reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"I like going around on the Internet finding people making fun of Charlie Kirk to death, and I go and report them to their employers so they get fired." "we have sent out over 300 emails to employers, and we have gotten now 15 confirmed fires." "Gabrielle from Illinois, you're fired. Lincoln from Utah, you're fired. Amanda, another Amanda, from Wyoming, you've been terminated. Suck it. Shasta from Washington State, your ass is fired." "Curtis, again, from Texas. What the hell, Texans? What the fuck? Curtis from Texas, you've also been terminated." "truth being told, I've probably lost about 50,000 followers throughout all social medias while I'm doing this, but I would rather have every single one of my accounts hit zero before I give in to these people." "If you agree with what I'm doing, please hit that follow button. Counteract their mass unfollowing of me."

Sam and Speaker 1 engage in a heated conversation. Speaker 1 insults Sam's appearance and accuses him of promoting penny stocks. Sam remains silent and Speaker 1 continues to mock him. Speaker 1 encourages others to check on Sam's activities and mocks him further. Another person joins the conversation and praises Speaker 1, triggering Sam to create a new account. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 mocking Sam again.

It's frustrating dealing with content takedowns, especially for the community. I've been on Instagram since I was 13, starting my kink account at 15. I began with APDL content, gradually exploring pup play, which I'm currently into. It's disheartening to lose that connection because I've made so many amazing friends over the years and have tons of pictures.

The speaker states they were able to open an account and get a blue check mark after having to rebuild from losing an account with over 95,000 followers. The speaker believes "they" enjoy letting people build themselves up only to tear them down and make them rebuild. The speaker's account is "doctor Suzanne h seven" (drsuzanneh7). The speaker posts about vaccines and tries to stay in that lane, rather than posting opinions or pictures of pets.

David Nichol introduces himself as a Twitter user but mentions that he may switch to Mastodon due to Elon Musk's sensitivity.

Speaker 0 delivers a rapid-fire set of bragging lines about wealth, fashion, and success: “Go see my eyes red on my demons,” “My postie racks up just to motivate my niggas,” “Rappers need a stylist bad, but I ain't use a stylist yet,” “I signed a million dollar contracts in my box to steal a text,” “Wake up, check my bank account, phone numbers in there, bitch. I'm blessed,” and references to private jets, being fresh off the press, sipping drinks with lines, a tinted eye, a moving piece, and owning a new bulletproof Cadillac. He notes money, private flights, and the ability to charge for Instagram content, while cutting off a girl who didn’t pick up. The tone centers on opulent lifestyle, independence, and status. Speaker 1 shifts to a hostile, accusatory monologue: “All over the place, guys. Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, Laura Loomer.” He claims Gabe Hoffman “is running humps on people” and calls him a “bad guy.” He says he looks like he’s seen a ghost and that someone close to him was there to infiltrate him, describing these people as “really fucking bad” and stating they are “evil,” including claims of them being “unregistered foreign agents.” He asserts he will be watching everything they do and declares ongoing surveillance and vigilance: “I will be watching. Everything you do, I’m gonna be watching.” Speaker 2 notes a logistical detail: “Hell yeah. On my way back to the site to get my burner phone so I can use my ghost accounts…” indicating plans to obtain a burner phone for anonymous or modified online activity. Speaker 3 adds a blunt, explicit line about using “ghost accounts” for actions, saying, “can use my ghost accounts to fuck,” reinforcing the theme of covert or deceptive online activity. Overall, the transcript juxtaposes an ostentatious wealth/aspirational rap persona (Speaker 0) with a conspiratorial, accusatory stance toward specific public figures (Speaker 1), and mentions of circumventing scrutiny or anonymity online (Speaker 2 and Speaker 3). The named individuals identified by Speaker 1 are Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, and Laura Loomer.

Speaker 1 wanted to get an old account back from someone she gave it to, as it lost followers. She texted him to schedule a call, but he found her texts too forceful. Speaker 0 felt Speaker 1 was demanding his time without context and being rude. Speaker 1 wanted to handle the sensitive matter with voice tonality instead of text. She didn't want to ask for it back initially, to avoid being an "Indian giver," but others said the account wasn't being used well. She claims the account lost followers despite claims of gaining 10,000. She refutes his comparison of the account to headphones. She's taking backend measures to obtain the account and questions if keeping an account one didn't build is "Jewish behavior," versus wanting back an account to "boost people and get the j q spread." Receipts of the escalation are provided.

