reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The Vidare Foundation, led by Lydia Brimelow, faces what she describes as "spiritual warfare" from New York Attorney General Letitia James, who she claims is targeting them for their defense of American identity. For three years, Vidare has shielded writers and donors from James's "witch hunt," incurring over a million dollars in legal fees. James seeks Vidare's submission and the exposure of their writers' and donors' names, not for transparency, but to punish truth and stifle courage. Brimelow highlights the difficulty Vidare faces in leaving New York and the personal legal challenges she and her husband face. She fears James could put Vidare in receivership, exposing all their records. Despite this, she draws hope from the J6 pardons and recounts a former board member being interrogated. Vidare is fighting for the "historic American nation" and has witnessed support, including legal aid after exposure on Tucker Carlson. They are seeking funds to overturn a $1,000/day fine, appeal a First Amendment case, and file ethics complaints against James for lying to judges. Brimelow urges supporters to donate at givesendgo.com/vdare or via mail, share their message, and pray for intervention in this "spiritual battle."

One of the 8,376 Department of Treasury employees launched an investigation into me the day I released one of the Twitter files. Months later, while I was testifying, some of those same employees made an unannounced visit to my home, even though they owed me money. A judge ruled that political appointees can't access certain information, but thousands of government employees can. USAID is involved in censorship efforts, too, using information operations to manipulate the media. They train NGOs to flag misinformation and strategically leak intelligence to control the news process. The values of Western civilization, like free speech, are worth fighting for. I have lived in countries where speaking your mind can send you to prison, and now I'm seeing that happen in the West. If we can't settle our disputes with debate, the alternative is frightening.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

We are being conquered by a complete resettlement of America with millions of people bringing different cultures and beliefs. This will permanently change the country unless there are massive deportations.

The speaker accuses the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of causing harm, citing record levels of illegal immigration, declining deportations, and increased fentanyl deaths. They also criticize the creation of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), claiming it colluded with social media companies to censor free speech. The speaker questions the DHS representative about a court opinion that labeled their actions as a massive attack on free speech. The representative denies involvement in censorship but admits to being aware of disinformation threats. The speaker challenges the representative on who determines what is false or inaccurate, highlighting the issue of government control over information. The representative denies the allegations, but the speaker insists that the court's findings are not disputed.

As a legal immigrant, the speaker expresses frustration with Democrats for supposedly weaponizing diversity. The speaker asserts the U.S. does not need people who will support the ideologies that ruined their home countries. The speaker left their country because people kept voting for a party promising handouts. Legal immigrants supposedly want closed borders to prevent the same problems from arising in the U.S. Many immigrants run away from bad countries, then support the same ideologies in the U.S., expecting government assistance. The speaker claims legal immigrants oppose open borders and illegal immigration not out of selfishness, but because they know what happens when those types of people are the majority. It is frustrating to see America turning into what they ran away from after sacrificing to make America home.

The speaker discusses allegations of fraud involving “immigrants” and says foreigners are “getting popped all over the place for committing fraud.” They claim people in comment sections became angry after they said “they’ve been committing fraud,” with others responding by calling them a MAGA or Trump supporter. The speaker rejects those labels and says they work in human services and were “clearing the … applications,” which they say is how they know fraud was occurring. The speaker argues that Black Americans “could have been out there” snitching like “Nick Shirley,” and claims Black Americans have known about fraud connected to multiple POC immigrant communities “since the fucking nineties.” They say Black Americans have been aware that “$2 in a dream” stories are a lie and that people were receiving government benefits while working “under the table,” including food stamps, housing, AFDC checks, and Medicaid. They also claim these communities use childcare assistance, and they say they know about sending “husbands” to work while the individuals allegedly stay at home. The speaker asserts that Black Americans “know everything about every group of fucking people” because “no one pays us any” attention and because others think Black Americans are “too stupid” or “too incompetent” to read or do math. They describe having worked in “health care administration” and claim familiarity with fraud involving home health businesses and psychosocial rehabilitation services for people with disabilities, including “behavioral” services. They contrast Black Americans not troubling others with “the problem” beginning when others “began to trouble us.” The speaker says they join comment sections to explain what they claim to know, stating that other groups use Black Americans’ name to deflect from their own crimes, including robbing “local government funding,” “state fund government funding,” and “federal government funding.” They reference “anchor babies” and say others should “shut the fuck up” and stop making claims about Black Americans lacking culture or not working hard. They conclude by stating “Black Americans don’t snitch,” but say once others “started drinking your own fucking piss” and “talk[ing] to us crazy,” they “finna tell it all.”

