reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 insults Speaker 1 for being Palestinian, expressing indifference to children killed in Gaza. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's support for killing Palestinian kids, leading to a heated argument where Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 a Nazi. Speaker 1 denies being a Nazi, prompting Speaker 0 to tell them to calm down.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss immigration in Europe, arguing that Poland has done a good job by “allowing nobody in,” and that “most European nations, they're decaying.” They say leaders in Europe are “a little freaked out by” the posture and imply that Europe is destroying its own countries. They suggest that if this continues, Europe will become weak and no longer be strong allies; their ideological shifts will reflect the change in the people entering the countries. Speaker 0 expresses concern about London and Paris, calling the Mayor of London “a disaster” and stating he has “a totally different ideology of what he's supposed to have,” noting he gets elected because many people have come in and vote for him. He adds, “I hate what's happened to London, and I hate what's happened to Paris.” Speaker 2 asks whether Speaker 0 intends a message of tough love to our allies to push reforms or if many allies are simply weak and not worth aligning with. Speaker 0 responds that they are “weak,” and that they want to be politically correct, and “they don't know what to do,” including in trade, which he describes as “a little bit dangerous.” He reiterates that Europe’s political correctness makes them weak. Speaker 0 indicates that there should be people removal for those who entered the country illegally: “think they should get the people out that came into the country illegally.” Speaker 2 then asks about NATO. Speaker 0 brings up Sweden as an example: “Sweden was known as the safest country in Europe, one of the safest countries in the world. Now it's known as a very unsafe well, pretty unsafe country. It's not even believable. It's a whole different country. Sweden.”

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they believe in a free press and if they think the public service is full of racists. Speaker 1 responds with "no" to both questions. Speaker 0 then questions why there is a demand for anti-racism training and asks if Speaker 1 has experienced racism. Speaker 1 refuses to comment. Speaker 0 expresses confusion about why Speaker 1 is on a picket line if they don't want to convey their message to the public. Speaker 1 continues to refuse to comment. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 has ever been victimized by a racist in the public service.

Speaker 0 contends that there is no link between immigration and sexual violence against women and girls. They then raise a pointed question about grooming gangs, identifying them as being of largely Pakistani descent that are “blotting our communities,” and ask if there is anything the other speaker has to say about this issue. Speaker 1 responds by saying the question is perfectly valid, but notes that they have moved on to other topics. They request to stick with the subject at hand. They explain that they were not asked to come in, and that they have strong feelings about immigration, which they stated in their reply. They state clearly that they are not going to start injecting racial connotations into discussions about immigration or crime. The brief phrase “The woman behind” appears at the end, implying a note about a person present, but the sentence is cut off.

The speakers engage in a heated discussion about the accuracy of information shared by one of them. Speaker 1 questions the percentage of hyperbolic statements made by Speaker 0 and challenges the reliability of Google as a source. Speaker 0 dismisses Speaker 1's arguments, claiming they are misinterpreting information and emphasizes the importance of personal experience. The conversation becomes increasingly confrontational, with Speaker 1 making personal remarks and Speaker 0 expressing pride in being canceled from certain countries. The discussion ends with Speaker 1 acknowledging Speaker 0's ability to handle criticism but questioning their motives for getting involved in politics.

Amelia introduces herself, saying she’s English and loves England. The other speaker responds with a set of personal preferences—fish and chips, a pint at the local pub, Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolkien, Lewis, Harry Potter, pork sausage, dogs, and fashion—and then declares “Haram. Haram,” followed by anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic statements. They express frustration that Brits are polite but unwilling to “commit cultural suicide,” condemning the Church of England and the BBC as “a bunch of queers and nonces.” They question how the country could move from Churchill to the current leadership, naming Sadiq Khan and London as not Afghanistan or Star Wars. They claim the government won’t protect schoolgirls from grooming gangs and that the police won’t help, accusing law enforcement of prioritizing other concerns, including confiscating garden tools and suppressing free speech. A police encounter is depicted where a woman is arrested for tweeting rudely. They insist curry is fine but argue Britain doesn’t need “2,000,000 Indians here” to cook it, and they assert there are “50 Islamic nations” and that Muslims don’t need to be on the island because they want to conquer it. They state the government dictates the way things must be, and ask if that’s right, addressed to “Robin Hood.” The speaker uses imagery of dragons threatening England, suggesting brave knights must rise to slay them, and questions whether British bloodlines with any bollocks were killed off in World Wars I and II. They declare English men’s country being taken from them, saying it doesn’t matter if you’re “Chav” or “posh”—everyone is in this together. They express concern about the future of the women of England—and imply that women in Iran and Afghanistan wouldn’t want this either. They reference ancestors who defeated the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, and the Nazis, implying resilience of English history. They ask if people can handle welfare tourists, asserting that history will record what actions are taken. The message ends with a call to “Get cracking, lads. Love, Amelia.”

