reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Dom created some documents. The speaker was surprised and impressed, exclaiming, "Dom, are you fucking kidding me?" and "That was amazing." Another person, Ian, agreed that "shit was amazing." Someone asked if the sound could be heard through the microphone, and another person confirmed they heard it very well and that it sounded awesome.

Speaker 2 says it is “amazing to be alive now,” but also “nerve-wracking.” They raise a “sidelight question” asking, “why are you doing this to my people?” They argue that their group “never did anything to you,” except “give you the movies,” referencing Irving Berlin, writing “God Bless America,” contributing to the American musical, and noting Mel Brooks turned 100. They ask others to “leave us alone,” “leave our little country alone,” and describe the country as having had “no money,” becoming “the 22nd richest country on Earth,” and distributing resources such as ways to get entertainment and “cable set pop boxes,” concluding with “Let us be.” Speaker 0 says, “All right, gentlemen,” and chooses to end the discussion. They clarify that their upbeat note was “not that the Jews gave you Waze,” but instead that “Waze is the greatest thing ever.” Speaker 1 responds that they know Waze, and asks whether John knows when Waze was sold to Google. Speaker 2 responds by asking, “what have you done for me lately to the Jews?” Speaker 1 says they have “better, more recent examples than Waze,” and adds, “I love Waze,” while saying it is “unbelievable.” Speaker 0 ends with “Okay. All right.”

Jonathan, along with Lunae and Falu, will be involved, and the conversation will go from there. The speakers discuss Mace and mention that Jonathan has been performing extremely well, with one person apologizing for not talking for an hour and another responding that he was “killing it” and to not stop. The speaker says they appreciated Jonathan coming to do that, calling it very kind. They also describe how the speaker’s editors have a specific issue with Jonathan: his username changes multiple times because he keeps getting on different platforms. They mention the username being changed three times and say it has been “like a dozen” since it’s hard to keep track. The speaker explains they must check their account details because it matters how many people you follow versus how many people follow you. They complain about needing to look through accounts to find Jonathan’s old usernames, noting that Jonathan makes a completely different name every time. The speaker asks Jonathan to stick with the same username so it’s easier to identify when searching, saying that it helps them figure out which account is the new one.

- A tweet claims that Leslie Wexner financed the mass rape and trafficking of thousands of American children for over a decade, and that he is currently in a 26,000 square foot mansion in New Albany, Ohio, thinking that he is above the law. The tweet is dated 04/28/2020. - Speaker 0 notes how crazy that tweet is and highlights it as a reminder. - The conversation then shifts to praise for a female conspiracy figure, described as “the most prolific of all the conspiracy,” “the most well read,” “the one with the most recall,” and “the most quoted.” They express admiration for how she is able to find information and stay ahead of topics. - They mention they are trying to get her on, and wonder how she is so good, what her background is, and how she finds all this information, noting that she’s always way ahead of everything. - The speakers reiterate that 2020 was crazy and that she was “fucking way ahead of everything,” calling it crazy.

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.”

In a casual chat, the speaker praises Jonathan, noting that he’s “killing it” and “on fire,” even when taking a moment to drink water or smoke. The speaker mentions sending all the photos to editors because there’s a lot to clip, and expresses appreciation for Jonathan’s effort. Editors joke about Jonathan’s username, explaining that it’s changed three times due to deplatforming, and that he’s had about twenty different accounts. This makes it hard to keep track of him, especially when searching for his latest updates. The speaker laments the difficulty editors face tracking Jonathan’s content across multiple accounts and emphasizes the need to stick with the same name so it’s easier to find. They also remark on how many accounts Jonathan has and how it affects following versus followers.

The speaker describes being with Jared and Josh Kushner and learning new information, suggesting Jared and Josh might have been holding Trump back and acted as his handlers. They note Jared and Josh would look at the speaker or Trump as if they were crazy and portray themselves as the businessmen. The speaker praises Jared’s work and asks what his work in Israel or related to peace treaties was, questioning the facts and recalling it as possibly aimed at making money. The speaker asks if it’s too heavy-handed to include this platform, to which the response is that it’s “your opinion” and that “we're not in the censorship business.” A few days later, the speaker reveals discovering that Josh Kushner owned 10% of Skims.