Millions of immigrants who lack the same moral traditions and understanding of the Constitution are coming to the country. This poses a threat to the values and principles held by constitution-loving Americans. The left is influencing immigrants not to learn English and discouraging them from assimilating into American culture. However, it is not entirely the fault of immigrants or natives. The blame lies with the authorities who ignore the laws and fail to enforce them. The conversation also touches on the idea that breaking the law is not always black and white, using an example of entering a restricted area in a museum with the permission of a local.

Speaker 0: I began my journey into chronicling the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 1: Some of the most terrifying conversations I've had with some of my dear friends who work inside CIA, and their jobs is to go to other countries, get involved in elections, protests that will help overthrow a regime. It's no secret at this point. The CIA has been doing that for years, for decades. But the most terrifying conversations I've had are the ones where they would look to me and say, my god. Like, the twenty twenty election? We're doing to our people what we do to others. Speaker 2: CIA, the other intelligence agencies were exposed with projects like Operation Mockingbird. Speaker 0: The State Department, USAID, the Central Intelligence Agency went from free speech diplomacy to promoting censorship. Speaker 2: They created, purchased, controlled assets at the New York Times, the Washington Post, all of these top down media structures that used to control the information that Americans got. Speaker 3: I pulled into the driveway, opened up my garage door, these two gentlemen come out of a blue sedan with government license plates. And they came up to me and said, you're mister Solomon? And I said, yes. And they said, you're at the tip of a very large and dangerous iceberg. Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. The the FBI sent agents over to my home to serve a subpoena. They're questioning me about my tweets. How is that not chilling? Speaker 2: Our whole page on Facebook for the world Seventh day Adventist World Church was removed. Speaker 5: The level of censorship that we experienced from publishing this documentary was beyond anything I could have imagined, and we really didn't even understand why. Speaker 3: We are going to win back the White House. The Russian collusion started broken '16. That's where the big lie first erupted. Speaker 6: Russian operatives used social media to rile up the American electorate and boost the candidacy of Donald Trump. Speaker 0: That's why they went after Trump with the Russia gate and with the FBI probes and with the CIA impeachments and things like that. Speaker 3: My FBI sources told me there's nothing there. And I kept wondering to myself, how could it be that something that's not true be taken so seriously and be portrayed as true? Speaker 7: How do you expand sort of top down control in this society? How do we flip? How do we invert America? Speaker 6: The evidence that the Supreme Court recounts is bone chilling. The federal government would call a private media company and say, cancel this speaker or take down this post. Speaker 3: I mean, just think about this. A sitting president of The United States had his Twitter and Facebook accounts frozen. Our founding fathers could not possibly have imagined that. Is there a chance that this documentary will be censored? Speaker 1: I think there's a huge chance this documentary gets censored. Speaker 2: Yeah. So it's interesting when you look at so many of the big censorship cases in The United States involving COVID, Hunter Biden's laptop. They all go back to a common thread. What is that thread? National security. Speaker 0: Google Jigsaw produced world's first AI censorship product. Things the model were trained on, support for Donald Trump, Brexit referendum that the State Department tried very desperately to stop. These are all these sort Speaker 5: of component pieces of what you called the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 3: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Speaker 2: Industrial Complex. Speaker 7: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Industrial Complex. Speaker 1: I've long felt that it was a bubbling god complex.

Many Americans are unaware of the dangers posed by illegal immigrants. A survivor of sex trafficking shares a harrowing experience of being abused by a cartel member. Despite fearing for her family's safety, she was too afraid to seek help. She emphasizes that children are at risk in Biden's America and supports Donald Trump due to her traumatic experiences with illegal immigrants.

The Vidare Foundation, according to Lydia Brimelow, faces a "spiritual warfare" in the form of a "witch hunt" by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who Brimelow claims seeks to silence Vidare's defense of American identity. For three years, Vidare has shielded writers and donors from James's "Inquisition," incurring over a million dollars in legal fees. Brimelow states James wants names to punish truth and discourage courage. Vidare is challenging a $1,000/day fine, appealing a First Amendment case, and plans to file ethics complaints against James for allegedly lying to judges. Brimelow recounts attending Trump's inauguration and seeing the J6 pardons as a "reckoning with truth." She claims James interrogated a former board member and illegally forbade him from discussing it with Vidare. If Vidare can't pay its lawyers, James could put Vidare in receivership, exposing writers and donors. Brimelow urges donations to givesendgo.com/vdare or via mail, and asks supporters to share the message and pray for Vidare.

