reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: Andrew was the brother of Peter. He was a fisherman, and two had to pay taxes besides Jesus, but I might be mistaken here. Speaker 1: I will reconfirm that it is only Peter and Jesus that paid the tax for adults, and I will reconfirm that the other disciples were apprentices in their family's business and were therefore young as well. All of them were 12 and 15 years old, and I'll stand by that, which poses a lot of other questions. If it's the middle of the night and I walk into the wrong house and I see a 30-year-old man washing the feet of an unknown 12-year-old boy, what am I gonna do? I'm going to jail, guys. Think about these questions because it's not the version we've been told. When you redo the story with their ages in mind, it's a darker picture. Speaker 0: That’s really up for debate. If you apply modern-day Jewish disciples in halakhic schools, you might come to that conclusion. Times then were different. Speaker 1: Actually, scholars—look, I just did an article specifically on this, I have all the receipts. Scholars all agree that the age for discipleship within rabbinical circles was 12 to 15 years old. You could Google it. And, again, the only two people that paid taxes were Peter and Jesus. None of the other ones paid taxes and therefore were not adults. It’s in the scripture. Who cares if they're adults? It doesn't matter. Speaker 2: It’s about being a pedophile. Speaker 1: It’s not; it’s not taken out of context. Speaker 0: Peter, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen, right? Peter was already married; Jesus healed his mother-in-law. He was probably the oldest, mid-20s or 30s. The general consensus is Peter is mid-20s to 30s. John is 15 to 20, the youngest. James, late teens to early 20s. Andrew and Philip, late teens. Matthew, early to mid-20s. The others, Thomas and Judas, mostly teens to early 20s. I’m not sure you’ve seen 16-year-old teenagers like fifty years ago; they were men. It’s a different picture today. So I don’t buy the Jesus was a pedophile claim. Speaker 2: CQ Radio does the same bullshit. Try to make him a pedo. Speaker 1: It’s all about mystery rites and excretion from children in their mystery practices. Like adrenaline, they use children as a sacrament to open the veil. That’s what’s going on with the elites today—the Vatican, Israel, and all the elites. The Bible is a PG version. Wake up and stop attacking me because I’m telling the truth, especially if you don’t have the balls to research it yourself. Speaker 0: What the fuck was that? I’m not attacking you. You can have your own opinion. The general consensus of scholars on the Bible was what I just read—the estimated ages. The youngest were Jesus’ direct family, cousins. Speaker 2: CK will do the same thing—bring up the kid at the Last Supper, and he was doing it. It hinges on a false interpretation of one word. Speaker 1: Arts, magic, occult have two sides: black magic uses trauma, fear, and control to harvest from children; white magic uses unity and consent. They both conjure the same entities. One is loving, one is painful. Look at the ages of the disciples: 12 to 15. Only Peter and Jesus paid the toll; the others were not adults. Speaker 2: Quick question: who do you think is God? What is good in the world according to your worldview? Speaker 1: There is a loving creator. That has nothing to do with what I said. If you equate Jesus with God, that’s a you problem. Speaker 2: Are you going to say what you actually believe? Speaker 1: Move on. There’s a loving creator who created us in his image and loves us. Speaker 3: There’s been a lot of indoctrination of children recently. The biggest discussion is wars. Speaker 1: You can give us a little more. Speaker 3: They’re doxxing this kid. People know. Speaker 1: I’m an alpha warrior. Speaker 0: I have to check the Mossad Media Matrix. Speaker 3: Grandma gave him permission. It’s not going to end well. Speaker 1: I’ll be listening. Somebody can go listen there or you could hide on my page as a handle. You’ll be on my team, though. Speaker 4: Veritas suggested forgiving the heretic, but I don’t think it’s ours to forgive. It’s hubris to think that. We’re trying to have an open debate, but disrespectful behavior isn’t acceptable. Speaker 1: I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. Speaker 4: We can wrestle with scripture without ad hominem. You’re okay to say Muhammad’s a better approximation, but that’s a different topic. Speaker 1: Start by looking into the ages of the disciples. Thank you. Speaker 2: The real concern is elsewhere. Veritas has gone over that research and it suggests the opposite.