Speaker 0 expresses a view on religion and national character, saying: “if a country doesn't have religion, doesn't have faith, doesn't have God, it's gonna be very hard to be a good country.” He adds, “This It'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you Christians.” He states, “I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian.” He admits doubt about heaven: “I don't think there's anything gonna get me in heaven. Okay? I really don't. I think I think I'm not maybe heaven bound. I may be in heaven right now as we fly an air force, but I'm not sure I I'm gonna be able to make heaven.” He claims to have been “really saved” by “somebody very special,” and repeats: “A high beak. A high beak. A high beak.” Speaker 1 recounts the presidential oath ceremony: “When US President Donald Trump took its oath of office, he had his right hand raised, but his left wasn't on the Bible. But does it matter? Academics tell Reuters that it was an oversight and it doesn't have much practical impact, although the moment has gone viral online.” A professor is quoted that “the oath is to the constitution.” He notes that “Two bibles were held by Trump's wife Melania as she stood next to him at the ceremony.” Speaker 2 presents claims about Trump’s faith: “Trump converted to Judaism two years ago and joined Chabad Lubavitch Synagogue in New York City according to a high level White House official.” A figure named Mister Goldberg says the story has allegedly been held by CNN's editors for months, but will be released soon. David Elias Goldberg, a fellow at the Jewish Center of Antisemitic Study, has also interviewed the White House source. The source says Trump was pushed by Ivanka and Jared Kushner to join the faith; Trump initially resisted, fearing it would threaten his evangelical Christian base, but then changed his mind and “officially converted in early two thousand seventeen.” The ceremony was private and guarded for nearly two years. The White House appears prepared to release this information gradually, and by summer, Trump is expected to address his new faith in an evening televised news conference. He is described as “the most pro Israel president in the history of America,” having given Israel “every single thing that they wanted,” and being “about to give them war with Iran.” The question is raised: “Has he converted?” A Times of Israel article is cited: “Trump, the first Jewish president of The United States.” It is emphasized: “Now that's not us saying that. That's times of Israel.” The discussion notes that Times of Israel is a Jewish nation, and that “these people do like Israel.” Speaker 0 interjects: “Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.” Speaker 3 adds: “And he loves Israel too. Six years ago, I was up here. And I said, this is our first Jewish president. This is our first Jewish president. This is our first Jewish president. Not not consecutive. We”—and then Speaker 0 closes with: “thank you for everything, Joel. We thank you for everything.”

In the dialogue, Speaker 0 asserts that proxies trained and inculcated in the Zionist regime have implicated themselves in killings, asking how many people believe the incident with the USS Liberty ended. He recounts an incident where someone was proven arrested by American Marines in Iraq, describing the individuals as Jews who sniped and shot at Marines. He notes that these people were arrested after Marines chased them down, and claims that Zapata Engineering, described as a contractor for the company, helped to whitewash the case and secure their release. He emphasizes that these women and gentlemen are “the Jews who live in Israel and who are paid by American Jewry and who are Americans and Europeans in descent,” and he states that they are “actually killing American soldiers,” which he describes as unbelievable. He then asks Wolfgang what he has seen on the situation. Speaker 1, Wolfgang, responds by saying he has talked to many Iraqi veterans at a particular location, describing the place as an immense complex with many men he speaks to daily about different events in the Middle East. He claims that what they told him specifically is that most of the snipers were not even Iraqis, but actually IDF, meaning Israeli Defense Force. Speaker 0 reacts to Wolfgang’s statement, calling it an incredible claim coming from a colonel in the US Military, highlighting that the majority of the precise sniping used to kill and wound in sensitive places—where armor is known and targeted, with the sophistication to place a bullet into these people—comes from Israel. He repeats the assertion of Israel in emphasizing the credibility of the claim as unbelievable. Speaker 1 concludes by indicating that there is more to discuss on this topic and promises to elaborate later, saying, “And that's not all. We'll talk about that tonight.”

