reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speakers engage in a discussion covering a range of topics such as Israel, Palestine, the influence of the Jewish lobby in American politics, race, immigration, social media censorship, media bias, election fraud, and racial disparities. They express concerns about the actions of Israel and criticize the support it receives from conservatives. The speakers question mainstream narratives, highlight the importance of critical thinking, and advocate for mutual understanding and personal growth. It is important to note that the conversation contains offensive language and touches on controversial subjects. The main speaker, Nick Fuentes, denies being a white supremacist and emphasizes his belief in equality and respect for all races and backgrounds.

The speakers discuss what they describe as a massive Jewish organizational effort to combat antisemitism since October 7, claiming “all Jewish organizations in United States together have spent upwards of $600,000,000” (Speaker 0) and that “Way more than that” (Speaker 1), including hundreds of millions in Israel and in propaganda efforts. They question whether this spending has reduced antisemitism, withSpeaker 0 asking, “Has it helped? Has all this money stopped? It even slowed down the hatred against us?” and affirming that “The answer is no. All the efforts … have accomplished very little.” Speaker 1 criticizes Ronald Lauder, describing him as the center of the universe and speaking from a perspective of a global revolutionary cycle they claim has governed history for long eras (every 77–89 years). They say the World Jewish Conference is the “mothership” coordinating censorship and globalism, asserting that “they run the censorship” and that if you say they run it, you’ll be banned. They cite President of the World Jewish Congress’s claim that influence across Europe and America declined despite spending hundreds of millions on propaganda, listing “760,000,000” and “500,000,000” as funding figures, and allege ongoing censorship and suppression of dissent. The speakers reference various controversial and inflammatory statements and positions. They quote or paraphrase a figure (Mathis Dopferner) claiming, “I’m a goy and I’m a Zionist… I am Mu the cow, and we must do whatever Israel says,” calling the speaker’s stance a cult. They present these into a broader claim that Jewish leadership is pushing controversial narratives and that censorship efforts are intensifying. Speaker 0 returns to emphasize that despite extensive advertising, full-page ads, newspaper conferences, and other public-facing campaigns, “the facts have accomplished very little,” arguing that antisemitism is not deterred by these measures and that “antisemites already have access to all the facts, and they're not interested in the facts or truth.” They criticize the dissemination of a narrative that paints Jews as responsible for global events and crises, stating “Gaza war, the Jews started it. The high cost of gas… Global warming is the Jews,” and they claim demonstrations have remained and intensified after the Gaza war. The dialogue shifts to discussions of immigration and policy measures proposed by a speaker identified as “a goy”: zero tolerance for open hatred of Jews; expulsion of anti-Semitists where legal; preferential immigration and citizenship for Jewish families in Europe and the U.S.; making Jewish culture more visible in Europe; and curbing anti-Semitism on social media, especially TikTok, as a dangerous propaganda machine. The conversation also includes continued ideological blame toward Jewish leadership for global events, accusations of censorship, and claims that the public is being misled by elites. Toward the end, a promotional aside appears, with Alex Jones advocating continued support, promoting the Alex Jones Network, Alex Jones Live, and related stores, urging listeners to share links and to remain engaged in the “resistance,” while presenting himself as fighting “hoaxers” and asserting ongoing broadcasts despite claims that he had been shut down.

Milstein told Tony how critics of Israel should be handled. Speaker 1 discusses tactics: “Terrorize us, and we are How do we put them on the run, though? Doing it by exposing who they are, what they are, protect with their racist, protect with their people, that they're dying in democracy.” They question whether there is a good role to simply name them as antisemites, saying, “Not just antisemites. It's too simple.” They argue we need to present them “for what they really are.” They add, “To Christian, their right to democracy. That's all we need to do. Yeah.”

The speaker claims that opposition to Israeli policies is being labeled antisemitism, and free speech is threatened. They allege that the definition of antisemitism is being broadened, even to include parts of the Bible, and that the Trump administration is pushing this on college campuses. The speaker references a senate hearing on antisemitism where Rabbi Levi Shemtov called for hate speech laws, using rhetoric similar to Ibram X. Kendi's "anti-racist" stance. The speaker suggests that the Trump administration is now enacting policies similar to those they opposed during the BLM movement, but this time in the name of combating antisemitism, which the speaker believes is actually for the benefit of Israel. They feel Netanyahu is running the White House and that Trump is supporting Israel at the detriment to American freedom.

