reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Mike Carlo and Carrie Smith have been accused of cozying up to white identitarians on Twitter. Carlo initially denied being called anti-Semitic but later admitted it. The accusation was based on a supposed association with a man named Don Jackson, which Carlo claims is fabricated. The speaker insists that if Carlo doesn't want to be labeled an anti-Semite, he shouldn't associate with such individuals. The conversation shifts to claims of discrimination, where the speaker argues that harassment was due to being a woman and white, not solely because of race. The speaker accuses Carlo of being a pathological liar, making bold claims and then shifting focus to avoid accountability.

Speaker 0 claims that someone tells edgy jokes about the holocaust and cookies to appear cool. Speaker 0 says that the next step is to declare oneself the true conservative, not a "bunch of masturbating losers who live in your mother's basement." Speaker 1 states that someone was making holocaust jokes. Speaker 1 asks if Nick Fuentes, described as a "weird little gay kid in his basement in Chicago," is participating in a super PAC to bump off Joe Kent.

I don't get why left-leaning media, which I hear is mostly Jewish, labels people as white supremacists. Did you really say that? Yeah, I mean, my Jewish friends say it is. But why do they seem to dislike white guys? It's just woke culture, man. It's all about virtue signaling and that kind of stuff. I just don't understand it.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

Speaker 0 and Ivan engage in a heated exchange centered on identity, politics, and authority. Speaker 0 challenges Ivan’s stance, contrasting actions with labels and insisting on a focus on actions: “Focus on actions. Okay?” He accuses Ivan of being politically correct and weak, urging him to admit pride in being white: “Say you're proud of being white. Let's go. You better be white.” Speaker 0 references a problematic past event, saying, “Just like on January 6,” and attributes a stance of political incorrectness to himself and a lack of it to Ivan: “You’re politically correct. No. You’re weak.” He questions Ivan’s employment status and suggests a concern about keeping a job: “I was crushed, dude.” He notes Ivan is close to his employer, asking, “Who's my employer? FBI Washington field office,” and asserts that Ivan never faced indictment for January 6, saying, “Yeah. Because I’m that good. I run feds.” The exchange continues with provocative claims about who controls federal agencies: “I run feds. I think that's what the CIA does.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 praising Ivan in a paradoxical way—“God bless Ivan. He’s a bulldog and freedom fighter.”—while accusing him of being debulled by the mainstream media, a remark about Ivan’s portrayal in media. The dialogue weaves bravado, insinuations about loyalty and employment, and references to FBI/CIA, all set against a backdrop of a charged confrontation over identity and political alignment.

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 conversation begins with one person asking if the other is voting for Trump and accusing them of being a white supremacist. The accused person asks for proof, but the accuser doesn't provide any. The accused person then reveals that they are voting for Trump as their proof. The conversation then shifts to the accused person asking if the other is voting for Biden and accuses them of being a pedophile. The accused person denies it, but the accuser continues to make baseless accusations. The conversation abruptly ends.

Speaker 0 denies being a white nationalist, racist, sexist, or anti-gay. Speaker 0 challenges others to name one racist thing they've said or done. Speakers 1 and 2 accuse Speaker 0 of enabling racists like Candace Owens. Speaker 0 questions if Candace Owens is a racist. Speaker 2 criticizes Speaker 0 for wearing a shirt with a "rapist" on it, possibly referring to a Supreme Court Justice. Speaker 2 claims Speaker 0 is bringing hate to campus. Speaker 0 accuses others of hatred, citing name-calling. Speaker 2 alleges people have been assaulted because of Speaker 0's organization and that their organization's material was ripped down during student government elections. Speaker 0 claims that calling them a racist cheapens real racism. Speaker 0 denies enabling racists, and when asked to name one, Speaker 3 lists Candace Owens, Larry Elder, Ben Carson, and Stacey Dash. Speaker 0 questions how they can be racist if they hosted a young black leadership summit. Speaker 3 says Speaker 0 would stop being racist when they stop enabling racists. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 3 of making a racist statement and threatens to press charges after being assaulted.

Speaker 0: We're here because of the comments you made online about The Speaker 1: US community. Are you So what? I'm saying are are you I have a freedom of speech, dude. Yeah. No. Speaker 0: We we we get that. We get that. We just we gotta make sure that you're not Do you have warrant? No. And what you're doing is basically soliciting. Speaker 1: You understand that. Right? Yeah. Means you're not welcomed here. Okay. Speaker 0: K. Bye. Okay. Stay off the lawn, please.