Pup Nikon states they have been exhausted and burnt out from social media due to personal issues and work as a photographer and laser show designer. They are considering joining the military. Pup Nikon's Instagram account was spammed with suspension warnings, possibly from a hater or Instagram's automated system. They have been on Instagram since age 13 and started their kink account at 15, evolving from ABDO to pup play. They miss the friends and photos they've accumulated. Pup Nikon is unsure whether to return to their old account (Pupunknowns), stick with the new one (Pup Nikon), turn the old account into a backup, or delete it entirely and start fresh. They seek recommendations on which account to use and express excitement about returning to the platform.

The group discusses various connections and claims related to the Iron Dome program and individuals involved. Key points mentioned: - Erica’s father is said to be the chairman of Raytheon and to do extensive work on the Iron Dome. - Sean Maguire is described as “one of the key people running cover up for the identity of the killer” and is accused of pushing support for a person named Robinson, as well as supporting Bill Ackman, who is said to have offered a bribe. - The conversation references Truth and Ian and includes an assertion about Desi clarifying these connections. - Jonathan is highlighted for his exceptional ability to recite information; there are anecdotes about long sessions with him and the intensity of his contributions. There is also discussion about the challenges editors face due to Jonathan’s frequent changes of online usernames after being deplatformed, making it hard to track his accounts. - Other names appear in the dialogue: Lunae, Falu, Desi, Ian, Sam Parker, and Bill Ackman. - There is a mention of the workload on editors who compile and clip Jonathan’s videos, expressed as sympathy for their task. - There is a casual aside about a “big boobs” vendor reference and a note that the Israeli girl was discussed in DMs, with a disclaimer that the speaker is not the person being referenced. - Regarding the Iron Dome, it is stated that there are three main companies involved in hosting, overseeing, maintaining, and keeping it operational; one of these companies is Rafael (the sentence is cut off, but Rafael is identified as one of the three). The dialogue emphasizes alleged ties between prominent figures and defense contractors, the role of individuals in disseminating or concealing information, and the logistical and social challenges of content creation and attribution within this online discourse.

Hey everyone, it's Troll Slayer Mama, also known as shove your backs up your mask, 34. My previous account got suspended, like all my others, but you can follow me here on Troll Slayer Mama on Twitter, for now at least. Who knows when that might change?

The conversation centers on Jonathan’s exceptional ability to recite and recall information. Speaker 1 praises Jonathan, comparing him to Ian and Sam Parker, saying very few people have Jonathan’s gift and that he might be on the level of a truth teller. They recount a five-hour session with Jonathan, noting that at one point the speaker felt like they hadn’t spoken for an hour, only to be told by Jonathan that he was on fire, with the speaker needing water or a break while Jonathan continued to perform. The speakers acknowledge that Jonathan has been “absolutely killing it.” Speaker 2 comments on sending all the I photos to editorial teams and expresses sympathy for editors due to the volume of clips Jonathan generated. They also remark on how the editors dislike Jonathan’s username because it changes three times due to deplatforming, making it hard to search for him. There is a light anecdotal exchange about Jonathan using different vendors and the humorous mention of a “big boobs” vendor, followed by a brief joke about a “big tape, girl.” A reference is then made to a “Rebecca” or “Rebecca, right beyond,” and a clarification that the speaker is not the one being messaged in DMs. The discussion shifts to a factual note about the Iron Dome, stating that it has three main companies involved in hosting, overseeing, maintaining, and keeping it operational. The three companies are listed as Rafael.

The speaker describes spending an entire year posting on X, finally breaking through by reaching 20,000 followers and being admitted to the creator program last night. Then the account was suspended abruptly. He expresses appreciation to followers for the twelve hours of fame and notes that this is the account now, but he probably won’t be posting much anymore, feeling demoralized. He mentions his name, Ethan Levins, in relation to his Instagram handle, but does not elaborate beyond that.

