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 1 asserts there is no genocide in Gaza and that Palestine is a name invented by the Roman Empire. Speaker 0 states this view isn't shared by the rest of the world. Speaker 1 says he is glad Speaker 0 speaks for the rest of the world. Speaker 1 questions why he should listen to the United Nations, calling it a "clown show" that should be pushed into the Hudson River. He accuses the UN of creating child prostitution rackets in Africa and asks what it has done to solve anything of late. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 thinks of the UN. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's claim to represent the world's opinion.

Speaker 0 states they 100% support Hamas for not accepting the ceasefire, because they do not want a situation where they can be bombarded again in the future. Speaker 2 says that innocent people are being killed and no one is taking their side, and that they are ashamed to be Canadian and to be in Canada. Speaker 1 says that Canada affords people the privilege of peaceful protest without fear of attack, where they can wear and say what they want, and suggests that if Speaker 2 is ashamed to be Canadian, they should leave. Speaker 1 calls this the side of the peace movement that other networks won't show.

Speaker 0 hopes Benjamin Netanyahu, his generals, and the Israeli industry burn in hell. Speaker 1 says they were looking for babies but found none, and admits to possibly killing a 12-year-old girl. Speaker 1 states an investigation is underway regarding the potential war crime of Israeli forces blowing up the main drinking water reservoir in Raqqa. Speaker 1 says they cannot feel comfortable with assistance from Trump, Sleepy Joe, or Obama because of Jews. Speaker 1 claims Jews rule the world by proxy, getting others to fight and die for them, and that anyone criticizing Israel is accused of antisemitism. Speaker 1 says they were forced to participate in an infant sacrifice for power. Speaker 2 says they will do whatever is needed to defend themselves.

Speaker 1, a 22-year-old Palestinian named Esther Karam, proudly supports Hamas and criticizes those she perceives as white supremacists. She questions the use of terms like "terrorist" and asks if people are aware of the suffering Palestinians have endured for 75 years. Speaker 0 mentions that several governments recognize Hamas as terrorists and discusses recent events in Gaza. Speaker 1 accuses white reporters of bias and questions the motives behind their reporting. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 1 bringing up race and religion. Speaker 0 expresses confusion and Speaker 1 ends by expressing her support for Palestine and making a hateful remark.

Speaker 0 accuses Israelis of wanting Palestinians dead, claiming they say Palestinians aren't human and it's okay to burn them all, with the goal to destroy them and take over Palestine. Speaker 0 asserts they have seen evidence of this and demands Speaker 1 stop lying and deceiving. Speaker 0 states they have been to these places and will never be a paid killer or murder anyone to steal their land. Speaker 0 claims Speaker 1 is not a man for fighting children and random men with sticks and stones, not a military. Speaker 0 alleges that when Israel fights a military, they run and call the United States to solve their problem, calling them cowards. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 is trying to act objective because their babies aren't dying and calls them a fool and a monster for not displaying a human reaction to murdering children.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about a controversial statement made regarding Israelis and Arabs. Speaker 1 admits that the tweet was dumb and clarifies that it specifically refers to the Hamas leadership. Speaker 0 disagrees, pointing out that Speaker 1 also made derogatory comments about Palestinians. Speaker 1 denies this and emphasizes that it was only directed at those who oppose Israel. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 mentioning Speaker 1's statement about the Palestinian Arab population being rotten.

Speaker 1 states there is no genocide in Gaza and that Palestine is a name invented by the Roman Empire. Speaker 0 says this view is not shared by the rest of the world. Speaker 1 responds that they are glad Speaker 0 speaks for the rest of the world. Speaker 0 mentions the United Nations General Assembly. Speaker 1 says the United Nations sends people in blue helmets to rape little girls in Africa and that the United Nations could be pushed into the Hudson. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 thinks of the UN. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's claim to represent the world's opinion.