Speaker 0 delivers a public apology for criticisms of Israel, stating he is deeply sorry and that it is a learning moment with six lessons from his grave mistakes. He admits making videos that heavily criticized the Israeli government while attempting to distinguish that he was not criticizing Jewish people or Israeli citizens, but he says hostile comments convinced him that he was talking about Jews, not the government. He notes that comments calling him a Jew hater and anti-Semite changed his mind, and he acknowledges feeling intimidated by such remarks. He describes how some viewers, including one commenter who said, “you moron,” helped him realize he was engaging in Jew hate. He says that the hostility, insults, and character smearing from haters were effective in shaping his views, and asks what those people believe, intending to emulate them. He mentions the existence of a poll showing that those using hostility are in the 5.5% minority, while 94.5% do not want hostility to be used to persuade them. He also notes that many haters have Israel flags in their bios and contrasts this with perceptions about Ukraine, asserting that Israel is our greatest ally and that he stands with Israel—now more strongly. He then recounts a conversation with two Jewish friends, where he apologized for hating them. He says they rejected his framing, explaining that criticizing Netanyahu does not equate with hating Jews. They mention that only 40% of Israelis trust Netanyahu, that many Israelis have concerns about him, and that citizens in Israel are God’s chosen people while Netanyahu is their leader. They challenge his views on dispensationalism and Zionism, arguing for different biblical interpretations of Israel and God’s chosen people, and suggest many Israelis do not have DNA from the Middle East, referencing DNA testing bans in Israel. He responds with hostility, saying, “God, I hate you people,” and notes that the friends did not accept his apology because they weren’t convinced he genuinely hated them. He also mentions JP Sears and accusations of Jew-hating for profit, and alleges financial success from such views. The six lessons from his mistakes are: 1) Align with the side censoring you, since censorship is “on the right side of history,” encouraging support for politicians trying to criminalize criticizing or boycotting Israel. 2) Distrusting any government makes you a stupid sack of shit, and thinking otherwise marks you as hating Jews. 3) When faced with tribalism and intimidation, you should comply to align with truth and gain freedom as an individual. 4) Israel has no influence over the US government or its politicians, and lobbying connections are not indications of influence; claiming otherwise is antisemitic. 5) Thinking it’s a crime or evil to commit genocide, prisoner rape, or killing children is not true; such beliefs are antisemitic. 6) Do whatever it takes to fight an ongoing war with Iran, unrelated to Israel, trusting the government on this, and hoping for actions to uncover supposed WMDs in Iraq. Speaker 0 closes with an apology and a final appeal to learn from these mistakes.

"Speaker asserts, 'And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits.' They state, 'This is a beast created by secular Jews. And now it's coming for Jews and they're like, what on earth happened?' The rant adds, 'And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits. It's the movies. It's Hollywood. It's all of it.' The message: 'It's like time for you guys to wake up and say no more. Draw a line in the sand.' It ends: 'I don't care if you hate me.'"

Speaker 0 expresses that "The behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away" and that he is accused of being an anti-Semite despite "I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish Sabbath." He notes online backlash, "thousands of tweets and text messages," and that his "moral character is now being put into question" for supporting Israel. Speaker 1 agrees the treatment is unfair, saying "Dave Smith isn't allowed to criticize Israel" and that "the Israeli side was overrepresented." They discuss Americans first, resisting accusations, and the difficulty of criticizing the Israeli government online. They reference Epstein's controversial topic and say they hosted a debate giving "equal time to Josh Hammer, equal time to a pro Israel advocate." They observe a "hyperparanoid state" online and wonder if patterns resemble "nineteen thirties Germany."

One speaker believes people should be allowed to have differing views on immigration and debate the merits of the Israeli lobby's power. However, Pat Buchanan discredits this conversation because he gives the sense that he has another agenda related to personal dislike, conspiracies, and the belief that Jews are a sinister force trying to affect American politics. Another speaker questions if a certain individual exclusively targets people in the same group and makes Holocaust jokes. This speaker suggests this individual is like David Duke, who would endorse their shows. They believe David Duke is part of a campaign to discredit people on the right, and that Nick Fuentes is doing the same. They clarify that this doesn't mean everything he says is false, that he isn't talented, or that he's a bad person, but that he is clearly part of a campaign to discredit non-crazy right voices.