Daniel Penny was facing murder and murder-one charges, and the speaker notes that they were fortunate to expose an Israeli-born and raised prosecutor pursuing a white American non-Jew Christian who was defending the values being discussed. The exposure of the prosecutor, along with the Columbia World Projects program she operates under, which is under the purview of Jerry Spire and David Boies’ law partner, cofounder Jonathan Schiller at Columbia, is cited as contributing to the charges being dropped four or five days after the exposure. From the speaker’s perspective learned over the last four years, there is an obligation for men to stand and fight and expose subversive foreign elements that are hostile and antithetical to the American people, the Constitution, and to moral integrity, turpitude, and values. This frames the account as part of a broader battle against perceived subversive forces. The speaker contrasts his approach with Ian’s, acknowledging that Ian does not go as hard directly at the source. He emphasizes his own aggressive tactics, noting he has 18 alt accounts, which he uses to disseminate information rather than to pursue ego or personal branding. He describes his original account as having about 70,000 followers before it was banned, and reflects that the fight requires decoupling from ego and e-personas to prioritize getting information out over maintaining follower counts. The value of Ian’s role is highlighted: Ian provides a large platform and a gracious space host to give patriotic and wise intellectuals and fighters the opportunity to broadcast key pieces of intel, receipts, criminality, and bad actors. Ian’s platform enables the dissemination of essential information and receipts that the speaker says are integral to exposing wrongdoing. The speaker expresses gratitude toward Ian but reiterates a broader message: men, particularly in America and sovereign nations, must be willing to step up and fight back informationally as the last bastion before resorting to other means. The overarching theme is a call to defend the Constitution and national integrity by exposing subversive actors and ideas through information warfare.

The speaker states they cared about the server, the network, and their family first, including their partner, Shay. The speaker accuses someone of staying up all night to slander them and acting like a psychopath while pretending to be a traditional wife and mother. The speaker claims this person was going after their girlfriend, who hates them. The speaker then says they will show viewers that they still have their Twitter account when the video was made.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a sudden, unexplained YouTube ban impacting Speaker 1’s entire account, including the ability to watch YouTube, with no violations or warnings on the channel and no explanation given. The channel was deleted for not following community standard guidelines, which Speaker 1 notes is surprising given the channel’s focus on personal experiences, scientific conversations, and lack of strikes. Speaker 1 explains the last interview they did was with Jim Sikala, and mentions frequent contact from Harvard University’s neurology department seeking real experiences to place boxes in homes for real scientific data collection, not ufology. He says the interview with Sikala was “the last thing we did” about a week or two prior, and asserts there was no explanation for the termination and ban from the app. Speaker 2 frames this as part of a broader pattern of suppression since they started filming a documentary and releasing it on November 5. They describe their YouTube presence as minimal in size and influence, yet they’ve observed a lack of visibility across Twitter and other platforms, with posts “invisible” or unseen by audiences. They had expected the Rogan mention to boost visibility, given some discussions around the documentary and agent disclosure, but instead experienced continued suppression. Speaker 0 notes that both their channels and individual accounts are not reaching audiences despite heavy cross-promotion, and they question how to generate interest or reach when content remains unseen. They reference a Rogan appearance last night that mentioned Speaker 1, and then the next day Speaker 1’s channel is wiped out, prompting speculation about a possible connection. Speaker 1 acknowledges that several thousand people think the ban is connected to the Rogan mention and Doctor Michael Masters’ discussions, though he emphasizes he does not monetize his channel and aims to help others share experiences. Speaker 1 emphasizes the documentary’s impact on people who feel unable to discuss certain topics in everyday society, noting that the content has helped many to rediscover suppressed ideas and experiences. He describes the emotional and personal toll of the work, including sleep issues and a period of sleepwalking, which he attributes to stress and exposure, and recounts a recent incident of seeing a face in a kitchen window, which turned out to be himself in a mirror-like reflection. Speaker 2 summarizes the sense of ongoing coincidence and timing that feels significant, comparing it to the sense of the phenomenon experienced prior to their first filming. They acknowledge receiving messages from viewers inspired by the documentary, thanking them for the work.

Speaker 0: 'Hey, guys. Just wanted to say thanks to everybody who who, you know, read my Substack today.' He says, 'out of all the substacks I've written, that one was probably the most effort that I put into a single substack as far as tying so many cross connections and overlapping pieces together.' He adds, 'I try hard on all of them, obviously, but that one genuinely took a lot out of me.' Finally, he notes, 'And seeing the the good response and the reception that it's getting means more to me than you guys will ever know.'

I'll be sending screenshots from the email. Are you Jonathan Stewart? There's a screenshot that says, "I always know you're a cheap pot in my language." Thanks, Sharon, for helping me track this down. That must be from years ago. It's definitely not recent.

Hey guys, PupNicon here. I've been exhausted and burnt out from social media, dealing with personal stuff, photography work, and laser show design. I'm even considering joining the military. I'm thinking of coming back to this platform, but I took a break because of the constant account suspension warnings from Instagram. It's frustrating, especially after being on Instagram since I was 13 and building my kink account since I was 15. I miss all my friends and sharing the hundreds of photos I've taken. I'm unsure whether to return to my old account, PupUnknowns, or stick with this new one, PupNicon, and make the old one a backup or delete it entirely. Recommendations would be appreciated! I miss engaging with you all and seeing your stories and photos. I'm excited to return, so let me know what you think. I'll see you all very soon. Love you!