The speaker discusses being accused of horrible things due to being Jewish and receiving messages questioning their trustworthiness as a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen. Another speaker asks if they work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube, to which the speaker denies. The conversation shifts to a specific point that the speaker didn't fully answer before abruptly ending.

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.

Speaker 0 announces breaking news that “our greatest ally finally decided to stop genocide in Gaza.” Speaker 1 comments that this is probably because their prime minister is on trial again. Speaker 2, Shapiro Steen, questions where all the people who yelled about genocide have gone, noting that those who were “yelling about genocide now, poof, they’re just gone.” Speaker 3 presses: “Tell us more about how it’s not even a genocide.” Speaker 2 contrasts a “real genocide” with the Gaza situation, saying “not by any stretch of the imagination… a genocide,” and argues that when the supposed genocide stopped, “all the people who were fighting to stop it just disappeared,” asserting they didn’t give credit or say it was a good thing. Speaker 0 teases that “everyone is going to believe you,” then advertises Jake GTV News’s episode, sponsored by Palantir with the line “Finish them off. We deliver.” Speaker 1 complains that tech gurus “don’t seem to value human life,” then generalizes about a group with “tiny hats.” Speaker 0 adds, “they definitely had Jesus crucified.” Speaker 0 muses that Shapiro Steen might get them fired like Candace Owens. Speaker 2 mentions that “we killed Jesus,” but says they can still appropriate “the holy land and use the fake star of David… to usher in the new world order,” asking listeners to “just ask Satan.” Speaker 1, speaking as a Christian, says it should be mandated to go to Israel before heaven, and Speaker 4 says the place will welcome visitors like in Jerusalem, Nazareth, the Sea of Galilee. Speaker 1 questions how Israelis feel about Christians. Michael reports live from the holy land, noting that mention of Jesus “pisses these people off.” Speaker 0 asks if they actually spit on Christians in Israel, to which Speaker 1 confirms, “they literally spit on Christians in Israel.” Speaker 6 interrupts: “Shut it down. We get kicked out of every country for no reason, and facts are antiseptic.” Dennis is told not to mention Jesus again. Speaker 0 accuses the group of murdering thousands of innocent “sand people,” and Satan explains how to stop Christian influencers. Speaker 5 discusses using tools of battle, highlighting TikTok as “Number one” in the fight, and asks what the other important platform is, with Speaker 4 replying to yield to pressure. Speaker 4 recalls a past official recognition of Jerusalem as capital and moving the American embassy there, praising Miriam and Sheldon, and noting their trips to the White House. Speaker 1 remarks that, after the week’s events, the speaker deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, and Speaker 7, in Venezuela, promises a close relationship with Israel and moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. Speaker 8 jokes about donors and elites, and another speaker notes a break room gathering for celebration, offering donuts for the Goyim and pizza for executives. Speaker 1 concludes with “Jackie was so based,” and the room is described as Producerberg. The group instructs staff to finish their goy slop and avoid talking about Jackie. Speaker 0 references JFK and the Epstein files, and calls Charlie Kirkberg “the Jew lover.” Dennis is urged to say “tolerance is strength.” The closing line: “Tolerance is strength, Nikki.” Speaker 1 ends with “You guys are such pussies. Christ is king,” followed by a final jab containing the nontolerant remark “Ching Chong,” and the directive that if you’re not following JankGTV, you’re “not based… retarded.”