The speaker claims that Jewish individuals exert control over media and Hollywood, alleging this control contributes to cultural decline and drug use among children. They cite an article where a Jewish pundit purportedly boasts about Jewish dominance in Hollywood and other sectors. The speaker questions Donald Trump's trustworthiness due to his alleged Zionist connections. They suggest that Fox News is controlled opposition, referencing Orwell's concept and the character Emmanuel Goldstein. The speaker denies being a white supremacist, asserting a belief in equal rights. They express concern about European Americans becoming a minority, attributing this to a Jewish "divide and conquer strategy." They believe it is natural for people to preserve their heritage but wrong to destroy or exploit other groups.

Speaker 0 contrasts what is happening with a reference to Looney Tunes and uses that imagery to support a point about antisemitism accusations. They claim that some people who are accused of antisemitism are indeed antisemitic, describing them as “smart people asking questions like me,” while others who have been kicked out of Daily Wire are “just crazy.” They invoke Ben Shapiro to support their view, saying the situation proves he was right about these dynamics. They label a certain person as a “faux sophisticate,” agreeing that this label nails the situation. The speaker emphasizes that the idea of someone being an “antisemite” can be connected to what they view as a pattern or pattern-matching of behavior, and they repeat the phrase “A faux sophisticate” to underscore this point. Speaker 1 expands the discussion to the far right and Charlie Kirk, noting that there were plenty of people on the far right who disliked Charlie. They mention Gruyper groups (referred to as Gruyper’s) and state that they literally declared a “Gruyper war on Charlie Kirk,” arguing that he wasn’t radical enough for them and that this intolerance reflected a demand for more extreme rhetoric. The speaker reiterates a point they had previously made to Bill Maher, describing how the identification of Charlie Kirk as hateful fits into a broader framework. They pose a question about whether the Gripers could be the source of any negative assessment, suggesting that the opposite claim—that the Gripers were responsible—could theoretically be possible, though they consider it unlikely. The speaker then explains the evidence they cited: contemporaneous conversations the shooter had with family in which they called Kirk hateful. They argue that this shows that Kirk being labeled “hateful” is part of a left-wing matrix of thinking, and they articulate the idea of a “griper matrix” that asserts that Charlie Kirk should have been more hateful toward Jews to be acceptable to them. The central thrust is that the Gripers’ expectations for greater hatefulness toward Jews would align with their approval, implying that if Kirk had exhibited more virulence toward Jews, he would have been more favored by that faction. Overall, the dialogue weaves together critiques of alleged antisemitism accusations, the behavior and labeling of Charlie Kirk by far-right groups, and the contention that certain factions on both sides frame acceptability in terms of extremity toward Jewish targets, using the shooter’s reported conversations as a focal point for claims about how Kirk is perceived.

The video presents a sweeping conspiratorial narrative about a globalist plot to destabilize the United States, centered on Jewish-Israeli influence. The speaker apologizes to newcomers for exposing uncomfortable truth and promises to reveal a step-by-step playbook used to undermine America without bullets, culminating in the claim that Charlie Kirk had to be killed. Key claims and themes include: - A 1990 Netanyahu quote is presented as evidence that America is destined to be destabilized and exploited as a “golden calf,” transformed into a large welfare state under control of others. The speaker asserts this explains why “they” destabilize the U.S. and destroy nations slowly. - JFK is portrayed as the first prominent opponent of Israel, with claims that he hated Jews and opposed Israel, while simultaneously being briefed on Israeli actions. The video argues JFK’s assassination was tied to preventing subversion of the U.S. education system, referencing the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act that allegedly allowed Israel to infiltrate U.S. education. - Charlie Kirk is depicted as someone who “poisoned the minds of the youth” and posed a threat to the supposed Jewish-dominated destabilization plan. A segment suggests Kirk’s influence on Christian conversions among Jews upset “the Rabbis” who control Mossad and political circles. - A rabbi’s comments are quoted to claim that Christians are more dangerous than other societal groups because they threaten the Jewish order, framing Christianity as idol worship that endangers Jews. - A KGB/Marxist playbook is invoked (via a named agent, Jory Bensmanov) to outline the four-phase destabilization model: demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization, followed by a new foreign-backed authority and the dismantling of constitutional norms. The eight-front war concept is presented, with disinformation as a critical modern battleground. - The video cites a Cuban/foreign intelligence asset describing five warfare principles: changing minds of the young is easier than changing old minds; create instability by division; normalize the abnormal; and portray law and order as fascism to topple democracy. These ideas are linked to contemporary U.S. debates on DEI, CRT, open borders, and perceived Jewish influence in policy and media. - DEI, CRT, LGBTQ agendas, and open borders are framed as tools to divide Americans and destabilize society, with ongoing insinuations about “God’s chosen people” manipulating policy and education to advance their aims. - The closing segments claim America cannot be saved unless people wake up, call out accountability and transparency, and reject a political system controlled by these forces. The speaker ends with a hostile, anti-Jewish sentiment, alleging that the political and social upheaval serves a Jewish-driven agenda. Throughout, the speaker ties Charlie Kirk’s activism and public influence to a broader alleged plan by Israelis and Jews to depose American institutions, collapse the constitutional order, and install new authorities. The overall message asserts that the destabilization of the United States is deliberate, orchestrated by Jewish-Israeli interests, and that traditional social changes (education infiltration, DEI/CRT, open borders) are instrumental steps in that plan.