Jonathan was taken hostage by the Jews. Bring the hostage home now. Second, some activists claim they will save America and they are the ones who know the cure for all diseases in the world, especially the cure for America. I will appreciate the work over the years. These people operate with anonymous accounts. I have no problem with anonymous accounts in principle, but I do not support being a rat, a weasel, a low-life social media account. I don’t see them as persons because they are weasels—social media accounts seeking likes, follows, and views. They are not sincere. If your buddy, who had the same views and the same following, was bigger than you and got doxxed, his life was taken from him, and they never let him become big again. Every week his account was suspended while yours ran. You know nothing about real war, sacrifice, being in prison cells, courts, rifles pointed at you. You live in comfortable lives in front of a phone or a computer. I know grifters and hypocrisy. Degrading to the level of rats I did not expect from you. The best thing you can do is shut your mouth when someone on your side—your companion—is held hostage. If you have something negative to say, so be silent. If you don’t want to support him openly with your anonymous account, at least shut your mouth. If you can’t express explicit support, say nothing. But I see you making spaces to disown him and recount what you told him not to do. Is this the time for such commentary when a friend is hostage? Is this the time to reveal your supposed wise advice or to disown him and say you won’t interact with him anymore? So you, with anonymous accounts, are you the cue for America, you fucking rats? You are not sincere in anything, even with your own. You are the cube for America. You are fucking weasels, despicable human beings, and I disown you. I will not interact with you. This is the biggest humiliation to my self-honor to entertain the idea of being in your space. Being with hypocrites, rats, weasels, treacherous motherfuckers, disgusting people. And they will speak to me about national socialism in Germany. Who the fuck are you to mention them?

The conversation revolves around authenticity, exposure, and the pressures of online platforms. The participants discuss the potential impact of gaining a platform with a large audience, with Ian (Speaker 2) saying he told Buckley that if he gets an interview with Tucker (Buckley’s brother), he’s happy to dox himself because he believes a bigger platform would show he’s more right than wrong. Santino (Speaker 2) notes the value of debating ideas publicly rather than focusing on persona. They talk about the appeal of full transparency. Ian explains that the beauty of his path is that people have to debate the ideas, not just judge him by persona, and they must come with truth to negate the truths he shares. Santino agrees that debating issues publicly is compelling and expands on the idea of being fully exposed: “if you’re gonna go for it, go for it for the whole entire enchilada. Just do it.” They discuss the benefits of open exposure, including conferences and real-time behavior, such as hand movements and eye twitching when angry, to illustrate authenticity. The group then shifts to platform moderation and safety concerns. Santino points out the contrast between debating left-right issues on topics like abortion and borders versus the one issue he discusses, which has drawn death threats publicly on a platform where X does not mark it as hate speech, but it marks their literal statistics as hate speech. This leads to a broader reflection on how moderation might be biased or selective, prompting questions about the seriousness of threats and censorship. They acknowledge the prevalence and severity of threats. The conversation touches on the reality that people face threats and harassment, with Speaker 0 remarking that death threats against him, despite his benign persona and raspy voice, raise questions about the seriousness of these threats. Ian refers to an incident where a truth-teller in another space reportedly faced a bounty—someone offered $10,000 for information leading to the person’s capture and claimed to put a bounty on their head, a claim Ian emphasizes as factual, not hyperbole. The other participants react by noting that people acted on it for free, highlighting the real-world consequences of online hostility. Throughout, there is a recurring emphasis on authenticity, the potential for broad platform reach to amplify ideas, and the real dangers of online abuse and moderation decisions, all framed in a candid, informal exchange about growth, exposure, and safety in online discourse.