Speaker 0: The time game is over. Justice with General Flynn. They criticize the Department of Just Us and recall a past moment when they would have been brought into the DOJ in handcuffs. Speaker 1: Delivers a stream of violent, braggadocious lyrics about weapons, killings, and dominance, including references to shooting, trafficking, and threatening rivals. The content emphasizes keeping enemies in check, physical violence, and material wealth, with repeated lines about not losing sleep over killers, firing weapons, and "run it up" for money and power. Speaker 2: Argues that many people gaining sudden large followings on Twitter or talking about topics like low taxes or transgender pronouns may be pedophiles, suggesting conservative media uses people with criminal pasts as influencers. States that such individuals say things to align with a broader agenda and mentions Israel in the context of a broader critique of conservative priorities. Concludes with a tip to contact Charlie Cook for those seeking a "second act" in public life. Speaker 3: Kyle Clifton discusses an after-party associated with TPUSA’s America Fest in Phoenix on December 19, called the Grand Young Party. The party reportedly featured girls dancing half-naked on stage, girls locked in cages, underage drinking, stripper poles, sex on the dance floor, and mentions “strange ritual Zionist extremism.” He notes promo footage from Florida and Phoenix, blurred faces of attendees, and that age did not matter if the attendee knew the organizer, Joe Bazrawi. Background is provided on Maverick events as the organizers. He reports a security guard tackled an 18-year-old patron, causing injuries; police encouraged filing a report for assault. Parents of other female patrons are considering lawsuits for supplying minors with alcohol. The event was advertised as a TPUSA America Fest after party, hosted by TPUSA ambassador/employee Joe Bazrawi, whose travel and lodging were paid for by TPUSA. He claims TPUSA was aware of and encouraged the party, and that Bazrawi maintains a private dossier on conservatives who oppose his party or beliefs to blacklist them from TPUSA events. Bazrawi allegedly attends other events to photograph attendees for his dossier and share with TPUSA executives. Attendees allegedly included Matt Gaetz, with rumors that James O’Keefe and Madison Cawthorn were present; photos are mentioned. Questions are raised about TPUSA’s responsibility for hosting unsanctioned events with high-profile guests and potential legal consequences or PR damage. The after-party reportedly had about 30–40 attendees leave early; refunds were issued to some in response to public comments, while others did not receive refunds. Some attendees were admitted as late as 1:45 AM; the event ended at 2 AM. Ticketing was disorganized, with staff not knowing who attended. Local Antifa chapters reportedly planned to submit stories to CNN to harm Matt Gaetz’s career. The speaker expresses concern about the conservatism movement’s image and the potential implications for Gaetz and Cawthorn. Speaker 4: The Vault claims to possess extensive material—video, pictures, emails, audio, text messages, phone calls—on everyone and to be willing to drop it all. The speaker has “a lot of crap on Richard Spencer and everybody else” and suggests signing up for Telegram to access this material. Speaker 5–6: Expressions of fear or alarm from the audience, with a call to “Dale” and a plea for help or relief, indicating tension or distress in the room.

Johnny, speaking from Sui space, described being called “a Zionist shill” after entering a discussion focused on Hezbollah, Iran, and the dynamics among Israel, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. He said he waited with his hand up for about 45 minutes, then Michael Tracy entered and began speaking about “Jeffrey Epstein shit,” claiming it was fake and framing it as a Jewish effort to “run interference” for Israel’s “leverage and blackmail,” with a goal to rewrite history. Johnny then said he began discussing Hezbollah’s ties to Cyprus and Unit 8200, mentioning Aviv Zarconi and describing funding through OFAC-sanctioned banks in Cyprus, specifically FBME, which he said funds the “Hezbollah resistance force.” He added that one reason “where are they going?” comes up is their links to NSO group, Flint Intel group, and 8,200, and that Israel already has enough enemies. He said FBME is on an OFAC sanction list for funding terrorist activities and that what he claimed as an “Israeli founded, funded, Israeli controlled” resistance force remained central to his argument. He also claimed Suli was cut off because of “the flotilla,” and Johnny said Suli played a video where the audience could only hear audio of an alleged Israeli drone attack on the flotilla involving Greta Thunberg. Johnny connected this to broader claims involving September 2025 media and relationships among Bloomberg, Elon Musk’s former CTO, and Elon Musk’s supposed protection of Thunberg. He referenced the Strobel Foundation and said Greta Thunberg is a “Strobel fellow.” During an apology segment, Johnny addressed Sir Eskenar, saying he had previously supported Donald Trump, framing his earlier logic around a “dichotomy” between Trump and Kamala Harris. Johnny said Trump “had a layup” but made a disappointing choice involving Likud, and that Eskenar’s stance had remained anti-Trump. Another participant described wishing for an “undercover” FBI double agent to expose “the Democrat hoax known as the Epstein files,” then argued the problem’s scope is larger than most people understand and tied it to AI, Palantir infrastructure, and transhumanism, while people remain focused on borders. Johnny then said he found additional material “earlier today” and described an “Israeli Investment Fund Group” involving active-duty IDF reserve brigadier general Aryeh Tesler and Halil Fold, whom he characterized as a top tech infrastructure marketer, whose father he said was Rabbi Yonah Fold at SAR Academy in New York and who Johnny claimed covered up child sex abuse for decades. Johnny also said the group involves Andre Iancu, described as director of the Patent and Trademark Office and Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. He added that they allegedly share an address at 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, suite 830, and that the suite above is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Colombia, which he associated with cartel activity. He asserted this allegedly makes “drugs, weapons, and kid trafficking” easier when paired with CIA support and an IDF general nearby. The conversation then shifted to FIFA, where a participant asked about alleged FIFA conspiracy elements, executive orders, and symbology on trophies. Johnny’s “nugget” claim stated the FIFA racket ties to attorneys who were “patsy attorneys” for J6 defendants, including Shipwrecked. Others compared it to major events like the Super Bowl. Toward the end, another speaker discussed the “pedo thing” and said some people urged reporting threats to NCMEC. He claimed that NCMEC is endorsed by Microsoft, Amazon, and Palantir, and argued that Palantir’s technology “predicts,” while he alleged callers become “data” quantified in ways he said help identify or manage criminals. The speaker closed with advice to live life outside the issue, emphasizing walking through “demons” rather than being consumed by them. The panel repeatedly returned to themes of research, following investigations, and mental strain from “going into the Matrix.” Speakers also argued that public narratives and platform dynamics can shift, requiring persistence and mutual support among creators.