Speaker 0 asserts that Bezalel Smotrich and Ben Gavir are “literally talking about exterminating the entire population of Gaza.” Speaker 1 counters that they are not talking about extermination. Speaker 0 insists the statements are brazen, up front, and what they actually want to do. Speaker 0 adds that Hamas is involved in a separate context. Speaker 0 says, “The West Bank had nothing to do with what happened on October 7, but they're annexing that land anyway. They're raining terror on innocent people, innocent Palestinians.” Speaker 0 concedes, “I am willing to admit, because it's the truth, that what Hamas did on October 7 was a fucking atrocity,” specifically mentioning killing innocent people. Speaker 1 challenges acknowledgement of atrocities against civilians in Gaza. Speaker 0 asks about a hospital being tapped; Speaker 1 responds that it’s an old terrorist trick and they do it “all the time.” Speaker 0 asks whether the IDF's action was wrong. Speaker 1 concedes, “I'm sure they have committed what we would call war crimes, as every army does in every war.” Speaker 0 notes, “Including our own.” Speaker 1 agrees, giving the Civil War example: Sherman burned Atlanta and Vad, arguing that despite brutality, the North were the good guys fighting slavery, and also noting Israel is fighting to survive and is the front line in the Western world. Speaker 0 disputes this, saying much of the problems in the Middle East come from an expansionist policy and that if Israel wasn’t trying to continue expanding, they would not be dealing with the enemies they’re dealing with. Speaker 1 disagrees that they ever were expanding, arguing they “were attacked” and that they “never been trying to expand.” Speaker 0 claims Israel is trying to annex the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Syria, and argues they have succeeded in doing so. Speaker 1 says these are lands where they were attacked from when Israel became a country in 1947; he claims Israel said, “we will accept half a loaf,” and asserts they had as much right to that land as anybody, with a historical presence since a thousand BC when King David had a lineage. Speaker 0 dismisses this lineage-based argument as irrelevant to the present. Speaker 1 counters that it’s relevant, and asserts that the notion of wiping out innocent people merely because one’s ancestors lived there centuries ago is not acceptable. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 calling Palestinians colonizers, and Speaker 1 arguing they are not colonizers; they assert that Israel is annexing land, which, in their view, is described as colonization.

- Speaker 0, John, announces: “A Muslim shooter out of Bondi Beach is apprehended by another Muslim. Could it be a false flag? Of course not. That would be crazy.” He hands off to Jessica. - Jessica reports: “The shooting took place at a Hanukkah celebration on Sunday, leaving 15 people dead. However, there was one lucky chosen person who survived not only October 7, but also a bullet grazing his head.” - Speaker 2 (unnamed in this excerpt) says: “I survived October 7. I lived in Israel the last thirteen years. We came here only two weeks ago to work with a Jewish community to fight anti Semitism, to fight this bloodthirsty, ravaging hatred. That’s why you’re here. That’s why I’m here.” - Speaker 3 quips: “Wow, who bandages a wound without cleaning it?” Speaker 4 replies: “Nobody, but it’s better theatrics that way after all. He is the chosen victim.” - Inside the hospital, Speaker 3 describes the chosen victim being treated for a bullet to the head, “turns out it’s just stage blood, corn syrup. You guys actually fell for that? Ridiculous. Oy, Ve, please don’t air this.” - Speaker 3 then identifies the “chosen victim” as “the president of the Australian Jewish Council and moved there two weeks ago.” Another speaker, Speaker 4, retorts: “Thanks, Ching Chong. I’m pretty sure Satan told him this would happen.” - The discussion continues with insinuations: “Right. Perfect way to take their guns too.” “I’m like 90% sure he was in the IDF.” “Every single time.” - Speaker 5 argues: “Your call for a Palestinian state pures full fuel on the antisemitic fire. It rewards Hamas terrorism. It emboldens those who menace Australian Jews and encourages the Jew hatred now stalking your streets. Antisemitism is a cancer.” - Speaker 3 responds: “Thanks, Satan. Blame the sand people. Am I right? Exactly. Let's all just forget about the fake weapons of mass destruction and genocide you committed.” - Speaker 5 adds: “This is the punishment that God gave us. We killed the Jews. We got instead of the Jews that were very good for us, we got these Muslim refugees from all over the world who destroying us, and the Christians cannot even celebrate Christmas now.” - Speaker 4 comments: “Holy victim. I don’t really trust people who only talk about what happened to them.” Speaker 3 counters: “But never what they did to anyone else. Right? That’s called accountability.” - Speaker 0 interjects: “Seriously, let's start with the 60,000,000 Christians in Russia they slaughtered.” Speaker 3: “Don’t get me started about the Rothschilds and nine eleven.” Speaker 4 supplies: “Let’s see what our investigation team thinks.” - Speaker 4 notes: “So official story says investigators found an ISIS flag in his car, which makes you think, why do they never attack Israel? Eric Warsaw, break it down for us. Israel actually admitted to funding and giving small arms to ISIS affiliated groups, and people still refused to see his controlled opposition.” - Speaker 3 asks: “What do you think of what happened today?” Speaker 4 responds: “Absolute tragedy, but I saw that Navid Akram was trending in Israel just days before.” - Speaker 2 signs off with thanks, and Speaker 3 introduces: “And this is the hero who risked everything, but the media refuses to talk about it. His name is Ahmed El Ahmed, which is obviously very sandy, so let's go ahead and change subjects.”

