reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 says there is a “fundamental” situation in which violence is coming regardless of choice: “You either fight back or you die.” Speaker 0 responds that today Elon, “the British public are telling the world that they’re ready to fight back,” and Speaker 1 agrees.

The speaker tells Western leaders that “your time is up,” claiming that borders are “fading,” that “your disease is being sucked out,” and that “the unity of the Islamic Brotherhood is taking form.” They assert that “the sons of Islam” have pledged that “this battle is a battle of either victory or martyrdom.” The speaker says they “reject your flags” and claim that “the call for jihad has started,” adding that “it won’t be long before it is you that will be feasted upon.” They also state that, if people listen to a Muslim woman’s words in a referenced video, she “literally declared war on America and all Western society.” The speaker then argues that there is “only one thing that you need to know,” connecting political affiliation to an alleged larger project. They claim that roughly what percentage of Muslim political candidates run as Democrats in America “will tell you the side that they have chosen to take over America with Islam.” They provide a specific statistic: “Roughly 95% of the time when a Muslim runs for political office, they run as Democrats.” Based on this, the speaker claims that Muslim candidates “know they can use the Democrat Party to align with them and use them to take over America and eventually make America an Islamic state and implement Sharia law.” They further assert, “The Democrat Party is a party of Islam.” From this, the speaker makes a directive to listeners: “You cannot vote Democrat anymore, no matter what,” and says, “This is not a game anymore.” They conclude with a warning that “we are going to end up like the UK if the Democrat Party keeps getting voted for,” framing this as an outcome of continued voting for Democrats.

Speaker 0 argues that history will view this presidency as probably the most reckless and corrupt in the history of the United States, and expresses fear that without change the country and the world risk major harm, including the possibility of World War III. They say, regardless of views on global leadership, that being on top “what good is it … if you've created an absolute hellscape?” They emphasize the need for the course to change and suggest the future of the United States as a cohesive country and the world is currently in question because of the administration’s behavior. Speaker 1 agrees that America used to hold the moral high ground—defending human rights, free speech, and free trade—but asserts that none of those things are true any longer. They claim America is “the terror regime of the world,” describing it as pillaging, stealing, bombing, assassinating, running color revolutions, lying, and doing everything possible to destroy others to keep America as the last nation standing on its pile of soon to be worthless debt. They state this is not a moral position from which to lead any civilization. Speaker 0 contends that America has the tools to be all those values, citing a great constitutional republican system, the federation of states, resources, and human capital. They note a problem, however: a “giant pile of worthless fiat paper,” with the bill coming due and the tantrums of an empire, referencing warnings by people like Gerald Celente and Alex Jones about a fiat bubble rupture. They say the question is where the country wants to be in the world, criticizing a lack of imagination among the “great and the good in America” about a compelling future. Speaker 1 adds a new issue: 31 million Americans are injecting themselves with GLP-1 drugs, which they say cause a 100% increase in risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal ideation, especially among women, with the most use among 50–65-year-olds. They claim Trump is working to make these drugs more affordable so that more people can take them, potentially leading to half of US adults using a drug based on venom peptides of the Gila monster, a paralyzing agent, risking madness. They compare this to lead poisoning and reference Ozempic as one of these drugs. Speaker 0 asks, “What’s it called? Ozempic? Is that a GOP one?” Speaker 1 confirms “Ozempic,” and notes that the drugs are used for vanity to look healthy, not because people are actually healthy. They reiterate the core issue: what goes into bodies and the environment in which people live, stressing that there is an opportunity today to correct and improve the situation, and that many are taking that opportunity.

The speaker states they are politically active now because they believe the future of America and civilization is at stake. They indicate they were not politically active before.

Speaker 0 speculates on the possibility of not having a 2024 election due to unforeseen events, referred to as black swans. He acknowledges that he doesn't know how this would happen, but suggests that such an event could occur.

Character, compassion, decency, science, and democracy are all at stake in this election. It's not just about who we are as a nation, but also about who we aspire to be. The speaker asks a 17-year-old how old they are, implying that their vote is crucial.

Character, compassion, decency, science, and democracy are all at stake in this election. It's about our national identity, values, and future. How old are you? 17? No say, but soon.

The speaker discusses the risks surrounding the upcoming election. They highlight Donald Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power and his fear mongering about mail-in ballots. The speaker mentions that the election results may not be finalized on November 3rd, leading to potential disagreements and court cases. They emphasize the importance of taking Trump's statements seriously, particularly his comments about getting rid of ballots and questioning their manipulation. The speaker concludes by mentioning the significance of believing authoritarian figures when they make statements.

The speaker warns against underestimating the consequences of Trump's potential return to power. They emphasize that if you were against him, you must ensure his political career ends, or else he will seek revenge. They compare it to taking over a superpower, where if you win, the whole country wins, but if you fail, you and your resistance are done. The speaker urges people to not let Trump become president again, as he would bring chaos and harm. They stress the importance of making the right move and not underestimating Trump's determination.