The speaker discusses being accused of horrible things due to being Jewish and receiving messages questioning their trustworthiness as a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen. Another speaker asks if they work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube, to which the speaker denies. The conversation shifts to a specific point that the speaker didn't fully answer before abruptly ending.

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.

Speaker 0 claims that upon arrival, girls scream, John Kits can't take it, and rich kids have access to spas or sleepovers with Saudi Princesses. They mention bling tests, OS, and Morse code. They claim to have been sprayed with a hose for 3 days at the VMAs. They state that when they are no longer useful, they will be hunted for sport by rich businessmen at a resort. Speaker 1, identifying as Boba, Figio, and Powell, suggests the previous statements are a practical joke.

Speaker 0 says everything is “out of Israel” and relates what “Gilen” told him about her father. He claims that when she was talking to him one day, she said the Rothschilds were the greatest protectors of her family, and he says he is afraid she is still “on the loose.” He states he knows who is taking care of her, saying “I know it is the Rothschild,” and adds that “lady Rothschild is ready to kill me.” Speaker 0 asks if this is when Lynn forced her to the Rothschild and suggests “You can assume.” He then says “it helps us so much because no one’s speaking out,” and tells Speaker 1 that Speaker 1 is “the only one who cares about how it all began,” describing that as “what’s so important.” Speaker 1 responds that “that’s where it is” and says “that’s where the real story is,” adding that “that’s how you find out how extensive it is in in Story.” Speaker 1 then cites a claim that “a guy that used to work for Israeli intelligence with Robert Maxwell told me” that he had seen Jeffrey Epstein in Robert Maxwell’s office “in, like, the mid eighties,” and says “so that definitely goes back several years.” Speaker 0 replies by stating that Gilan’s “thing” was that he was assigned “to her” to protect her because her dad had died. Speaker 0 then asks: “who assigned you?” and says, “what does that mean?”

I'm funded by a Jewish gold company, GoldCo, which supports my content creation. There's a back-and-forth about identities and accusations, with one person insisting another is Jewish based on family connections. They argue about names and origins, with one claiming to know the other's mother’s name incorrectly. The conversation shifts to confrontations, with accusations of grifting and inappropriate associations. One speaker expresses frustration about another dominating the discussion, criticizing their behavior and questioning their credibility. They call out perceived hypocrisy and past failures in movements, suggesting that the current situation is a distraction. Overall, the dialogue is chaotic, filled with personal attacks and claims of dishonesty, with participants struggling to make their points amid interruptions.