Speaker 0 says they took an oath to the country, the Constitution, and the American people, and not to Europe, Islam, socialists, or globalists. They argue that “this is our country,” and that Americans “get to decide who comes in” and “who leaves.” They criticize members of Congress, including Republicans, for discussing amnesty, specifically referencing the “Dignified Dignity Act,” calling it amnesty. Speaker 0 argues that granting status to people who “shouldn’t be here” is amnesty. Speaker 0 states they are not a “brain surgeon,” but says the distinction is clear. They claim Congress has a “bad habit” of passing “band aids” and “empty resolutions” about the crisis of the day. They argue that the crisis is immigration, describing it as “illegal and legal because we are at war.” Speaker 0 says the conflict involves China, “the globalists,” and “the people within our own country that don’t believe what you believe.” They conclude by saying the founding fathers fought for a life where they could worship God, and not for Islam or globalists.

The United States is currently experiencing an invasion that is changing the country. Illegal immigration is surpassing American births, with over 3 million people entering illegally through the southern border last year. The media may not report it, but the impact is visible in collapsing cities like Chicago. Politicians are failing to protect their citizens and instead prioritizing illegal immigrants, even using taxpayer money to hide them in secret locations. Chicago's police stations have been turned into refugee camps, and illegal aliens openly show hostility towards Americans. This invasion is destroying the country and erasing centuries of American history.

A woman says her daughter was stalked at Walmart and chased by immigrants with a machete on the way to work. After the incident, the police did not return her call to file a report. Speaker 1 responds that if someone's first act upon entering the country is breaking the law, they are more likely to break the law again. He states that 350,000 mothers are in prison in the U.S., but they are not forced to take their children with them. He says shoplifting has doubled and auto thefts are up over 50% in the last two years. He believes many crimes go unreported. He concludes that the U.S. needs to restore the culture of the rule of law from top to bottom, because criminals see top law enforcement agencies not following the law.

Illegal immigration in the U.S. is at unprecedented levels, with millions arriving from impoverished countries. Concerns about their intentions and future contributions remain unaddressed. Despite widespread unease, few speak out against the situation due to fear of repercussions. Peter Brimlow, a journalist who questioned immigration policies, faced professional backlash and now runs VDARE.com with his wife, Lydia. They have endured significant challenges, including subpoenas from New York's hate crimes division, demanding extensive documentation without clear justification. This burden has severely impacted their small organization, forcing them to spend substantial resources on compliance. They assert that they have never advocated violence or extremism, despite being labeled with such terms. Their mission emphasizes the negative effects of immigration and the importance of preserving American identity.

A speaker claims that in Britain, over a quarter of a million people have been issued non-crime hate incidents, and people are imprisoned for reposting memes and social media posts. They ask if the Trump administration would consider political asylum for British citizens in this situation. Speaker 1 responds that they have not heard this proposal or discussed it with the president, but they will speak to the national security team to see if the administration would entertain it.

"We've been able to, like, have, injunctions that, like, stop, you know, deportation flights and other types of things." "Qian Bahad admitted their caucus has secured injunctions that literally halt deportation flights while also stating that people need to pressure their local governments to not cooperate with the feds." "Last month, their undercover cameras caught Santiago Mouquet, a director at the Vera Institute, admitting the group tracks ICE movements and pushes that information out so illegal immigrants can dodge enforcement." "He also bragged about major donors, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and others." "The Vera Institute isn’t just help illegal immigrants evade ICE. They funnel money into radical causes like Black Lives Matter." "A widespread coordinated effort is currently happening right now to undermine federal law enforcement, slow down the deportation efforts."

The FBI is being accused of corruption and targeting politicians, parents, and ordinary citizens. Whistleblowers have bravely come forward, facing retaliation and being blocked from working both inside and outside the FBI. This is a troubling time for the American people.

FBI agents admit to interrogating Americans daily about social media posts, sparking concerns over free speech. A woman questioned agents about criticism of Israel leading to a visit over an internet meme. The woman refused to talk without her lawyer present. The video highlights the FBI's increasing involvement in monitoring online speech. The speaker also discusses intimidation tactics by companies to force conformity. The transcript ends with a promotion for emergency food kits and a call to protect free speech.

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.