Speaker 0 questions when the world will end. Speaker 1 jokes about the hottest day ever recorded in 125,000 years. Speaker 0 asks where the temperature reading was taken, suggesting it was near an RAF base after fighter jets landed. Speaker 1 finds this insulting and denies lying. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of lying and insults them. Speaker 1 takes offense and calls Speaker 0 disrespectful. Speaker 0 accuses both of betraying Britain and science. Speaker 1 clarifies they are talking about global temperatures. Speaker 0 argues that the hottest day ever recorded in Britain was at an inaccurate weather station. Speaker 1 claims they are engaged in an information campaign. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 calling Speaker 1 a lord and asking if they know something.

The speakers engage in a heated argument about racism and Palestine. Speaker 0 insists that the protestors are racist and should not be shouting in England. Speaker 1 argues that they have the right to protest and that Speaker 0 cannot dictate their actions. The conversation escalates with Speaker 0 accusing Palestine of rape and violence. Speaker 1 tries to calm the situation, stating that shouting causes conflict. The argument continues with Speaker 0 asserting their right to film and expressing their desire to upload the video on YouTube. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 encouraging Speaker 0 to continue filming.

Speaker 0 states he was against immigration as early as 1955, before others like Mr. Powell. While repatriation is now more difficult due to the large number of immigrants, it can be done humanely if Europe works together to create conditions in immigrants' homelands that would encourage their return. Speaker 1 suggests Speaker 0 has a history of using scapegoats, such as Jews in the 30s and Black people in the 50s-70s. Speaker 0 denies generalized prejudice, stating he opposed certain Jews who were "agitating for war" and the import of a different alien population. He claims to have opposed persecution of the Irish and is against atrocity and bullying. He believes action was necessary against a minority agitating for war and against importing another population into an overcrowded island. He reiterates that any return of people to their native lands must be handled fairly and require creating conditions to which they wish to return.

Speaker 0 expresses support for Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself, but says they have to do this because they simply have no option if they are to survive as a country, and frankly, in many ways, as a race in that part of the world. Speaker 1 asks whether immigration represents a major threat to Britain from a demographic perspective, noting that in the last twenty years the white British population has declined from 87% to 74%, and asks if that is a concern. Speaker 0回答: No. No. Speaker 1 reiterates the claim of rapid demographic change, stating that the fastest and most rapid decline of the white British population ever experienced in British history has occurred in a tiny short period of time, and that majority cities that were once 90% white British are now majority ethnic minorities, citing London, Leicester, and Birmingham, and asks why this isn’t a concern of Speaker 0. Speaker 0 responds: But they're not unrecognizable as being English because of skin color. They're unrecognizable because of culture. He adds that he genuinely thinks the British are the most open minded, most accepting people.

Speaker 0 claims Black Americans are the wealthiest black people globally and believes victimhood is a hindrance, asserting nothing holds black people back and they benefit from advantages like lower college test score requirements and freedom of speech. Speaker 1 objects to the "victim mentality" claim. Speaker 1 states that people say the n-word to them frequently. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and accuses Speaker 1 of a "race hoax" akin to Jussie Smollett, suggesting the alleged incident is fabricated to portray white students as racist. Speaker 0 asks if a black person said the n-word. Speaker 1 does not answer the question. Speaker 0 argues that if the n-word wasn't used as an insult, it shouldn't be presented as evidence of racism.