The discussion centers on the ‘woke Reich,’ with complaints that the woke right mirrors the woke left and a call to fight back through influencers, TikTok and X, and to talk to Elon. A speaker proclaims: 'Anyone who opposes me... that person is a Nazi, part of the woke Reich, a Nazi,' and demands 'the only way to fix it is by preventing Americans in the last country on Earth with guaranteed freedom of speech' 'prevent Americans from hearing the other side.' He says 'we push congress to force a TikTok sale' and warns against censorship in the United States, noting 'the attack on the USS Liberty.' Another speaker extols Tucker Carlson's critique of Netanyahu, discusses 'the eighth front of the war' and censorship, and laments 'I am sick of Jew, Jew, Jew.' He urges moving beyond World War II paradigm and ends with a fundraising plug for alexjonesstore.com.

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

The speakers discuss a controversial figure, possibly Nick Fuentes, noting his talent and articulation while also acknowledging problematic aspects of his views. It's claimed he appeals to young white men who feel economically disenfranchised and unrepresented. One speaker suggests this figure is part of a campaign to discredit legitimate right-wing voices. Concerns are raised about his alleged belief in conspiracies and the idea that Jewish people are a sinister force manipulating American politics. The figure is described as portraying himself as a victim persecuted by a powerful cabal for speaking truth to power, similar to Karen Silkwood. He is accused of making Holocaust jokes and targeting individuals within a specific group. Pat Buchanan's presence is said to discredit certain conversations.

Speaker 0 says, "powerful institutions are at play here, and there's a coordinated effort to spread this parasitic ideology," and asks, "Are you willing to name the group behind us? Because behind all these institutions, there seems to be a Cohen, a Berg, a Stein." He then asks, "What are your thoughts on the Jewish influence about on gender ideology?" Speaker 1 replies, "So you're you're Am I gonna do anything about the Jews is what you're asking me? No." Okay. Do I need to dignify that with a further response, do think?" He adds, "Or And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits." "This is a beast created by secular Jews."

This transcript describes a discussion with Orthodox friends about Charlie inviting Tucker Carlson. It notes there is nowhere safe for them in the world, and they have an inclination to trust no one, yet Charlie remains patient, engaging in dialogue with Tucker and Candace Owens, while also texting with Orthodox rabbis. The speaker commends Charlie for his patience and dialogue. The speaker responds to an Orthodox brother who claimed Candace is far right and Ocasio-Cortez far left, and that they both hate Jews. The speaker says Candace and AOC appear to operate their influence by pathos and ethos, and apply very little logos. They use pathos and ethos to judge and condemn an entire race of people. This is not framed as a political polarization issue (far right or far left) but as mob rule by emotion and perceived legitimacy void of the pursuit of truth. The speaker asserts that this dynamic is a reason America, for now and hopefully more in the future, is a somewhat safe haven for Jews because it is a republic. A link to a video was provided to illustrate or support this point.

