crew from Project Veritas visit Georgetown University in Washington, DC, aiming to report on an adjunct professor named Jonathan Franklin who teaches a journalism course called “sourcing and interview tech” at Georgetown. In undercover footage, Franklin is recorded discussing black conservatives such as Lawrence Jones at Fox and Candace Owens, and using racial epithets, including calling them “coons.” Specifically, he is heard saying regarding black conservatives: “home to two” and labeling Clarence Thomas as “the biggest coon of them all.” The reporters ask for Franklin’s comment and discuss how the university should respond to the video. In the field, the team asks passersby what they think about the use of the term “coons” and whether Georgetown should respond. A respondent expresses that the remark is “interesting for Georgetown,” and others indicate they wouldn’t use that term and question whether it represents Georgetown. The crew indicates they intend to reach out to Georgetown’s Dean’s Office and the communications/public affairs offices to obtain a comment from the university about how to handle professors who behave this way. They also plan to contact Candace Owens, Lawrence Jones at Fox News, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for comment. Staff in the Dean’s Office provide guidance on who to contact, directing the team to Georgetown’s media relations office (media@Georgetown.edu). They indicate there is no physical media office on site. The team continues to chase comments and attempts to locate the appropriate spokesperson. The crew moves to the President’s Office, where an employee reiterates to contact the media relations office for official comment. A member of the team attempts to obtain the best contact for comment, and staff explain that the media relations office does not have a physical on-site office. The team is told to reach out to media relations, emphasizing that the university’s response would come from that office. The footage then shows the team at the graduate building at 111 Massachusetts Avenue NW, where Franklin teaches a graduate-level course on “sourcing and interview technology.” The segment frames Georgetown’s Downtown DC satellite campus as the site of this teaching, noting the class will explore how to find sources and how to interview them effectively. The video closes with James O’Keefe introducing himself as the founder of Project Veritas and OMG Media, and referring to ongoing investigative reporting to hold elites accountable. Note: The promotional financial-ad content present in the latter portion of the transcript has been omitted per guidelines.

The owner of the paper doesn't need to make money from it, even though he's losing $200,000 a day. He makes more than that in interest, but you don't get rich by losing money for fun. He didn't buy it to make money, so there's a lack of incentive.

Porn being free is a problem because it keeps you in a low vibration and survival mode. Lust is the lowest vibration, while wholeness and bliss are the highest. When you release, you kill a part of yourself and increase estrogen levels, feminizing you. Free things like Google, Yahoo, and Zoom use your data because you are the product. Companies with massive data control use the all CNI to watch you. If you want more information, a PDF will be available soon. Stay tuned. [Word count: 85]

Speaker 0: Take this in and understand what we’re actually dealing with. Many views exist—from Trump being a pedophile protecting pedophile buddies, to Israel infiltration and cover-ups, to it being a Democrat hoax. The reality, as described here, is that there is a supranational global cabal that has operated for nearly a hundred years, using money laundering, blackmail, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and other nefarious operations to fund and overthrow countries, serving as the shadow power of the world. We can see who these people are, their intentions, and the outcomes of their policies, and they are still being shoehorned into the most important positions in the world specifically because they’re part of this cabal. Main players mentioned include Larry Summers, who, per Epstein documents, was named executor of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate after his death. The money Epstein received from Les Wexner and others to create a starting fund and build a reputation as a financier is said to be returning to the coffers of Larry Summers, seen as part of this operation. The analogy is that this operation is like a corporation with Epstein as a brand under an umbrella, where if one asset (like Irish Spring) fails, its resources are absorbed back into the wider corporate structure. Summers, formerly Treasury Secretary, who helped destroy Glass-Steagall and contributed to the 2008 market crash dynamics, is said to have his bailout-money influence guided by Larry Fink at BlackRock. Summers, who was head of Harvard and later appointed to OpenAI’s board, is linked to the governance of the AI company behind ChatGPT. Larry Ellison is described as corresponding with Epstein and Ehud Barak (former Israeli prime minister) about which politicians serve their interests, including arranging a meeting between Marco Rubio and Tony Blair due to shared interests in this cabal. Epstein is depicted as a central, manipulative figure involved in selling weapons from Israel, meddling in elections, and influencing universities in Russia, raising questions about his influence and reach. The speaker emphasizes Epstein’s reach across political and corporate spheres and the question of his power, asking how such influence is possible. Speaker 1: The question is, how do you go about that? Speaker 0: He didn’t even go to school for trading; it’s all fabricated. He is a spymaster and a kingpin in a mafia. This group, including Les Wexner, Jeffrey Epstein, Larry Summers, Larry Ellison, Donald Trump (at this point), is part or perhaps the managing structure of the same organization discussed in the Eagle two documents from the 1960s, where the CIA sought autonomy from Congress by creating its own income streams, including drug trafficking in Vietnam. The opioid and drug-running links are tied to Iran-Contra, with George H. W. Bush involved in opium trade and the drug-running networks. Bill Gates and other figures are alleged to have involved in cover-ups during CIA-driven operations in South America, with Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance cited as exposing such networks. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, when Bill was governor of Arkansas, allegedly helped run headquarters in Mina for flights to and from Colombia, spreading drugs across the United States. The assertion is that the same group runs drugs, rigs elections, and is involved in various crises, including alleged connections to COVID-19, Russiagate, 9/11, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, forming a pattern of the last decades of upheaval in America. The discussion moves toward Epstein’s network and the sources of his money, with emails revealing connections, against a backdrop of broad search for Trump and the prevalence of unconfirmed, baseless anonymous claims. The core claim is that the true representation is the “new world order” and a banking-based intelligence network where intelligence agencies originated from banks. The CIA’s founding from the OSS is tied to MI6, which allegedly drew on the Rothschild banking intelligence, tying the CIA, MI6, and banking elites together. The speaker concludes that the same names—running drugs, stealing elections, burning down skyscrapers, and flying airplanes—appear repeatedly, linking DEI, ESG, white discrimination claims, and Epstein to the same global web.

Disinformation is profitable, so we must trace the money. A significant portion of advertising revenue supports harmful content. We need to collaborate with the global advertising industry to redirect ad dollars. This involves creating exclusion and inclusion lists to prioritize funding for accurate and relevant news and information. We must challenge the global advertising industry worldwide to focus its resources on disseminating truthful and beneficial information.

Disinformation is profitable, so we must trace the money. A significant portion of the funding for harmful content comes from the global advertising industry. We need to collaborate with this industry to redirect ad dollars. This can involve creating exclusion and inclusion lists to target funding towards accurate and reliable news and information. We must challenge the global advertising industry worldwide to prioritize funding for truthful and relevant content.