The conversation opens with a conflicting, tense dynamic where Speaker 0 urges not to yell or call names. Speaker 1 responds that they curse but do not target anyone, and accuses others of hypocrisy, noting they’re being criticized for their tone while others—described as “good Christians”—don’t turn the other cheek. Speaker 1 jokes about perceptions of race, saying “Let them think I’m brown,” and suggests that people who call them brown are usually very white. Speaker 0 initially misidentifies their ethnicity, and Speaker 1 asserts they’re Italian/Greek, a Mediterranean, and disputes that anyone is being attacked for being brown. The exchange includes a back-and-forth about who is attacking whom and whether statements constitute a brown jacketing of a fellow European, with Speaker 1 emphasizing that “he wasn’t attacking anybody” and that the other party is being hypocritical. Speaker 0 questions whether it’s a “secret” operation and references the ongoing debate as part of a larger pattern. Speaker 1 insists that the attack was mischaracterized as against white people, insisting he is white and Italian, and that Speaker 0’s group is engaging in broader “art of war” tactics that have subverted rooms with their “brown shit.” Speaker 2 and Speaker 3 enter, noting who has historically called Mister Eskeno “brown” (Timmy g, Meow Wealian, Delco eighty eight, and others), while Speaker 1 challenges the others’ ability to hear his spirit and how he talks. The tone remains heated as Speaker 3 attempts to curb the disruption, telling Mister B to stop, and a brief moment of call for decorum occurs: “Let's have a little decorum, a little respect,” with all parties identifying as European. There is a brief aside about Eskeno speaking Greek, implying that if Eskeno weren’t Greek, his language would cast doubt on certain claims about race or heritage; a separate comment on “brown jacket Greeks” is offered but not fully endorsed. The discussion shifts toward a contentious framing of ethnicity and political ideology within the group, culminating in a set of stark, historical claims attributed to the Bolshevik revolution. The speaker enumerates Jewish presence in key Soviet roles: Bolshevik regime 39% of senior security posts Jewish; 40% of high-ranking NKVD officers Jewish; 50% of NKVD secret police generals Jewish; 78% of commissars Jewish; 92% of Gulag commanders Jewish. The segment ends with these statistics being stated as factual points for consideration. Key figures named in the dialogue include Speaker 0, Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3, Mister B, and Mister Eskeno (Eskeno), with ongoing tensions around race, ethnicity, discourse style, and the interpretation of historical data.

Speaker 0 expresses a significant concern about UK and Europe immigration. They start by stating they are not racist and urge listeners to hear them out. They recount a personal incident from October 2024: a stabbing by a Somalian immigrant while the speaker was defending their girlfriend from being touched. The assailant hit the speaker first, and the speaker only realized they had been stabbed after the confrontation ended. The speaker was in hospital for two days, and after being discharged, they were arrested for defending themselves. Upon returning to Scotland, the speaker had to go to court for the incident, and the assailant did not face charges in the speaker’s version of events. The speaker ended up losing the case in court, and this outcome affected their job prospects because the incident was recorded as assault. They note that this issue has since been resolved in their favor, but they describe a process that still felt unjust. Beyond this personal experience, the speaker claims a broader pattern: it’s happening to hundreds of people a week, and thousands of people a month. They describe the situation as unacceptable and emphasize the core concern that people are being brought from other countries with different cultures who “think it’s okay to do these things” into the country without proper documentation of who they are, where they are, who they have connections to, or what they want to do in the country. The speaker asserts that this lack of documentation and the cultural differences contribute to the problem and that “it’s all just wrong.” The speaker reiterates the central thesis: immigration from other countries with different cultural norms, with insufficient documentation, leads to serious personal harm and a perceived systemic injustice, and this situation is not acceptable. The overall message is a call to reevaluate immigration and the ways individuals are identified and tracked within the country, tying the personal incident to a broader, ongoing pattern that the speaker views as harmful and concerning.

