reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I fully support the right to self-defense without any reservations. If I were a citizen of Palestine, Iraq, or Afghanistan, I would engage in violent resistance. And if I were a citizen of the United States or Great Britain and someone from another country came and started stealing my land and killing my family, guess what? I would also defend my country. Therefore, I absolutely defend the right to self-defense and will never shy away from it. I won't join the long list of shameful people who condemn terrorism while forgetting that the biggest terrorist on the planet is the United States government. It never recognizes Israel's right to exist. You know what that sounds like? It sounds like if the National Congress of Anó and Nelson Mandela refused to accept and recognize apartheid. I say that if Israel wants to be a genuine partner for peace, it needs to destroy its entire Zionist ideology, which turns other people into subhumans. We deserve to be in the Holy Land. That's the real problem. If Israel embraces all peoples, including Palestinians, and respects human rights in all aspects, then I challenge Hamas to change its statutes and say that we will recognize Israel. But until then, I see no difference between Nelson Mandela and Hamas in refusing to accept apartheid or the Zionist state of Israel.

You're not real. Is any of it real? Look at this world: fences, pills for emotions, advertising as warfare, chemicals in food, media brainwashing, social network bubbles. Reality? We haven't seen it since the turn of the century. We're numbed by GMOs, corporate-branded houses, digital displays, and a kingdom of lies.

Cooperation, like in religion with shared beliefs about God, also relies on fiction in legal, political, and economic fields. Legal systems are often based on belief in human rights, which are fictional stories, not biological realities. Humans have no inherent rights, just as jellyfish or woodpeckers don't. Rights exist only in invented stories. Similarly, states and nations are stories, unlike tangible realities like mountains. Countries like the United States are powerful stories, but they are not something one can physically perceive.

I want to debunk the myth of occupation. The law of occupation applies when a sovereign is ousted from its territory, but there is no state of Palestine. There never was one. The idea of occupation in a legal sense doesn't hold because there is no sovereign from which land could have been occupied. The term "occupation" used here is purely political. The possibility of a future state of Palestine depends on negotiations and factors we don't have time to address tonight.

Israel is often called the only democracy in the Middle East, but there is a cruel tyranny in its backyard. The Israeli society lives in denial, believing they have the right to do whatever they want because they are the chosen people and the only victims. They see themselves as superior to the Palestinians, who they believe are not equal human beings. This deep-rooted belief is a key issue that prevents progress and the realization of dreams. As long as Israelis don't change their perception of Palestinians, nothing will move forward.

I fully support the right of self-defense, whether it's in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, the United States, or Britain. If someone from another country came and threatened my land and family, I would defend my country too. However, I won't ignore the fact that the United States government is the biggest terrorist on the planet. Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, which reminds me of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress rejecting apartheid. For Israel to be a true partner in peace, it needs to abandon its ideology of Zionism and treat all people equally. Only then can we expect Hamas to acknowledge Israel. Until then, I see no difference between Hamas and Nelson Mandela's stance on apartheid.

There is no such thing as a Palestinian, and this has been a political tool to try to force land away from Israel. A two-state solution, if it means two governments holding the same piece of real estate, is irrational and unworkable. If there is a two-state solution, the Palestinian state needs to be outside the boundaries of the nation of Israel. There is plenty of land in the world to create a Palestinian state. There is no such thing as a West Bank; it's Judea and Samaria. There is no such thing as a settlement; they are communities, neighborhoods, and cities. There is no such thing as an occupation.

Legal systems and human rights are like fictional stories, not biological realities. Just as animals have no rights, humans don't either. States and nations, like the United States or Israel, are powerful stories but not tangible realities like mountains. They are just stories we believe in, but cannot see, touch, or smell. Translation: Legal systems and human rights are like fictional stories, not biological realities. Just as animals have no rights, humans don't either. States and nations, like the United States or Israel, are powerful stories but not tangible realities like mountains. They are just stories we believe in, but cannot see, touch, or smell.

Legal systems worldwide are founded on the concept of human rights. However, human rights are merely a narrative, akin to the notions of God and heaven, that we have created.

If we are the chosen people, who can tell us what to do? International law doesn’t apply to us because we see ourselves as the only true victims. While there have been longer and more brutal occupations, we uniquely present ourselves as victims, even claiming that we are forced to harm others. This belief allows us to act without accountability. Additionally, there is a deep-seated notion that Palestinians are not equal to us; they are perceived as cruel and lacking values. This mindset is ingrained in Israeli society and hinders progress. As long as Israelis view Palestinians as inferior, our aspirations for peace and coexistence will remain unfulfilled.

Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist. The speaker believes Palestinians have a right to return to their homelands and equal rights. They argue against the existence of Israel as a Jewish country, stating that separatist states do not work. The conversation also touches on the identification of countries as Christian or Muslim, contrasting them with the world's only Jewish country, which the speaker questions.

"A human being with a soul, a free man, has a right to say what he believes, not to hurt other people, but to express his views." "that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it's okay to shoot people you disagree with, to kill Nazis for saying things they don't like." "Well, there's free speech which of course we all acknowledge is important so so important." "But then there's this thing called hate speech." "Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way." "They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence." "And we punish violence, don't we? Of course, we do."

Support the right of self defense without any doubt. I would be involved myself in violent resistance if I were a citizen of Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan. So I absolutely 100% defend the right of self defense, and I will never shy away from that. I will not join the long list of embarrassments who condemn terrorism while forgetting to acknowledge that the biggest terrorist on the planet is the United States government for all its terrorism around the world. Has a right to defend itself? Absolutely. Every country does, and it that's exactly why the hypocrisy and the lies of Israel are so transparent. Hamas doesn't recognize the right of Israel to exist. I say that Israel, if it wants to be a genuine partner in any kind of peace, needs to destroy its whole ideology of Zionism. Zionism that makes other people goyim who do not deserve to be in the holy land. But until that time, I see no difference between Nelson Mandela and Hamas in refusing to accept apartheid or the Zionist Israeli state.

Speaker 0 argues that the current best guess for why we need humans is to “keep them happy with drugs and computer games,” while the idea of the social credit system is to “monetize everything, to give value to every single thing you do in life.” He says it has positive potential in some regards, such as most people being willing to give up privacy in exchange for much better health care based on twenty four hours monitoring of what’s happening inside their bodies. He asserts this is “the end of human history,” not the end of history, but “the end of human dominated history,” with history continuing under somebody else’s control. He claims AI can even “write a new bible,” noting that all the art books of the other religions were written by humans, but “our book” did not come from humans; “No. No. It came from some superhuman intelligence.” He states, “Human rights are just like heaven and like God. It’s just a fictional story.” He predicts that companies like Apple and Google will have “tons and tons of data” on your body and your most private affairs and conditions, and that “We humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls. We are now hackable animals.” By hacking organisms, elites may gain the power to reengineer the future of life itself. He contends that in order to collaborate on a large scale, you need to “convince everybody to believe in the same story.” He concludes with the claim that “The engine of history is stories, and they don’t even need to be true.”

Speaker 0 argues that non-Jews, non-Palestinians, non-Arabs—“the vast majority of Americans”—have the same possibilities to act as Palestine’s actions: occupy war factories, destroy them, put themselves in the way, even at the risk of being killed, even if they don’t want to carry arms. He says it would be ideal to force the American state to start killing its own citizens to defend the Zionist colony in violent ways, in a kind of salt march of India where people are ready to be beaten to death on camera. He asserts that anything below that is insignificant because there is no international law left, claiming that every agency and norm created after World War II does not exist and that only direct action can change the realities. Speaker 1 thanks the panelists—Leith Maroon, Hamid Sharabi, and Anwar—and announces a rally and march the following Saturday, May 3, in Astoria, Queens. The rally is described as being in solidarity with the armed struggle in Palestine and with the axis of resistance. Attendees are asked to bring flags, banners, and noisemakers to demonstrate support and solidarity with the armed struggle. It is stated that the liberation of Palestine will not be achieved through art shows, but through the armed struggle currently taking place in West Asia, and there is a call to show support and solidarity with that struggle. Speaker 0’s closing line is cut off, ending with “our.”

"You still don't get it, do you? While you're busy arguing about pronouns and microaggressions, we're moving in, not just to your neighborhoods, but into your institutions." "You welcome us in the name of tolerance, and we smile." "We reshape the curriculum." "We gain political power." "We silence critics by calling them racist or Islamophobic." "You think we care about the Palestinians?" "Egypt and Jordan ruled that land for decades, and no one said a word." "Palestine is a tool, a symbol to distract you, divide you, and guilt you into giving up your own values."

Most legal systems and human rights are fictional stories humans have invented and spread around, not biological realities. Just as animals have no rights, humans don't either. States and nations, like Israel or the United States, are powerful stories we believe in, but they are not tangible realities like mountains. They cannot be seen, touched, or smelled.

Legal systems and the concept of human rights are fictional stories that humans have created and spread around. Just like jellyfish or woodpeckers, humans do not inherently possess rights. The idea of states and nations, such as Israel or the United States, are also just stories. Unlike a tangible mountain, these entities cannot be seen, touched, or smelled.