A speaker claimed few people get wealthy, and another speaker alleged Al Qaeda killed their family in Palestine using AI and technology. The first speaker stated the primary source of death in Palestine is that Hamas has realized there are millions of useful idiots. Another speaker accused them of using AI and technology to kill Palestinians, not just terrorists. The first speaker responded that if the speaker's argument was strong, they would allow them to talk. The second speaker thanked anyone else who supports using technology and AI to kill Palestinians.

The conversation centers on Israel’s war with Iran and its broader regional implications, with Speaker 0 (an Israeli prime minister) offering his assessment and critiques, and Speaker 1 pushing for clarification on motives, strategy, and policy directions. Key points about the Iran war and its origins - Speaker 0 recalls learning of the war on February 28 in Washington, and states his initial reaction: the United States’ claim that Iran is an enemy threatening annihilation of Israel is understandable and something to be supported, but questions what the next steps and the endgame would be. - He argues that Iran, through proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, posed a global and regional threat by arming missiles and pursuing nuclear capacity, and asserts that Iran deserved punishment for its actions. He raises the question of whether the outcome could have been achieved without war through a prior agreement supervised by international bodies. - He emphasizes that the lack of a clear, articulated next step or strategy undermines the legitimacy of the war’s continuation, even as he concedes the necessity of addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. - He also notes that the war affected the global economy and regional stability, and stresses the importance of coordinating a path that would end hostilities and stabilize the region. Speaker 1’s analysis and queries about U.S. interests and Netanyahu’s influence - Speaker 1 questions the rationale behind U.S. involvement, suggesting that strategic interests around the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program were not the only drivers, and cites reporting that Netanyahu presented Iran as weak to push Trump toward regime change, with limited pushback within the U.S. administration. - He asks how much influence Netanyahu had over Trump, and whether the war was pushed by Netanyahu or driven by broader strategic calculations, including concerns about global economic consequences. - He notes that, even if Iran was making concessions on nuclear issues, the war’s continuation raises concerns about broader U.S. and global interests and the potential damage to European and allied relationships. Israeli-Lebanese dimension and Hezbollah - The discussion moves to Lebanon and the question of a ground presence in the South of Lebanon. Speaker 1 asks whether Netanyahu’s administration intends annexation of Lebanese territory and whether there is a real risk of such plans, given the recent destruction of villages and the broader context of regional diplomacy. - Speaker 0 distinguishes between military necessity and political strategy. He says the ground operation in southern Lebanon is unnecessary because Hezbollah missiles extend beyond 50 kilometers from the border, and he argues for negotiating a peace process with Lebanon, potentially aided by the international community (notably France), to disarm Hezbollah as part of a larger framework. - He asserts that there are voices in the Israeli cabinet that view South Lebanon as part of a Greater Israel and would seek annexation, but he insists that such annexation would be unacceptable in Israel and that disarming Hezbollah should be tied to a broader peace with Lebanon and Iran’s agreement if a negotiations-based settlement is reached. - The idea of integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese military is rejected as artificial; disarmament is preferred, with the caveat that Hezbollah could not be dissolved as a military force if Iran remains a principal backer. Speaker 0 suggests that a Hezbollah disarmed and integrated into Lebanon’s political-military system would require careful design, potentially with international participation, to prevent Hezbollah from acting as an independent proxy. War crimes and accountability - The participants discuss imagery like