The transcript centers on a heated, interconnected discussion about Tucker Carlson, U.S. politics, and the perceived influence of Israel, the Israel lobby, and foreign interests on American public discourse. The participants volley accusations, defenses, and conspiracy theories, with several notable claims and counterclaims. - The opening segment portrays Tucker Carlson as a target of powerful actors. Speaker 0 argues that Netanyahu and others have labeled Carlson a problem, suggesting that calling him a “fox in a henhouse” is a veiled call for violence and censorship. They warn that such rhetoric could provoke political suppression or harm toward Carlson, and they reference debates over whether Carlson’s anti-war stance and Iran policy have drawn attacks from prominent Israel-first voices. - The conversation shifts to alleged political interference and investigations. Speaker 0 references Kash Patel and a mid-September claim that Patel confronted J. D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and others about an investigation, asserting Patel was told not to involve certain intelligence matters or foreign involvement in domestic issues. They describe “the Israel lobby literally run by Netanyahu” as attacking Carlson and pressing to “neutralize” him. There is also a claim that Democrats celebrated or advocated harm against Charlie Kirk and that “six trainees” in a town suggested Kirk would be dead the next day, though no evidence is presented for these claims. - Speaker 1 introduces a harsh critique of Carlson, saying he is “the most dangerous anti-Semite in America,” accusing him of aligning with those who celebrate Nazis, defend Hamas, and criticize Trump for stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The comment emphasizes that Carlson is not MAGA, and asserts a leadership role for Carlson in a modern-day Hitler youth narrative. - The dialogue between Speakers 0 and 2 (Adam King) delves into broader political positioning. Adam King says Carlson “left MAGA,” that MAGA is a big tent whereas Carlson seeks a smaller, more controlled sphere, and that Carlson is working against the Trump agenda by attempting to influence 2028 considerations. Speaker 0 counters, arguing Tucker covers a wide range of topics and remains central to the movement, not simply fixated on Israel. - There is debate about the influence of Jewish voters and donors on the 2024 campaign, with back-and-forth estimates of Jewish contributions and skepticism about the degree to which Jews will back Vance or other candidates. The participants discuss antisemitism accusations, censorship, and the difficulty of debating these topics. They criticize the idea of labeling people antisemitic as a manipulation tactic and urge more open dialogue. - The dialogue touches on the media landscape and the limits of speaking on both sides. Adam King argues for more balanced dialogue and warns that the current rhetoric—terms like “neutralize”—fuels violence. He expresses concern about online harassment of Jews and the normalization of violent language in political discourse. - There are tangential conversations about foreign influence in U.S. affairs. Adam King mentions Qatar, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and other foreign money; he cites a Newsmax report about Mamdani’s foreign funding and discusses debates over whether Qatar has a U.S. airbase or is primarily involved in training programs. The participants debate where influence truly lies, whether with Soros, the left, or other actors. - The segment ends with a mix of promotional content and entertainment, including a satirical insert about Ultra Methylene Red, a product advertised with claims about cognitive and physiological benefits, followed by fictional, humor-laden banter about “Batman” and “the Riddler” reacting to the product. In sum, the transcript captures a multi-faceted, contentious exchange over Carlson’s position in the MAGA movement, accusations of antisemitism and censorship, perceived foreign influence in U.S. politics, and the tensions within the right-wing ecosystem, all interwoven with promotional and humorous interludes.

Jonathan asks for commentary on Nick Fuentes, what countermeasures are effective, and what the government’s role should be in being critical of such a platform. The respondent explains that Nick Fuentes’ second name is Joseph, and that Fuentes is a Hispanic person described as an open, unapologetic racist, homophobe, and anti-Semite. He notes that Fuentes has been incredibly effective at spreading his message thanks to X and social media, which act as super spreaders of anti-Semitism and hate, making Fuentes like patient zero. He points out that it didn’t help when former President Trump had Fuentes over for dinner at Mar-a-Lago, and he criticizes those in power who don’t renounce Fuentes. JD Vance has done so, but the current right faces a challenge with elevated bad voices like Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens, while there are good voices on the right such as Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro, and Mark Levin who push back on figures like Speaker Johnson and the revolting lunatics. To defeat rising anti-Semitism on the right, he believes it must come from the right; to defeat rising anti-Zionism on the left, it must come from people on the left. At AADL, the goal is to provide data and tools and to operate behind the scenes rather than publicly targeting Fuentes or Hassan Piker; the speaker even calls Hassan Piker “Hamas Piker” and notes his large platform on Twitch, Steam, YouTube, and Instagram. The speaker emphasizes working to get platforms to enforce terms of service to pull down the most offensive hate speech, or compel action from the platforms. However, he also stresses the need for people on the right to take down figures like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, and for people on the left to support similar efforts. The second speaker adds that in a sermon about the nuance of every human being, they did not mean Nick Fuentes.

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

Speaker 0 rails against dissent: “Like, if you disagree with me, fine. If you think Israel killed Charlie Kirk and then vanished beneath the trap door and flew to Tuba City on a private jet, fine.” He adds, “But then people start to say, you disagree with me? You're you got the memo.” He asserts, “every event that happens in America or the world is the doing of Israel,” and says if you disagree, “you got the call[.]” He notes, “you’re out,” and, “They will. And they will.” He proclaims, “I can’t wait for the apology forms” and, “cannot wait to humiliate you more, because more than anything, what I love is humiliate people who are wrong. I live for it actually.” He concludes, “So please, please, I can’t wait to never speak to those people again.”