The discussion centers on social media visibility, censorship, and the political and military implications of the conflicts discussed, especially Israel’s role and U.S. policy. Speaker 2 says Kushner follows them so they are not blocked and asks whether Netanyahu blocked them. Speaker 0 responds that Netanyahu cannot stand even minor “jabs,” implying a need for “all or nothing” treatment. Speaker 2 then describes a post: Netanyahu shared a video greeting “Happy 4th of July” and “Happy 250th Independence Day,” and Anna replied “fuck you,” which drew about twice the engagement of Netanyahu’s post. Speaker 0 says they pinned the reply and emphasizes that replies gaining more engagement than the original tweet is “very rare.” Speaker 0 argues that Israel cannot reverse its public-relations damage and claims Israel and supporters rely on bans, algorithm control, and influencing AI so the public will “forget.” They argue that, even where people have been favorable to Israel, international views are shifting and that the ongoing war against Iran began “specifically on behalf of Israel.” They also connect continued kinetic action with potential global economic depression if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, predicting that people will redirect anger toward Israel due to shared suffering. Speaker 0 contrasts the spending on bots and social media manipulation with what they say is “everyone knows” about underlying responsibility. Speaker 2 asks whether censoring critical voices could affect younger generations. Speaker 0 says young people are “too savvy,” and points to Nick Fuentes being banned on most platforms but continuing to build a “pretty significant audience” on at least one remaining platform, arguing that bans can create “forbidden fruit” appeal. Speaker 0 adds that calling people anti-Semites previously worked but has become less effective because it is now applied broadly, “including Jews.” They claim that this conflation of the Jewish population with the Zionist project has harmed Jewish people and insist Zionism is “a political ideology” rather than a religion, ethnicity, or identity. The conversation shifts to YouTube and algorithms. Speaker 0 says YouTube is “pretty good,” but argues the algorithm rewards repeating the same topics and punishes deviation; they describe their channel as heavy on foreign policy and say domestic coverage performs worse. They also claim algorithm incentives can push audiences toward more extreme thought. Speaker 2 asks whether public perception has changed since earlier discussions about censorship. Speaker 0 says public opinion against Israel continues to grow and cites Associated Press and NORC polling, including that 30% of American Jews say Israel has carried out a genocide in Gaza. Speaker 0 also discusses a “disconnect” between populations and political leadership in Western countries and Gulf countries, and warns that systems not representing constituents can lead to unrest, uprisings, or civil war amid economic strain and concentrated wealth. They then focus on U.S. legislative action. Speaker 0 discusses “Section 219” in the National Defense Authorization Act, claiming it would merge the U.S. military with the IDF, calling it problematic and saying the House Armed Services Committee gatekeeps whether a full House vote occurs. They criticize committee assignment processes and the Senate parliamentarian system and legislative filibuster as mechanisms that prevent bills from passing. Speaker 2 asks about who is talking about Section 219. Speaker 2 references Massey and Ro Khanna (and others) raising attention, plus Trita Parsi’s Quincy Institute analyzing it first. Speaker 0 says voters should pressure committee members by contacting their offices “incessantly,” naming them, and warning of political consequences if they “sell our country out” to Israel. Speaker 0 states the provision “has to be stripped out.” The conversation then turns to NATO allies, Turkey, and U.S.-Israeli dynamics. Speaker 2 describes escalating rhetoric about a possible Turkey conflict, noting statements attributed to Smotrich and Netanyahu, and contrasts that with Trump praising Erdogan, considering F-35 approval, and removing CAT sanctions. Speaker 0 says details may be unknown, speculates Trump might have personal business motives, and adds an alternative explanation: Turkey is described as an important component for European/NATO preparation for a face-off with Russia. They argue the U.S. may eventually have to choose between Israeli ambitions and NATO plans involving Turkey, with Israel wanting war with Turkey. Speaker 0 also mentions internal Israeli politics, stating that Ben-Gvir is reportedly favored in Israel polls and interpreting that as reflecting Israel’s cultural and political direction. They say they do not expect Israel to pull back and describe Israel as “lashing out.” Speaker 2 discusses the shifting U.S. posture, arguing that if unconditional support changes, Israel would have to adapt. Speaker 0 says they see public sentiment shifting in the U.S. and describes formerly “forbidden” topics becoming discussable. Speaker 0 argues Israel is bombarded with a 24-hour news cycle intended to terrify Israelis and create a sense that “the whole globe hates them,” distinguishing what they call propaganda aimed at the Israeli public from what they describe as bad-faith behavior by Israeli politicians and media figures. They debate the rationale for actions against Hezbollah and describe Hezbollah as a resistance group formed after Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. Speaker 0 argues that disarming neighboring countries is “ridiculous” and that engaging in behavior that creates “reasons to resist” perpetuates resistance. In the middle of the transcript, Speaker 2 shares emotional examples from Gaza. They mention Palestinians watching World Cup matches amid rubble and describe an organizer, Mohamed El Wahidi, who helped set up giant screens for families to watch Egypt vs. Argentina but was killed in an Israeli airstrike before kickoff, with two brothers aged 8 and 10 also killed. They ask how anyone could respond without being upset and say Gaza is being forgotten. Finally, Speaker 2 returns to “strikes back and forth” between the U.S. and Iran. Speaker 0 says Israel did not play a role in “the latest developments,” but maintains the war is “because of Israel.” They argue the conflict should be called “war,” criticizing attempts to downplay it as not war or as a “special military operation.” Speaker 0 claims U.S. actions are provoking Iran, that diplomatic solutions for transiting vessels through the Strait are the only option, and that continued hostilities deplete weaponry, fertilizer supply, and strategic petroleum reserves.