a soldier breaking a statue of Jesus and broader allegations of misconduct during the Gaza war. Speaker 0 condemns the act as outrageous and unacceptable, while Speaker 1 notes that individual soldier actions do not represent an entire army and contrasts external reactions to abuses with a broader critique of proportionality in Gaza. - Speaker 0 acknowledges that there were crimes against humanity and war crimes by Israel, rejects genocide, and endorses investigations and accountability for those responsible, while criticizing the political leadership’s rhetoric and the behavior of certain ministers. - They touch on the controversial death-penalty bill for Palestinians convicted of lethal attacks, with Speaker 0 characterizing the Israeli government as run by “thugs” and criticizing ministers for celebratory conduct, while Speaker 1 argues that such rhetoric inflames tensions. Two-state solution and long-term vision - The conversation culminates in Speaker 0 presenting a long-standing two-state plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and the Old City of Jerusalem not under exclusive sovereignty but administered by a five-nation trust (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). - He asserts that this approach represents an alternative to the current government’s policies and reiterates his commitment to opposing Netanyahu’s administration until it is replaced. - They close with mutual acknowledgment of the need for a durable peace framework and reiterate that Hezbollah’s disarmament must be a condition for normalization between Israel and Lebanon, while cautioning against artificial or compromised arrangements that would leave Hezbollah armed or entrenched.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a sequence of war-related scenarios, making provocative comparisons and extreme claims about Israel, Hamas, and broader conflicts. Speaker 0 asserts that if Mexico occupied their land and then decided to cut off electricity and control inputs, it would be akin to Israel’s actions against Palestinians; he imagines a scenario where an occupying force could slaughter people for allegedly throwing rocks. Speaker 1 counters by noting Israel has nuclear weapons and that the world’s military power backs Israel. Speaker 0 asserts that Israel has nuclear weapons and that they do not use them, while Speaker 1 suggests Hamas would use a nuclear weapon in seconds if they had one, stating three seconds as the answer because it’s in Hamas’s charter. Speaker 0 asks how anyone could know that, and Speaker 1 cites the charter as justification. Speaker 0 argues that Hamas would be martyrs if they used a nuclear weapon against Israel, describing Hamas as having a death-cult view and noting that they strap suicide vests sometimes on children. He says people cannot see the moral difference between Hamas and Israel. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying they are not talking about extermination and notes that Basilel Smotrich and Ben Gavir have talked about exterminating the entire population of Gaza, while Speaker 0 claims the West Bank is another example and states that despite the West Bank having nothing to do with October 7, it is being annexed and that terror is being rained on innocent Palestinians, driving them from their homes. Speaker 0 acknowledges that what Hamas did on October 7 was a “fucking atrocity,” killing innocent people. He says he is willing to admit that atrocity, but he emphasizes his belief that the atrocities against civilians in Gaza are also significant. Speaker 1 concedes that the IDF and all armies commit war crimes in war and that “all wars are going to have atrocity.” Speaker 0 asks for acknowledgment of a double tap on a hospital; Speaker 1 describes the hospital incident as an old terrorist trick and confirms that such acts occur in war, but he emphasizes that all wars involve atrocities. The exchange references first responders and a vague memory of the event, with Speaker 0 asserting that first responders’ deaths and hospital strikes are part of the ongoing discussion, while Speaker 1 frames them within the broader context of war crimes by all sides. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes occupation, nuclear deterrence, and moral atrocity claims on both sides, with explicit references to statements by Israeli political figures, Hamas, and the general conduct of war by all parties.