Our politicians in Ireland are no different than England and everywhere else. They report up to the network through the European Commission, which is like the Politburo in Soviet times, unelected. And then you've got the European Parliament, which is like the Soviet Parliament in Soviet times. It's a talk shop with no real power. So EU is modeled on purpose on the Soviet system of totalitarian collectivization with unelected bureaucrats. Then you've got the UN, which sprang from Rockefeller's loins. Rockefeller brothers formed the Rockefellers along with the Rothschilds and the Warburgs. All of these structures we've got have been funded and grown, Trilateral Commission, Council Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, W. F. They've all been grown to manage the ant farm of us humans. That's where all our problems come from, and it all goes up essentially to the big banking kind of globalist oligarchs, and they all work together. So we get all this crap that comes down like totally totalitarian dystopian madness. So the key thing for people is to understand your politicians, challenge them on who they're reporting to. That's a key thing, I think. Not don't challenge them about what they're bringing in because that's a waste of time. If everyone is saying we see you and we know you're reporting to a non sovereign, non Irish authority, bringing in things that are against the people's interests. So who are you reporting to? And everyone keeps asking, keeps telling them, we know where you're at. We see you. I think that's important because a lot of people now, even young people are beginning to realize when we were told it was a conspiracy theory that higher powers are basically running our lives in a totalitarian fashion, that was part of the scam. We were indoctrinated to believe that higher up ultra wealthy people running our lives and influencing our governments was a conspiracy theory. But increasingly, people are realizing now, actually, that was a trick to tell us that Uh-huh. Because they are running our lives, and our children's and grandchildren's futures are going to be destroyed by these ultra rich oligarchs if we don't start making a ruckus. Now, wef is a filthy household name. Whereas they worked in the shadows for, like, a century, and no one ever talked about them because they own the media. No. It's 20 social media, you got COVID backlash Yeah. Vaccine backlash, and now you got all these people talking about them. And that's why they're desperately trying to get in hate speech, digital millennium act, censorship, ID for people to get on the Internet. They're really worried about the young people talking. Really scared about that. And, I think it's all on the razor's edge, all to play for for the bad guys and the good guys. Uh-huh. I couldn't call it. I think it's all to play for. So let's double down, more awakening.

Lydia Brimelot of the Vidare Foundation reports that their immigration patriot website, Vdare.com, remains suspended due to lawfare from New York Attorney General Letitia James, initiated despite Vidare's West Virginia location, because it was incorporated in New York in 1999. Brimelot states that Vidare has never been charged with anything, and alleges James' investigation, purportedly about the Berkeley Springs Castle purchase, was a pretext to harass them. Brimelot reveals evidence of this alleged bad faith: a video from an ADL conference where NY Assistant Attorney Rick Sawyer discussed using litigation to "corral speakers" and exploit the expense of lawsuits, discovery, and opportunity costs. Sawyer stated that his office can investigate "sham charities that are advancing hate speech" and individuals who have committed "hate crimes" without going to court, and enter into "creative settlements." Brimelot interprets Sawyer's definition of "hate speech" as supporting Trump's immigration agenda. Despite submitting this evidence to the federal court hearing their appeal, the court refused to admit it. Brimelot asks for prayers instead of financial support.

The speaker accuses the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of causing harm and failing to distinguish between domestic and foreign speech. They criticize the DHS for record levels of illegal immigration, declining deportations, and drug-related incidents. The speaker also mentions the cybersecurity and infrastructure agency (CISA) colluding with social media companies to censor free speech, as stated in a court opinion. When questioned, the DHS representative claims to be unaware of the court opinion but acknowledges being briefed on the Missouri litigation. The speaker questions the representative about the existence of the misinformation and disinformation subcommittee and who determines what is false. The representative denies involvement in censorship and states that CISA focuses on identifying tactics used by foreign nations to weaponize disinformation. The speaker disputes this, referring to the court's findings. The conversation ends due to time constraints.

Edward Snowden once said exposing a crime is treated as committing one, we're ruled by criminals. The influx of illegal aliens is criminal, with an administration run by criminals who hate America. Police are told not to interfere, criminals are always released intentionally. Media gets paid for bad coverage, protecting criminals. Government uses language to manipulate people, calling illegal aliens asylum seekers or refugees. Americans act out of cowardice and naivety, not goodness. Immigrant rights groups are enemies of America. Stop feeling guilty for calling them illegals, stand up for your country. The world needs creative extremists.

The speaker accuses the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of not distinguishing between domestic and foreign speech and causing harm. They mention record levels of illegal immigration, declining deportations, and fentanyl deaths. The speaker also criticizes the creation of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) for colluding with social media companies to censor free speech. They refer to a court opinion that describes this as an attack on free speech. The DHS representative denies these allegations and claims that CISA does not censor speech. The speaker questions their knowledge of the court opinion and challenges them on who determines what is false or inaccurate information. The representative defends CISA's role in identifying tactics used by foreign actors to weaponize disinformation. The speaker argues that determining what is false or true should not be left to the government.