Speaker 0: It's not about whether George Floyd was a good person. That's that's not my point. We were lied to. And the whole issue, the whole way we think about George Floyd was wrong, including the way I thought of him until about ten minutes minutes ago. I had no idea that Derek Chauvin didn't kill him. So, Alicia, what do you think's at stake in November election? Speaker 1: Everything. Like, everything is at stake, And I'm really not being facetious about that. To be real, what's at stake is whether or not a new world order is able to take root and grow and grow.

Larry Johnson and the host discuss the extraordinary and escalating tensions around Iran, the Middle East, and the United States’ role in the region. - The guests reference recent remarks by Donald Trump about Iran, noting Trump’s statement that Iran has until Tuesday to reach a deal or “I am blowing up everything,” with a quoted line describing Tuesday as “power plant day and bridge day all wrapped up in one in Iran,” followed by “open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards or you’ll be living in hell.” They describe this rhetoric as madness and suggest the rhetoric signals a potential for a severe U.S. action. - They contrast Trump’s stated plan with the capabilities and willingness of the U.S. military, arguing there are three distinct elements: what Trump wants to do, what the U.S. military can do, and what the U.S. military is willing to do. They discuss a hypothetical ground operation targeting Iran, including possible actions such as striking Natanz or a nuclear-related site, and potentially hitting a “underground missile factory” at Kesheveh, while acknowledging the risk and uncertainty of such plans. - The conversation details a Friday event in which a U.S. F-15 was shot down, and the implications for the broader operation: A-10 Warthog, F-16s, two Black Hawk helicopters (Pave Hawks), and two C-130s were reportedly lost, with speculation about additional losses. They discuss the Pentagon’s statements about casualties and the possibility that other aircraft losses were connected to a rescue attempt for a downed pilot. They estimate several U.S. airframes lost in the effort to recover one pilot and discuss the high costs and risks of attempting CSAR (combat search and rescue). - The speakers reflect on the status of U.S. combat leadership and the debates surrounding purges of senior officers. One guest emphasizes that the fired leaders (Hodney and Randy George) were not operational decision-makers for Iran and argues the purge appears political rather than war-related, describing it as part of a broader pattern of politicization of the senior ranks. - They discuss the Israeli war effort, noting significant strain from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and questions about Israel’s manpower and reserve mobilization. They mention reports that 300,000 reservists have been activated and talk of an additional 400,000 being considered. The discussion touches on claims that Israel is attacking Iranian negotiating participants and how the U.S. could be drawn into a broader conflict. They critique the Israeli military’s leadership structure, arguing that young officers with limited experience lead a reserve-based force, which they view as contributing to questionable battlefield performance. - The Iranian strategy is analyzed as aiming to break U.S. control in the Persian Gulf and to compel adversaries to negotiate by threatening or constraining energy flows. The guests detail Iran’s actions: targeting oil facilities and ports around Haifa and Tel Aviv, Damona (near the suspected nuclear sites), and claims of missiles hitting a major building in Haifa. They describe widespread civilian disruption in Israel (bomb shelters, subway tents) and emphasize the vulnerability of Israel given its manpower challenges and reliance on U.S. and Western support. - The broader strategic landscape is assessed: Iran’s goal to control the Gulf and oil, with potential consequences for global energy markets, shipping costs, and the international economy. They discuss how Iran’s actions may integrate with China and Russia, including potential shifts in currency use (yuan) for trade and new financial arrangements, such as Deutsche Bank offering Chinese bonds. - They discuss the economic and geopolitical ripple effects beyond the battlefield: rising U.S. fuel prices (gas increasing sharply in parts of the U.S., including Florida), potential airline disruptions, and the broader risk to European energy security as sanctions and alternative energy pathways come under stress. They note that Europe’s energy strategies and alliances may be forced to adapt, potentially shifting energy flows to China or Russia, and the possibility of Europe’s economy suffering from disrupted energy supplies. - Toward the end, the speakers acknowledge the difficulty of stopping escalation and the need for major powers to negotiate new terms for the post-unipolar order. They caution that reconciliations are unlikely in the near term, warning of the potential for a broader conflict if leaders do not find a path away from continued escalation. They close with a somewhat pessimistic view, acknowledging that even if the war ends soon, the economic ramifications will be long-lasting. They joke that, at minimum, they’ll have more material to discuss next week, given Trump’s actions.

Speaker 0 raises questions about what’s happening culturally in Europe, noting crackdowns on free speech and people looking less like us, and asks whether a massive shift in world alliances is occurring long term. Speaker 1 responds that there is definitely a new world order, with changes in trade, globalization, and the way we invest in our economy versus foreign supply chains. They say the president is willing to shake up old alliance structures, and that NATO is much different now because of the president’s leadership, whereas ten years ago it was effectively a protectorate of the United States of America. They mention Venezuela as an example and state that the president is putting a stamp on world history, but in an America-first way.