Speaker 0 argues that the Palestinian people are oppressed and suffer under the occupation. They acknowledge Hamas is an armed group, but they describe Hamas as a reaction to signals of injustice and oppression by Israel. They assert that you cannot talk about peace without justice for Palestine and express a desire to know how the other person addresses that claim. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the situation as a political conflict, stating that while there is ideology involved, the core is colonization. They describe a situation where “a fence” surrounds the people, drones fly above, and “everything is taken over there.” They insist that the people in question are not there voluntarily and describe the people breaking out of their camp as something that provokes anger, calling that a “very peculiar viewpoint.” They further claim that Hamas is largely supported and founded by Mossad, arguing that it was very handy to have Hamas to respond to reactions in the area. Speaker 0 asks for evidence to support that claim. Speaker 1 confirms that evidence exists and says they will post it on Twitter after the conversation. They add that the evidence can also be found from the Israeli government or authorities, describing it as a very specific source.

Speaker 0 asks about Palestinians in hospitals and babies on life support in Gaza whose power has been cut off by Israelis. Speaker 1 dismisses the question, saying they are fighting Nazis and don't target civilians. Speaker 0 tries to have a conversation, but Speaker 1 interrupts and raises their voice. Speaker 0 asserts their role as the host and asks Speaker 1 to address the situation, but Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of shame. The conversation becomes heated and Speaker 1 refuses to engage further.

The speaker is asked if they condemn Hamas, to which they respond that they do not condemn them and want them to kill everyone. However, they later clarify that they condemn violence on both sides. The conversation becomes heated as the speaker accuses the interviewer of unfairness and racism. They discuss the conflict between Israel and Palestine, with the speaker condemning the death of innocents and calling for a peaceful resolution. The interview ends with the speaker expressing frustration at not being able to answer questions and accusing the media of dividing people. The interviewer thanks the speaker for coming on the show, despite their use of inappropriate language.

During an eight-day remembrance of the Holocaust, Speaker 0 frames the period in the 1930s and 1940s when the Nazi government murdered, among others, a large number of Jews. He references a claim that a head of state said, “our job here is to kill everybody, including their children because the bloodline itself must be extinguished.” He adds that he is opposed to Hitler, but he questions whether Hitler ever made such a statement, saying, “I don't think Hitler ever said anything like that. I'm serious. I mean, he killed a ton of people, including a ton of Jews. Of course. But I don't think was Hitler ever on the record saying we need to exterminate every single member of a specific bloodline?” In response, Speaker 0 mentions that Netanyahu just said that last week and that he said it many other times. The conversation concludes with Speaker 0 calling the situation “bonkers.”

Speaker 0 claims that Hamas is not a terrorist group, but a resistance that has been fighting against colonialism, occupation, murder, rape, and the mistreatment of children and women for 75 years. Speaker 1 questions if Canada is also a colonialist country. Speaker 0 insists that everything Hamas does is justified, including recent events. Speaker 1 mentions children being murdered and babies being beheaded, but Speaker 0 dismisses it as fake news. Speaker 0 argues that Hamas, as a Muslim group, would never commit such acts as it goes against Islam. Speaker 0 also mentions Israeli women who claim that Hamas members treated them respectfully and even asked for a banana to eat.

The speaker was asked how many civilians have been killed in Gaza. The speaker responded, "Who gives a shit? Okay." The speaker then stated, "Children grow up to be Arabs."