Speaker 0 argues that abortion is murder and frames it as a ritual akin to human sacrifice, claiming civilizations like the Incas and Vikings killed people to appease gods and gain power. They insist abortion isn’t ritualistic, reference an abortion truck outside the Democratic convention, and challenge the idea that abortion is a right, suggesting that abortion is the only right people have. They express empathy for individuals who might face pregnancy decisions, recounting childhood conversations about a 12-year-old farmworker who might be pregnant from rape, and acknowledge sadness about abortion, but insist that now abortion is “the only right you have.” Speaker 1 pushes back by denying that abortion is a ritual and emphasizes that people do not have the right to keep someone from taking a medical injection or consuming unknown products, arguing that the only right claimed is to murder one’s own children. They describe the statement as dark and urge Speaker 0 to reconsider their stance. Speaker 0 responds with a personal perspective as a father, asserting that the most important thing in life is having children and that one’s children are what will matter most. They reject the notion that jobs or material concerns are paramount and criticize the idea of just killing one’s children. They apologize to Brookie for the upset but maintain their view that abortion is grotesque and sad, noting that many people who have abortions are not happy about it. Speaker 1 contends they don’t care about what Speaker 0 says and asserts a lack of interest in further discussion. Speaker 0 elaborates on the idea that the issue is highly ideological and that the reality of abortion is often hidden behind abstractions. They argue that a human being is beheaded with a knife inside a woman, insisting that if beheading didn’t take place, that person could have led a different life, and that it is not for us to kill people simply because they are “in the way.” They warn that if it is permissible to kill children who are in the way, then the elderly or even others could be killed as well, concluding with the assertion that you can’t do that. Speaker 1 reiterates that abortion is a matter of human rights, while Speaker 0 maintains that there is no human right to kill people, insisting that killing people is the enemy of human rights and that the human right is to live. The conversation ends with an unresolved tension between preserving life and recognizing individual rights, framed by extreme positions about abortion and its moral implications.

Speaker 1 argues that many people hate leftists, and when asked bluntly why, states that leftists are psychopaths who will destroy everything he cares about through suicidal empathy. Speaker 0 asks whether he means progressives or the entire left, and Speaker 1 says the delineation is threshold minute; when examining granularity, it all comes down to ethics, and leftists don’t have ethics, so it’s about degrees of psychopathy. Speaker 0 asks about people who want a little more wealth redistribution but generally love America, noting they exist on the left. Speaker 1 questions why they want these changes. Speaker 0 explains that they think the left has a different view of human nature and that luck and structures matter, contrasting with the right’s caricature of merit and hard work. The sensible left would acknowledge that luck can affect outcomes and that some people face sickness or accidents, so society should help those who are struggling, supporting social safety nets to a greater extent than those who want the lowest taxes. This is presented as the steelman argument. Speaker 1 says that makes sense and identifies the core idea as social safety nets. Speaker 0 asks why such safety nets aren’t voluntary. Speaker 1 responds that achieving the level of redistribution desired requires some degree of force. He notes that the entire idea of progressive liberalism is supposed to be volunteerism, with left-wing government not forcing people to do anything. Speaker 0 calls that a contradiction, and Speaker 1 counters that the left’s promise is that secular government will be fair and allow personal freedom as long as one does not hurt others, whereas Christian nationalists would compel certain actions. The conversation then shifts to the claim that the left’s promise of secular governance leads to compelling people to do things against their will, contradicting the previous ideal of voluntaryism. Overall, the dialogue centers on: a critique of leftists as lacking ethics and exhibiting psychopathic tendencies; a defense of a more nuanced left view that accounts for luck and structural factors; the tension between voluntary redistribution and the necessity of force to achieve redistribution; and the contrast between secular fairness and religiously motivated coercion. The speakers dispute whether progressive liberalism can be both voluntary and sufficiently redistributive, and they contrast secular promises with perceived implications for personal autonomy.