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 transcript centers on a confrontation about online remarks regarding the Jewish community and the limits of freedom of speech. Speaker 0 is pressed by others who state they are there because of comments made online about the Jewish community. The exchange focuses on whether the speaker has a right to say what they did and the conditions under which they can be approached. - The dialogue opens with a question to Speaker 0: “Try that again. We’re here because of the comments you made online about the Jewish community.” Speaker 0 responds with, “Are you So what? I’m saying are are you I have a freedom of speech, dude. Yeah.” - The other party acknowledges the freedom of speech point but insists on authority: “No. We we we get that. We get that. We just we gotta make sure that you’re not Do have a get a warrant? No.” They indicate they do not have a warrant, noting, “No. That’s why we’re Yeah. You see that sign? Yeah. So it says no soliciting. What you’re doing is basically soliciting. You understand that. Right?” - Speaker 0 acknowledges, “Mhmm. Yeah.” The other party explains the sign’s meaning: “It means you’re not welcomed here.” The interaction ends with a brief dismissal: “K. Bye. Okay. Stay off the lawn, please.” - The scene then shifts to an accusatory public-facing monologue: “This is what they’re doing, guys. You make comments about the Jews online, they’ll fucking show up at your door. This is what they do. This is freedom of speech.” - A second, more vehement display of grievance follows: “This is how much control Israel has over our country. Look at this response. For exercising my freedom of speech online. Wow. What a fucking joke. What a fucking joke. Can’t wait to do some auditing of you boys. Bye bye.” - They emphasize the sign’s authority again: “Look at that. Sign says no soliciting.” The speaker questions legitimacy: “What do they think they’re fucking doing? They got no warrant. Sign that says no soliciting does not give you a right to my curtilage. Bye bye. Freedom of speech.” In summary, the exchange juxtaposes claims of freedom of speech with assertions of authority, including notices of “no soliciting,” the absence of a warrant, and the speaker’s insistence that comments about the Jewish community provoke direct, public confrontation. The dialogue reflects tensions between online remarks, on-site responses, and interpretations of legal boundaries (signs, curtilage, warrants) as well as polarized accusations about political influence and perceived control.

The transcript captures a tangled back-and-forth about identity between two speakers. The exchange centers on claims and refusals regarding whether each participant is James O’Keeffe or James O’Keefe, revealing a mix of misdirection and confusion. At the start, one speaker asserts a startling claim: “Well, the thing is is that I actually am James O’Keeffe.” The other participant responds with uncertainty and a challenge: “Are you? Yeah. No.” This initial volley sets up a core tension: one person asserts a definitive, singular identity, while the other vacillates between affirmation and negation, throwing the claim into doubt. The dialogue then escalates into a negation-heavy push-pull. The respondent counters with, “You’re not. No. I’m not. I’m not James O’Keefe. Are you not?” In this moment, the accused or challenged party is forced to confront the possibility that the other person might not actually be who they claim to be, intensifying the ambiguity around the identities in question. A reversal occurs as the other participant seemingly reclaims the certainty of their own identity: “I am.” This line signals a shift from denial to assertion, reestablishing a firm self-identification. The follow-up, “Really? Yes. And you you don’t know that,” adds a layer of assurance coupled with a hint of misperception: the speaker insists on their identity while suggesting the other person is unaware of this truth. Overall, the excerpt depicts a rapid swing between certainty and doubt about who each person truly is. The tension hinges on two overlapping claims of being James O’Keeffe and James O’Keefe, with frequent interruptions between affirmation and denial. The exchange culminates in a blunt assertion of self-identity—“I am”—and a companion reminder of the other party’s possible lack of awareness about that truth, encapsulating the core dynamic of identity verification and misrecognition that runs through the dialogue. The fragment offers a compact glimpse into a scenario where personal identity is contested and negotiated in real time, marked by alternating declarations and refusals that keep the true identification unresolved within this short exchange.

Hitler was a pedophile and kind of a pagan. It's like, well, he was also really fucking cool. Anybody who watches these videos where he's rolling down the street and stuff, it's like, this guy's this guy's awesome. This guy's cool. You're saying you're a you're a white supremacist? I'm not a white supremacist. I'm Mexican. I know. The exchange centers on controversial views about Hitler and a denial of white-supremacist affiliation.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are ruling out the possibility of calling for the slaughter of white people in the future. Speaker 1 responds by saying they don't know what will happen and it may or may not be them. Speaker 0 clarifies that it could be Speaker 1 and asks what would necessitate that. Speaker 1 doesn't know and questions why they would do that. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to pledge to never call for the slaughter of white people, but Speaker 1 refuses to make that pledge. Speaker 0 understands.

I can't believe you think I'm white. You don't know me. Find this guy for me after the show. I could end this show right now and do something else.