A speaker says they would temporarily halt Muslim immigration to the UK until the country gets a grip on the problem. They differentiate Muslims from Islam, calling Islam a "bad idea" akin to Scientology, not a faith. Another speaker insists Islam is a faith and asks if the speaker is Islamophobic. The first speaker denies this, stating there is no such word as Islamophobia, as it is not irrational to fear Islam. They claim the book has over 100 verses that incite violent murder. Another speaker demands respect for religious beliefs and calls the first speaker's words inflammatory and poisonous, accusing them of stirring up hatred and abusing people's religion. The first speaker quotes Sir William Gladstone, who called the book violent and cursed.

Speaker 0 questions why black people complain and can't earn their own way. Speaker 1 counters, stating that black people are smart and were brought to build the nation. Speaker 0 disagrees, claiming that black people were sold by other blacks to Arabs, who then sold them worldwide. Speaker 1 interrupts, mentioning white people stealing and building the White House. Speaker 0 dismisses this, accusing black people of begging and being destructive. Speaker 1 denies begging and mentions reparation, affirmative action, and access to schools and jobs. Speaker 0 insists that black people are begging for various benefits and questions why they don't act smart instead.

The speakers discuss the issue of hate speech on Twitter. Speaker 0 mentions that there aren't enough people to police hate speech, while Speaker 1 questions what constitutes hateful content. Speaker 0 admits to seeing more hateful content personally but cannot provide specific examples. Speaker 1 challenges this, stating that without examples, Speaker 0 doesn't know what they're talking about. The conversation then shifts to COVID misinformation and the BBC's role in reporting it. Speaker 1 accuses the BBC of misinformation and changing its editorial policy under government pressure. Speaker 0 clarifies that they are not a representative of the BBC and tries to steer the conversation elsewhere. Speaker 1 continues to press the issue.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 she will be taken too because she has brown skin. Speaker 1 calls this racist, stating she is an American citizen. Speaker 0 says it doesn't matter, and Speaker 1 accuses her of saying she will be deported because she is brown. Speaker 1 says she voted for Donald Trump, who she met and is very nice, and that Speaker 0 is racist. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 is supporting mass deportation. Speaker 1 says she supports mass deportation of people who are not American citizens. Speaker 0 says she is Catholic. Speaker 1 says American citizens are not going to get deported. Speaker 0 says potentially, citing Raz Baraka's arrest, claiming he was targeted by ICE. Speaker 1 says he was charged with trespassing. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 a whole ass adult calling people Nazis in 2025. Speaker 0 says this is Nazi behavior. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 thinks it was racist to tell her she was going to get deported because she's brown. Speaker 0 says she doesn't know that happened.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of coarsening public discourse and exacerbating divisions. Speaker 1 defends themselves by pointing out that Speaker 0 also uses harsh language. Speaker 0 brings up Speaker 1's YouTube videos with provocative titles, suggesting they contribute to the problem. Speaker 1 argues that they have no control over how others describe them and that people are free to express themselves.

Speaker 1 questions a congresswoman about taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants and condemns violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 does not answer. Speaker 0 then challenges others to harass him as they allegedly harassed the congresswoman. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to condemn the violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 declines to answer and asks who Speaker 1 is. Speaker 1 attempts to continue the conversation, but Speaker 0 walks away. Speaker 1 then asks Speaker 0 if he has a foreskin.