Speaker 0 presents an ongoing mock quiz, starting with math questions that are intentionally disrupted. "One plus one. Yes. Two. Incorrect." The class then moves to "Multiculturalism. Well done, Simon." The next question is "What is three times three?" with responses "Yes?" and "Nine." but it is followed by "Wrong. Yes, Penelope. Gender equality. Very good, Penelope." Speaker 1 questions the situation: "Is this a joke? You think gender equality is a joke? No. But isn't this a math class? Don't be so racist." They insist, "I just asked a question. We don't ask questions. Questions are offensive." They comment on the handwritten display: "They've just written equality and drawn love hearts on a piece of paper. He expressed himself and it's beautiful. He didn't even spell equality correctly." Speaker 2 interjects, "We don't discriminate." Speaker 1 follows, arguing that the issue is not mathematics: "This has nothing to do with mathematics. You think you're so great with your maths and your science and your facts. What about feelings?" Speaker 2 responds, "Yeah. Feelings are more important than fact." Speaker 1 pushes back further, declaring, "This is wrong. You're all crazy. Crazy. Stop violating me with your different opinions. I have the right to speak my mind." Speaker 2 counters, "No. We have the right not to be offended." Speaker 1 concludes with, "And that's more important."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the sterilization of children. Speaker 0 claims that children are being sterilized and offers to show consent forms as evidence. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that children are not being sterilized. Speaker 0 questions why protecting children from irreversible harm is considered fascist. Speaker 1 argues that without necessary care, children would be miserable and potentially suicidal. Speaker 0 requests evidence to support this claim, but Speaker 1 does not provide any. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of propagating anti-LGBTQ propaganda.

Speaker 0 reveals disturbing experiences of child abuse and mentions plastic coils being inserted into boxes. Speaker 1 tries to identify who is responsible, but Speaker 0 only mentions various people, including friends, police, and teachers. Speaker 0 also mentions baby sacrifice and consuming the baby's flesh and blood. Speaker 1 questions the truth of these claims, but Speaker 0 confirms them. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 mentioning dancing with the stars and drinking blood.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of planning to discuss anti-trans topics after talking about abortion. Speaker 0 expresses anger and claims that the discussion is violent and triggering their students. Speaker 1 apologizes, but Speaker 0 dismisses the apology, stating that Speaker 1 cannot understand the experience of having a baby.

Speaker 0 expresses their disregard for signs and tears them down. Speaker 1 questions their actions, mentioning innocent hostages taken by murderers and rapists. Speaker 0 counters by bringing up Palestinian babies, accusing Hamas and Islamic Jihad of murdering them. Speaker 1 clarifies that they do care about the Palestinian babies and accuses Speaker 0 of supporting a terrorist organization. Speaker 0 responds with derogatory remarks about Palestinians and suggests they should all be exterminated, including their children. Speaker 1 sarcastically thanks Speaker 0 for approving their fight and ends the conversation.

Speaker 0 admits to engaging in sexual activities with children who willingly came to his bed. Speaker 1 expresses concern about the harm caused by adults forcing sexuality on children. Speaker 2 shares their experience of being groomed by an adult and manipulated into liking the abuse. Speaker 3 questions how someone as intelligent as Speaker 0 could justify their actions. Speaker 0 defends their behavior, claiming not to know why they engaged in pedophilia. The video ends with Speaker 0 expressing disgust at the idea of acting in their own biography and advocating for intergenerational sex for stronger family bonds.

Speaker 0 defends being naked in front of kids, claiming it's natural and about love winning. Speaker 1 questions the appropriateness, pointing out kids being present. Speaker 0 brushes it off, saying it's fine as long as nothing inappropriate is happening. Speaker 1 highlights the discomfort of nudity around children, but Speaker 0 remains unfazed, insisting it's not a big deal.

The conversation revolves around the topic of transgender children and the use of medical interventions. Speaker 1 argues that there is no such thing as a transgender child and that they should be accepted as they are. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that some children may benefit from medical interventions if they choose to pursue them. The discussion becomes heated, with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of promoting child abuse and Speaker 0 accusing Speaker 1 of spreading misinformation. The conversation ends with both parties expressing their differing views and a lack of trust in each other's arguments.