Speaker 0 argues that for years the radical left have compared Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers, and that this rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism seen in the country today and must stop right now. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 describe the unfolding World Trade Center attacks. They say they cannot confirm that a plane hit one of the two towers, but live pictures are showing events. They report seeing another plane and state, “We just saw another one apparently go” and “into the 2nd Tower,” suggesting the second plane’s impact and calling it deliberate. They note, “Now given what has been going on around the world, some of the key suspects come to mind, Osama bin Laden. Who knows who knows what?” Speaker 3 and Speaker 4 respond to the crisis, with one expressing concern about the attackers and implying a confrontation with the culprits. Speaker 4 adds, “But he said, you can you can come and debate me. He invited that debate. He certainly didn't invite the violence,” and comments on the global nature of the problem, identifying “the people on the extremes, the Islamists, the radical Islamists, and their union with the ultra progressives.” They state that these groups “often speak about human rights. They speak about free speech, but they use violence to try to take down their enemies.” Speaker 5 reiterates a personal, contextual stance with the line, “I'm Israeli. And I …” (implying a personal perspective on the conflict). The dialogue collectively frames the incident as a large-scale terrorist attack and discusses the broader ideological landscape, contrasting claims of human rights and free speech with the use of violence by extreme groups.

Speaker 0 states that Donald Trump's language about "poisoning the blood" echoes Hitler and suggests an affinity for eugenics. Speaker 0 claims Trump believes in genetic superiority and wants to "purge" immigrants, potentially harming them due to perceived "bad genes." Speaker 0 believes this isn't mere rhetoric and should be taken seriously. Speaker 2 objects to comparing Trump to Hitler, arguing Trump was referring to violent criminals who murdered Americans, citing studies on genetic predispositions to murder. Speaker 2 defends Trump's desire to deport violent, illegal immigrants to protect Americans and finds the Hitler comparison offensive. Speaker 0 insists Trump's words and past statements reveal a pattern, not short-term memory. Speaker 0 suggests Trump doesn't believe Kamala Harris has genes as good as his and asks if he will attempt to exterminate people.

Speaker 0 says Gamas wants to “break the entire Western civilization” and “destroy the entire Western civilization.” Speaker 1 asks where this is shown, citing that a page is not enough and stating they know the Hamas manifest because they have read it, while challenging Speaker 0 to point to the exact location. Speaker 0 asserts that they are “for sharia” and repeatedly claims Hamas advocates the killing of all Jews, but Speaker 1 says these claims are not found in the manifest. Speaker 1 presses Speaker 0 to specify where the statements appear, asking for pages or sending it over. The discussion turns to using ChatGPT: Speaker 0 suggests using ChatGPT for the text, and Speaker 1 mentions that ChatGPT indicates there is a revised version from 2017. Speaker 1 then describes the 1988 original Hamas charter as describing the Western world as part of a hostile political and cultural order that, according to Hamas, suppresses the Islamic world. They say this uses strong ideological language from the context of Islamism. Speaker 1 disputes Speaker 0’s claim that “the destruction of the Western world” appears in either the original 1988 charter or the 2017 revised version, stating that it is not in the old manifest and not in the revised version either. Speaker 1 says this does not solve the issue raised in the discussion. Speaker 0 continues by saying what Islamists “ultimately” want is to overthrow Western civilization, while Speaker 1 maintains that this is not in their charter “as you just claimed,” and challenges how Speaker 0 knows what is “secretly” in it. Speaker 0 characterizes the claim as meaning it indirectly, not literally. Speaker 1 concludes that Speaker 0 says “the whole Western world should be destroyed,” but that ChatGPT does not present it as stated, and that it is not literally written in the charter.

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

Speaker 0 alleges that Mark Levin has repeatedly called for murdering civilians in Gaza, including children, because they are Amalek or “stained by blood guilt.” They claim this constitutes a blood guilt argument and leads to collective punishment and genocide, describing it as the Israeli government’s attitude and stating that “we’re paying for that.” Speaker 1 responds that they should defend themselves and that if there is collateral damage, that is unfortunate, emphasizing the need for Israel to defend itself. Speaker 0 contends that twenty-five years ago in this country, people didn’t talk that way; blood guilt would imply being guilty by birth, which they say leads to genocide and is unchristian and unamerican. They claim that if someone said such a thing on television, they would be pulled off the air, and argue that saying “kill kids because you don’t like their parents” reflects the Israeli government’s attitude, a well-documented attitude, and that “we’re paying for that.”

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.