The speaker asks if the after huddle conversation is recorded and can be shared. They mention getting distracted by a squirrel while trying to help someone join the huddle. Speaker 1 explains that Silver records the pre and post shows and they can provide a copy of the text or audio. Speaker 0 requests the audio. Speaker 2 mentions that getting the video would require a lot of data. Speaker 1 comments on the great discussion and how it continued for over 2 hours after the show.

- Erica Kirkburg has allegedly been seen at Fort Huachuca the day before her husband died. - Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss this sighting, noting a photo of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from her past and claiming she matched the person seen at Fort Huachuca in the lobby the night before, who was with a man present at that meeting. - Mitch, described as a veteran who uncovered US involvement in cartels and was silenced, is claimed to have seen Erica. He is also said to have identified the same person in the lobby as Erica. - Speaker 2 notes another picture of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from the past, asserting the person in that photo matches who was seen at Fort Huachuca, and that the man with Erica was present at the meeting. - Stu Peters is brought in, with Speaker 1 summarizing that, in plain English, Erica is “sketchy.” Stu Peters claims he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers; Mitch similarly says he is 99% certain of what he saw. - A directive is issued to “Shut it down, Stu,” and a private meeting is referenced where Candace is told to walk back statements and “simmer down,” with a threat that she could end up like Jackie. - The discussion considers the possibility that Erica was in a motel on the eighth and suggests she might have been there for a different reason, noting her mother moved to Arizona because she got involved with the military, which could be unrelated to the meeting on the ninth. - Speaker 5 defends Erica indirectly by saying that just because Erica’s parents have ties to Raytheon and Israel, and her mom moved to Arizona and are seen at Huachuca two days prior to a shooting, does not mean “we” did it. Candace is pressed not to inquire further. - The dialogue shifts to a broader comment about Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk; Speaker 1 questions why the widow of Charlie Kirk would inspire a public nervous breakdown by Ben, and speculates about Israel’s involvement with 9/11. - The conversation includes explicit antisemitic and inflammatory remarks from Speaker 5, including “You stupid little Goyim. How dare you insult my chosenness?” and references to “dark people.” - A Son of the record remark about the slave trade is made, with a claim that “the trading day” landed on a Jewish holiday, affecting operation. - The exchange ends with a directive to Candace to “match” and a retort about choosing a private meeting to stop questions, followed by a return to derisive comments about Jewish holidays.

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.”