In a recent interview, the speaker discusses how he has arrested over 100,000 people before they could commit child rape, potentially saving 700,000 children. However, the other speaker finds this reasoning strange, as these people haven't actually done anything yet. The speaker argues that those who have intentions to commit crimes should be arrested. The conversation then shifts to the normalization of pedophilia, with the speaker claiming that it is becoming more prevalent and even present in school books. The other speaker expresses shock at this revelation.

Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 claims to hate children in interviews. Speaker 1 explains that in today's world, it's easier for a single man like him to say he doesn't like children. Speaker 0 suggests that Speaker 1 says this to avoid tabloids speculating about him being a pedophile. Speaker 1 agrees and questions how anyone can truly know if he is or isn't.

One speaker suggests killing unwanted children in foster care. They ask for statistics on the percentage of foster children who are abused, molested, or enslaved. Another speaker says they would be okay with killing babies in foster care and killing children who have been abused. One speaker states that if they don't want to have a baby, they should have the choice not to, because people should still have the choice, and that the other speaker doesn't understand the magnitude of having a child.

The speaker discusses a conversation they had with someone about the mindset of those who harm children. The person explains that these individuals view the world differently and have a singular purpose: to defeat God. They believe that children are the closest thing to God because they are created in His image and have not yet been corrupted. The more pain they can inflict on a child, the greater their victory over God. This is their sole consideration.

Speaker 0 stated that forced child marriage should be supported and that the age of consent is absurd. They believe a woman is never capable of consent and should be forcibly married after her first menstruation. Speaker 1 said young men and women should be groomed for marriage because they become sexually mature in adolescence. He stated that he wants a 16-year-old wife and that the age of consent should be much lower, as he doesn't believe in the concept. He claimed that marriage is consent, and there is no such thing as marital rape because marriage implies a constant obligation to provide sex on demand, which is the only moral way to have sex.

Speaker 0 accuses the group of being pedophiles for not caring about child sexual abuse, claiming they “probably enjoy child porn” and are not looking. They ask Monica: “You’re not a pedophile? Then why aren’t you doing anything about the child abuse that's happening in the county?” They assert, “If you cared, you'd want to stop it,” and imply they would act if it happened to one of their own children or grandchildren, asking, “What if it happens to your grandchild? Would it matter then?” The speaker concludes by demanding action and states, “Next speaker, please.”

Speaker 0 challenges the doctor, asking if they are being forced to put their child on ADHD medicine or risk CPS involvement. Speaker 1 asserts that the medication is recommended for the child and that following the doctor’s instructions is in the child’s best interest. The doctor states they will be forced to call CPS if the guidance isn’t followed and emphasizes doing what’s best for the child, framing it as not a favor but a necessity. Speaker 0 contends the child has not shown ADHD symptoms and asks for a second opinion, to which Speaker 1 responds that they are the doctor. Speaker 0 reiterates that they are being told either to put the child on medication or CPS will be called, calling this forcing. The doctor clarifies that they asked about a second opinion, maintains they are the doctor, and says if the patient doesn’t trust their doctor, they shouldn’t be coming there, which Speaker 0 finds unreasonable. Speaker 1 repeats that they are not threatening, but are trying to do what’s best for the patient and their child, and adds that if you love your child enough you will listen to their words. Speaker 0 pushes back, stating you cannot tell them how to feel about loving their child, and reiterates that the doctor is still the doctor, with Speaker 1 acknowledging the child’s importance but underscoring their medical role.

The speakers engage in a conversation about various topics. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about her husband's involvement in the MDD. Speaker 1 mentions their work in catching online child predators and their goal to increase the number of arrests and convictions. Speaker 0 expresses belief in their cause. Speaker 1 discusses a disturbing incident involving a pedophile in Wyoming. Speaker 0 admits to coming to meet an 11-year-old for sex. Speaker 1 confronts Speaker 0 about illegal content on his phone, including nude pictures of children. They discuss their methods of catching predators and turning evidence over to law enforcement. Speaker 0 admits to struggling with his fantasies. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 asking about vaccine injuries and Speaker 0 questioning the necessity of the conversation.