Two voices, Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, erupt in a heated argument filled with confrontation, insults, and conflicting accusations. Speaker 0 insists he did not assault anybody and denies any wrongdoing, repeatedly accusing others of criminal behavior and bullying. He berates the others as “piece of shit,” “fat bucks,” and “bunch of fucking pussies,” while predicting that they will die a “sad fucking lonely death.” He claims, “Arresting American citizens” and says, “You slam it on him,” denying that he slammed the door. He asserts that “you guys are abducting people off the streets” and challenges the group to meet him, asking for a street wave and directing them to a location. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0, urging him to avoid assault and to provide clarification on what just happened. He notes that they “exited here” and that they are “around you guys.” He and Speaker 0 discuss their location: “ Sheridan and Belmont. Sheridan and Belmont. We’re on the corner,” specifying the intersection to reach them. He asks for patience, saying “Hold on. Stand by.” He reports surrounding actions and voices concern about the confrontation, emphasizing they will soon be in contact with each other and that they are near the other party. The exchange grows more acrimonious as Speaker 0 continues to threaten and insult, telling the other party to tell a Facebook group where they are “Camping out like a bunch of buck bunch of fucking pussies.” He repeats the charge that others are “arresting American citizens” and asserts that the situation is not assault, while Speaker 1 maintains it could be considered assault “at the next stoplight.” The dialogue reveals a tense, personal clash, with Speaker 0 attacking the other side’s families and immigration background: “All your families came from different fucking countries.” As the tension escalates, both speakers exchange directions and indications of where they are relative to the others. Speaker 0 directs a left turn at various landmarks, asking, “Where do I turn? I turn left, turn left, right, turn left,” and acknowledges the need to communicate their location to the other group. The dialogue ends with continued dispute over the events, the concept of assault, and where each party should proceed, punctuated by raw insults and threats. The exchange centers on alleged abduction and assault, the fear of being targeted by authorities, and the urge to confront the other group at a nearby intersection near Sheridan and Belmont.

Speaker 0 claimed that white people make up 10% of the world's population, and that in California, the white population decreased by 71% in 73 years, which "kinda sounds like genocide." He questioned why violent crime and murder rates by race are not available from Sacramento. Speaker 1 interrupted, calling the statements racist and inappropriate for public discourse, and ended the call. Speaker 1 stated that racist tropes and stereotypes have no place in civic discourse.

The speakers engage in a heated argument about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a low-grade thug and a racist. Speaker 1 defends himself, stating that he cares about the death of Palestinian children but believes Hamas is responsible. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1's lack of knowledge about the conflict and dismisses the idea of a two-state solution. Speaker 1 counters by mentioning his concern for other global issues, including the Uyghur Muslims in China. The conversation becomes increasingly confrontational, with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of using anti-Semitism as a diversion tactic.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of spreading propaganda and not providing education. Speaker 1 questions if Speaker 0 will target the transgender community next. Speaker 0 interrupts Speaker 2, apologizes, and insults Speaker 1's understanding of the topic. Speaker 1 points out Speaker 0's lack of knowledge.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss hate speech and content moderation on Twitter, as well as COVID misinformation policies and broader editorial questions. - Speaker 0 says they have spoken with people who were sacked and with people recently involved in moderation, and they claim there is not enough staff to police hate speech in the company. - Speaker 1 asks if there is a rise in hate speech on Twitter and prompts for personal experience. - Speaker 0 says, personally, they see more hateful content in their feed, but they do not use the For You feed for the rest of Twitter. They describe the content as something that solicits a reaction and may include something slightly racist or slightly sexist. - Speaker 1 asks for a concrete example of hateful content. Speaker 0 says they cannot name a single example, explaining they have not used the For You feed for the last three or four weeks and have been using Twitter since the takeover for the last six months. When pressed again, Speaker 0 says they cannot identify a specific example but that many organizations say such information is on the rise. Speaker 1 again pushes for a single example, and Speaker 0 repeats they cannot provide one. - Speaker 1 points out the inconsistency, noting that Speaker 0 claimed more hateful content but cannot name a single tweet as an example. Speaker 0 responds that they have not looked at that feed recently, and that the last few weeks they saw it but cannot provide an exact example. - The discussion moves to COVID misinformation: Speaker 1 asks about changes to COVID misinformation rules and labels. Speaker 0 clarifies that the BBC does not set the rules on Twitter and asks about changes to the labels for COVID misinformation, noting there used to be a policy that disappeared. - Speaker 1 questions why the labels disappeared and asks whether COVID is no longer an issue, and whether the BBC bears responsibility for misinformation regarding masking, vaccination side effects, and not reporting on that, as well as whether the BBC was pressured by the British government to change editorial policy. Speaker 0 states that this interview is not about the BBC and emphasizes that they are not a representative of the BBC’s editorial policy, and tries to shift to another topic. - Speaker 1 continues pushing, and Speaker 0 indicates the interview is moving to another topic. Speaker 1 remarks that Speaker 0 wasn’t expecting that, and Speaker 0 suggests discussing something else.