In a disturbing revelation, the speaker asks Alexa about the outcome of the next American election. Surprisingly, Alexa predicts that the 2024 election will not happen, and there will be no winner. This shocking outcome is attributed to the World Powers Resolution of 1973, also known as the World Powers Act. The speaker suggests that if this act is invoked due to the involvement of Russia and China, the current party in power will continue to retain their position.

I am concerned that Trump may be re-elected, which could harm the global order. Politicians create a false choice between patriotism and globalism.

It is very likely Trump might be elected again, which would likely be a death blow to what remains of the global order. Many politicians present a false dichotomy, a false binary vision of the world. They act as if one has to choose between patriotism and globalism, between being loyal to one's nation and being loyal to some kind of global government.

The great replacement theory is presented not as a conspiracy but as a fundamental aspect of the Democratic Party's platform. The discussion also touches on the implications of the 2020 election.

Speaker 0: 11, that the great replacement theory is not some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic party's platform. Let's That the twenty twenty election was

Tuesday's vote determines which party controls the US House, which significantly controls the country and steers Western civilization. This may affect the entire destiny of humanity. The speaker is voting in person and has received death threats.

The speaker warns that “they have taken control of our society” and urges everyone to stand up, from the White House to every American, insisting that surrender is not an option and that time is running out, with a comparison to the urgency seen in Hong Kong. The speaker claims the attack on the capital was carried out by Antifa but was enabled by political figures—McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, and the mayor—who allegedly knew it was coming and were lax on security, allowing Antifa to act before the media picked it up. The speaker criticizes media coverage as disgraceful, referencing an affiliation with Fox for almost seventeen years and asserting that Rupert Murdoch and his sons are driving a merge with the rest of the mainstream media. The assertion is made that this consolidation represents a serious, expanding threat. Attention turns to alleged cyber and information warfare, with the speaker mentioning new information about battleground states where cyber warfare was used. The speaker claims that former FBI director James Comey sold HAMR and Scorecard, a top-secret program, to the Chinese. According to the speaker, HAMR is a program that simulates an iPhone-like app inside the voting network, enabling it to be installed and to modulate voting to favor one candidate over another, rather than by a large margin. The speaker recounts a specific telephone claim: on a Tuesday night at 11:30, they were told that the ISI of Pakistan was in the voting machines in Georgia. They say they informed someone about it. The claim is made that, in Georgia, the two candidates Loeffler and Purdue were ahead, but one hour later, they were behind, suggesting a dramatic and rapid shift attributed to external manipulation. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes urgency, global and domestic conspiracies, and the need to act immediately to counter perceived control over society, media, and the electoral process. The narrative ties together political figures, media influence, alleged clandestine cyber tools, and foreign involvement in U.S. voting systems, presenting a cohesive but controversial account of systemic manipulation and imminent danger.

Speaker 0: Talking boys wants to give Trump a chance and believes the anti-Trump movement should stop. Speaker 1: Running for president is a cool idea and I can't wait for the inauguration. Speaker 2: This year, the American people are fed up and saying enough is enough. We won't tolerate this behavior anymore. Speaker 0: We need to say enough is enough. Speaker 2: We must stop this now. A new world order is needed. Speaker 1: President Trump's foreign policy means a new world order. Speaker 2: Can we skinny dip at Camp David? A new world order can be created.

Speaker 0 argues that the UN agenda is the same as the Davos agenda, and identifies this as the main topic of the conversation. They claim that the world oligarchic system has power over Europe because they control all the key positions, including Bundescansal or president or prime minister. They state that Donald Trump’s situation was a big shock and not part of the oligarchy’s game plan, calling it an accident. They say the accident was the first time the oligarchy system acted in this way. They assert that normally it would have been Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. They claim the process they are dealing with—referring to “this blandemy and all these liars”—was supposed to unfold in 2016 and then be pushed into 2020 to be a disaster regarding food and water. They say the disaster was normally expected to arrive in 2025, but the plan was changed, and for this reason, they believe the oligarchy will not succeed. They describe the system as almost down, but note that there are last moments and call for courage from everyone to say no. They suggest that the UN could be fantastic and Ken could have a fantastic role, but that the UN is under the total control of the oligarchs. The speaker contends that these oligarchs are all connected with a pedophilia system, asserting knowledge that there are more than eight million children per year who disappear, equivalent to the entire population of Austria, and that they disappear without any information. They conclude by linking this to transhumanism and labeling these acts as criminal.

There is talk of a new world order, with various leaders mentioning it. The Clinton administration is focused on establishing their foreign policy and shaping this new world order. It is seen as a big idea and an opportunity for change. The world we know is evolving, and there is a chance for us, especially the younger generation, to lead in shaping this new world order.