Speaker 0 addresses the topic of the Epstein situation, expressing a controversial viewpoint about labeling the matter. They begin by saying, "This whole pedo thing, it's like, isn't it really pedophilia? I don't wanna be the one that has to say it, but I guess I'm being forced to say it." They then attempt to clarify their stance by asserting, "It's not really pedophilia, okay? They weren't trafficking five year olds, it was like they were technically not legal. Big difference in my opinion." The speaker acknowledges that this interpretation is controversial, adding, "I know that's a controversial take, but that's not really the issue there, Okay, the issue is not that they were barely legal teens, which is what it is." They continue to differentiate between the legality and the ethical horror, insisting, "It's horrendous, it's awful, it's pedophilia, okay." However, despite labeling it pedophilia, they pivot to a different focal point, stating, "No, the issue is that Epstein is a Jewish spy probably working with Israel." The speaker characterizes Epstein as being "probably working with Israel" and frames this as the underlying dilemma. They conclude by reiterating their position, "He's working with Israeli intelligence," emphasizing that this supposed affiliation constitutes the core of the dilemma discussed.

The speakers engage in a heated debate about transgender children and medical interventions. Speaker 1 argues that there is no such thing as a transgender child and that they should be encouraged to embrace their biological gender. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that children should have the option to pursue medical interventions if they choose to do so. The conversation becomes increasingly confrontational, with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of promoting child abuse and Speaker 0 accusing Speaker 1 of spreading misinformation. The debate touches on topics such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and detransitioning. The conversation ends with both speakers expressing their frustration and disagreement.

Speaker 0 asks if the listener believes in sin. Speaker 1 responds that the greatest sin is bringing children into the world with diseases, as it denies them the chance to live a fulfilling life. Speaker 0 clarifies if the listener believes in sin in the ordinary sense, to which Speaker 1 responds that they do not want to specify what they consider sin. Speaker 0 mentions infidelity as an example, but Speaker 1 refuses to answer, stating that it is subjective and cannot be generalized.

A conversation takes place between two individuals. Speaker 0 asks why someone has many followers, to which Speaker 1 responds with disgust. Speaker 0 mentions pedagogy, but Speaker 1 warns against discussing it, as it could lead to arrest. Speaker 0 then tries to justify pedophilia, mentioning foot fetishes and searching for explicit content on Google. Speaker 1 expresses their discomfort, and Speaker 0 continues to describe a young girl's Instagram pictures in a sexualized manner.

Speaker 0 Launches a pointed accusation, asking, “I am wondering if you are all pedophiles because you don't seem to care that children are being sexually abused.” They claim, “the only thing I could ascertain is that you guys probably enjoy child porn,” asserting that the group is not looking or acting. The speaker states, “If somebody claimed that I was, I would say, I absolutely am not,” and contends the group “love to let it stand as fact that that's what's going on because you're not willing to stop it.” They challenge the group to shake their heads or do something, insisting, “No, Monica, you're not a pedophile. Then why aren't you doing anything about the child abuse that's happening in the county?” The speaker frames care as a moral test: “If you cared, you'd wanna stop it.” They extend the question to personal stakes: “If it happened to your child, you'd wanna stop it. If it happened to you, you'd wanna stop it.” They address Jim directly with, “Jim, what if it happens to your grandchild? What if? Would it matter then? Probably.” The rhetoric emphasizes the emotional intent and accountability, culminating in a confrontational appeal to action and responsibility. After laying out these accusations and moral appeals, the speaker concludes with a directive to move on: “Right. So horrible to think about. Right. Next speaker, please.” The overall thrust is a confrontational challenge to the audience’s alleged indifference toward child sexual abuse, combining provocative accusations with appeals to parental and familial protection. The speaker characterizes inaction as complicity and demands immediate accountability from named individuals, linking the issue to personal stakes for family members. The passage ends by transitioning to the next speaker, signaling a shift in focus or continuation of the public forum.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss whether the term "evil" can be used to describe animated child pornography. Speaker 0 believes that "evil" should only be used to describe behavior, while Speaker 1 disagrees and thinks it can be applied to the thoughts behind such images. Speaker 0 agrees that viewing animated pornography is not inherently evil. Speaker 1 finds it despicable.