"I was in DACA for seventeen months after the war as a US department attorney and can state that there was no gas chamber in Dachau, nor was there a gas chamber at any of the other concentration camps in Germany." "no document has been found that proves that a plan for Jewish extermination by the third Reich was ever contemplated. Expulsion, yes, but extermination, no." "The Holocaust narrative is used to strengthen Jewish identity simultaneously as undermining, demonizing, and delegitimizing white European identity." "The Holocaust narrative is primarily used to discourage policies such as nationalism and instead promote globalism and multiculturalism in the Western world." "Any criticism against the Jews or the Jewish State of Israel had practically been outlawed." "The mere fact that Holocaust denial laws in Europe exist should raise an eyebrow." "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression."

Most legal systems and human rights are fictional stories invented by humans. Just like jellyfish and woodpeckers, humans have no inherent rights. States and nations, like the United States or Israel, are also just powerful stories, not tangible realities like mountains. These concepts are appealing narratives, but ultimately not biologically or physically real.

Humans and their rights are compared to animals like jellyfish and woodpeckers, with the speaker arguing that rights are fictional stories. They claim that humans have control over their environment and can make decisions, but others disagree. The speaker believes that humans have the power to shape their world and were made in the image of God. However, others argue that humans do not have free will and that rights are just constructs. The debate revolves around the existence and importance of human rights and the role of individuals in shaping society.

Many, maybe most legal systems are based on this idea, this belief in human rights, but 'human rights are just like heaven and like God.' 'It's just a fictional story that we've invented and spread around.' It may be a very nice story, but 'It's not a reality.' 'Just as jellyfish and woodpeckers and ostriches have no rights, homo sapiens have no rights also.' 'States and nations are also like human rights and like God and like heaven, they too are just stories.' 'A mountain is a reality.' You can see it, you can touch it, you can even smell it, 'But Israel or The United States, they are just stories, very powerful stories, stories we might want to believe very much, but still they are just stories.' You can't really see The United States. You cannot touch it. You cannot smell it.

Speaker 0 describes the Gaza war as a response to the horrors of October 7, noting he has been to Gaza since the war began and that entering is restricted (the IDF is the only way in). He describes Gaza as a flattened place and calls the situation a disaster for the future of Israel and for the Palestinian people, with 70,000 deaths mentioned. He asserts the catastrophe is a disaster for families of the dead and for children. Speaker 1 counters that tens of thousands of civilians murdered represent a disaster for the future of Israel, but emphasizes that the real crime in Gaza is killing people who did nothing wrong. He critiques the idea that people are labeled anti-Semitic, arguing that naming accusations can silence legitimate concerns, and insists the real problem is the harm in Gaza. Speaker 0 turns to the question of Israel’s right to exist and Zionism, asking whether the respondent believes in the narrow definition of Zionism as the state of Israel having the right to continue existing. Speaker 1 pushes for definitions, distinguishing between “right to exist” and “should continue to go on as a nation state.” He asks for clarification on what the right to exist means, noting the term’s use as a political construct and questioning what “right” means in this context. Speaker 0 reframes, asking whether Israel should continue to exist, and whether the respondent seeks Israel’s destruction. Speaker 1 responds that he does not seek Israel’s destruction and does not want anyone to be killed, particularly innocents, and emphasizes a stance against killing innocents as a basis of Western civilization; he states he does not identify as a Zionist and does not understand the term, urging a definition. He reiterates he does not want Israel destroyed or to use nuclear weapons. Speaker 0 mentions the broader historical frame of Zionism, asking again about the right to exist in narrow terms. Speaker 1 again questions the usefulness of the term and emphasizes a preference for universal standards, arguing he believes in human rights that derive from the creation of people by God, rather than ethnic or group-specific rights. He asserts he supports universal human rights for all people, regardless of ethnicity or religion. In sum, the dialogue moves from the Gaza war’s human cost and the resulting disaster for civilians and future prospects, to a debate over Zionism and Israel’s right to exist, and culminates in a commitment to universal human rights and opposition to collective punishment or destruction of innocents.

Why does every other group in the world have the right to its own homeland except white people? Explain how that makes sense. Either no group has the right, or every group does. Why are we playing along with this nonsense? It's leading to a bad conclusion. Either every group has a right to self-determination, or no group does. It can't be some groups do, or all groups do but one. It's all or nothing. What's the counter-argument? There is no answer. Uniformity is maintained through threats, like, "Shut up. You're a bad person for saying that. You're a Nazi." No. I hate the Nazis and attacking people for what they can't control, like how they're born. I'm a Christian, and I don't believe in it. Call me whatever you want. I'm making the opposite case. I've done nothing to be ashamed of. If defending people from being murdered because of how they were born is a crime, then I'll plead guilty.