The conversation features a highly charged exchange among several participants centered on accusations of manipulation, identity politics, and perceived disinformation within online spaces. The speakers repeatedly accuse others of acting in bad faith, being “agents,” or part of a coordinated “j q” network, and they stress the importance of visible support for certain causes over ambiguous affiliation. Key claims and exchanges: - Speaker 0, addressing Albert, asserts that, from a statistics and probability perspective, the likelihood that “he’s a fit” is very high, while also denouncing others as “rats” and “weasels” who avoid any association with a cause that could risk their views. He demands clear support or silence. - Ian is criticized by Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 for giving off “white Ben Shapiro vibes.” Speaker 0 expands this to condemn those who align with or avoid certain causes, alleging many are “agents” who conceal their true intentions. - The dialogue frequently returns to the idea of bad faith actors who minimize association with certain causes or people in order to preserve status or avoid consequences. There are repeated calls to “look at the actions” and “look at the patterns” to determine character. - The group references a supposed “j q clowns” phenomenon and argues that some anonymous accounts with large followings are not trustworthy. They contrast their own Jewish experiences with what they see as arrogance from others, asserting a distinction between genuine advocacy and performative posturing. - The tension between members escalates into explicit personal attacks. Insults include racial and ethnic epithets, with multiple participants using slurs, portraying themselves as under siege by a hostile, deceptive group labeled as “Jews” or “Judaized,” and accusing others of being “agents” or “weasels.” The language includes admonitions to regulate behavior and to stop interrupting, with accusations of gaslighting and manipulation. - The group references Jonathan several times, asking Ian to create a space to gather support and donations for him, insisting on a definitive yes or no regarding the request and criticizing others for evasion and ambiguity. - Carl is repeatedly denounced by Speaker 0 as engaging in behavior that mirrors antisemitic tropes, while other participants defend or counterargue by describing themselves as trying to condemn harmful actions and seek constructive outcomes. - In later remarks, a participant labeled as Speaker 5 offers an external perspective, describing epistemic nihilism in the space: a pattern of discussing Jews broadly without offering concrete solutions, labeling Ian Malcolm and Truth Teller as disingenuous, and praising the group for exposing them. - The closing segment includes expressions of appreciation for those who stood up for truth, with contempt directed at those deemed disrespectful or disingenuous, reinforcing the accusation that certain participants are “agents” within the movement. Overall, the transcript captures a tangled, high-emotion debate characterized by accusations of bad faith, identity-based attacks, calls for clear alignment or dismissal, and a concerted effort to expose presumed infiltrators or manipulators within the space, framed around debates about support for Jonathan and the integrity of the movement.

- Speaker 0 asserts that drones are in the air all day and mentions Palantir as “keeping tabs of on everything that was happening,” suggesting Palantir’s involvement in Gaza. Speaker 1 confirms Palantir’s involvement in Gaza, noting a long-standing relationship with Israel that began in 2014 and significantly scaled up during the Gaza events starting in 2020. They describe the source as biased and imply the article’s phrasing is questionable, but acknowledge the basic fact of Palantir’s use in Israel, including a mention that it’s “even on palantir.com.” - The discussion shifts to perceptions of bias in reporting. Speaker 2 notes that when Jamie mentions an article, Joe Rogan quickly labels it “a very biased article and that no one should trust it,” arguing that Palantir’s technology being used in Israel is a well-known fact. This is presented as something Joe Rogan “plays super dumb to,” influenced by fear of Peter Thiel, according to Speaker 2. - There is a critique of Joe Rogan’s appearance or demeanor, with Speaker 0 making a flippant remark and Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 continuing the thread about Joe’s attitude toward the information and his handlers. - The conversation revisits Joe Rogan’s relationship with his “handlers,” with Speaker 2 suggesting Joe’s handlers have been upset with him, possibly due to a recent Dave Smith podcast in which Rogan appeared anti-MAGA, calling MAGA supporters “a bunch of dorks,” and criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration policy while praising Obama-era deportations. Speaker 2 recounts that JD Vance said he would text Rogan to tell him he was wrong, indicating tension or pressure from political allies. - Speaker 1 quotes/digests a broader concept: “America is great. Make America greater, I’m down. But make America great again and then it becomes a movement of a bunch of fucking dorks,” noting that many participants are “dorks” and “real genuine patriots,” and that the idea of making America great is good, but the inclusivity of the team leads to problems. - Speaker 3 challenges a claim: Rogan roasted the Trump administration and suggested that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are better at deporting people than Rogan, claiming this is almost an exact quote, and questions whether MAGA is “full of dorks.” The group contemplates whether the audience includes many dorks, but asserts a distinction between dorks and genuine patriots. - The dialogue concludes with Speaker 2 asserting that there are people in the government with direct contact to Joe Rogan who push their agenda, implying Rogan might be under pressure to align with certain positions. This is presented alongside the idea that Joe is “skating on extremely thin ice” with these figures, and that Theo’s critique of the administration contributed to tensions. Joe’s response is characterized as telling Theo to “chill out and stop talk.”