Speaker begins, 'Alright. Let me keep this real brief.' He explains that he is out at night in real life today and addresses a rumor 'going around by an obvious Jew' that he has 'a high nasally Jewish voice,' insisting he does not. He adds, 'I'm walking out at night, real life, today anyway.' He explains he 'doesn't talk normally' because he's trying to prevent his 'real life' from encountering this. 'That's all.' He labels the claim 'bullshit' and says 'I'm gonna delete this,' then closes with: 'but fuck you, faggot, and you're a Jew.' He denies the rumor and says he will delete this.

The speaker confronts someone, Katie, about allegedly "hating on Muslims." The speaker questions Katie's motives and asks how much she is being paid to hate on Muslims. Katie is also asked, "Why are you in my country?" The speaker asserts that the country is secular, not Christian, and therefore not governed by Christian rules. The speaker then tells Katie to stop talking and that the interaction is going live on Facebook.

Excuse me, sorry to interrupt. I'm just trying to talk. What do you want to know? So go. What are you doing here then? It's a white country. Well, you hate white people. He makes you...He hates white people, everybody. This man here, he hates white people. That's what you just said. You say you hate white people. This man just said to me that he hates white people. This man, he says he won't talk to me because I'm white. He hates white people. Just go. No. You go away.

- The conversation opens with anticipation of Jake Lang kissing a wall on camera, and a moment where he reportedly “takes that punch,” indicating a bold, fearless display regardless of possible risk. - They discuss a video involving Lang and his stance toward Israel, noting Lang posted content about “standing with Israel,” which allegedly gained wide views (hundreds of thousands) but low engagement (roughly 98 likes). - The speakers speculate about broader political manipulation, referencing “Jew hatred,” conspiracy theories about igniting a holy war in America, and using such dynamics to shift focus away from Israel and back toward Muslims and Gaza conflicts. They express a hypothetical plan for demonstrations around the Israeli embassy, framing it as “America first, America only,” and suggest an “anti Semite tour” framing, questioning the term’s applicability since Jews and Muslims are both Semites. - There is an exchange on antisemitism and political stance, with one participant acknowledging his Ashkenazi Jewish heritage (Russian, Latvian, and French lineage on his mother’s side) and debating whether Ashkenazi Jews have territorial blood ties to Israel. The other participant jokes about “a little bit of sand” in the mix and uses provocative humor to challenge credibility. - The dialogue touches on personal identity claims: one speaker asserts being “physically white and also bloodline white,” and questions whether Jews are white, asserting that “Jesus was white” and arguing that God would not make Himself not white. This leads to a provocative claim that “Jews I do,” and a concluding remark that “Jews are white” and the notion that “God would not make himself not white,” attributed to a Jake Lang quote to be used in future statements. - A tangent involves a future protest plan: Lang mentions a helicopter stunt, with a helicopter pilot offering to deploy a fleet for a dramatic entrance; another participant confirms the speaker’s expectation of a large, media-grabbing protest event. - The overall tenor combines sensational political stances, personal identity disclosures, and provocative, combative remarks about Israel, Jews, Muslims, and white identity, culminating in a provocative assertion that it would be notable to include the line, “God would not make himself not white,” as a memorable Jake Lang quote.

Speaker 0 insults Speaker 1, mentioning dating an Iranian. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 2 about a tweet from Lily Coleman. Speaker 2 denies dating an Iranian, stating all past partners were white. Speaker 3 presses for clarification. Speaker 2 is unsure about the tweet's origin. Speaker 3 insists on confirmation. Speaker 2 admits the account may be theirs. Speaker 3 asks if the Iranian was white, leading to confusion. Speaker 1 doubts the story's consistency.

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 claimed that white people make up 10% of the world's population, and that in California, the white population decreased by 71% in 73 years, which "kinda sounds like genocide." He questioned why violent crime and murder rates by race are not available from Sacramento. Speaker 1 interrupted, calling the statements racist and inappropriate for public discourse, and ended the call. Speaker 1 stated that racist tropes and stereotypes have no place in civic discourse.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about information found online, asking if Speaker 1 was a stripper. Speaker 1 eventually admits to being a stripper and bartender, specifying it was at a gay club but for women. Speaker 1 then says he was born in a trailer park to a crack whore mother. Speaker 1 claims he showed up to name a pedophile and defended himself for hours from lies. Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of sucking "nigger Jew dick for money," which Speaker 1 denies. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of defending a pedophile and being a Jew. Speaker 0 asks about a stolen firearm.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their statement regarding the potential future call for the slaughter of white people. Speaker 1 initially states that they are not ruling out the possibility, but later clarifies that they cannot guarantee it. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to make a pledge to never call for such an act, but Speaker 1 refuses. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging Speaker 1's response.