reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: Andrew was the brother of Peter. He was a fisherman, and two had to pay taxes besides Jesus, but I might be mistaken here. Speaker 1: I will reconfirm that it is only Peter and Jesus that paid the tax for adults, and I will reconfirm that the other disciples were apprentices in their family's business and were therefore young as well. All of them were 12 and 15 years old, and I'll stand by that, which poses a lot of other questions. If it's the middle of the night and I walk into the wrong house and I see a 30-year-old man washing the feet of an unknown 12-year-old boy, what am I gonna do? I'm going to jail, guys. Think about these questions because it's not the version we've been told. When you redo the story with their ages in mind, it's a darker picture. Speaker 0: That’s really up for debate. If you apply modern-day Jewish disciples in halakhic schools, you might come to that conclusion. Times then were different. Speaker 1: Actually, scholars—look, I just did an article specifically on this, I have all the receipts. Scholars all agree that the age for discipleship within rabbinical circles was 12 to 15 years old. You could Google it. And, again, the only two people that paid taxes were Peter and Jesus. None of the other ones paid taxes and therefore were not adults. It’s in the scripture. Who cares if they're adults? It doesn't matter. Speaker 2: It’s about being a pedophile. Speaker 1: It’s not; it’s not taken out of context. Speaker 0: Peter, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen, right? Peter was already married; Jesus healed his mother-in-law. He was probably the oldest, mid-20s or 30s. The general consensus is Peter is mid-20s to 30s. John is 15 to 20, the youngest. James, late teens to early 20s. Andrew and Philip, late teens. Matthew, early to mid-20s. The others, Thomas and Judas, mostly teens to early 20s. I’m not sure you’ve seen 16-year-old teenagers like fifty years ago; they were men. It’s a different picture today. So I don’t buy the Jesus was a pedophile claim. Speaker 2: CQ Radio does the same bullshit. Try to make him a pedo. Speaker 1: It’s all about mystery rites and excretion from children in their mystery practices. Like adrenaline, they use children as a sacrament to open the veil. That’s what’s going on with the elites today—the Vatican, Israel, and all the elites. The Bible is a PG version. Wake up and stop attacking me because I’m telling the truth, especially if you don’t have the balls to research it yourself. Speaker 0: What the fuck was that? I’m not attacking you. You can have your own opinion. The general consensus of scholars on the Bible was what I just read—the estimated ages. The youngest were Jesus’ direct family, cousins. Speaker 2: CK will do the same thing—bring up the kid at the Last Supper, and he was doing it. It hinges on a false interpretation of one word. Speaker 1: Arts, magic, occult have two sides: black magic uses trauma, fear, and control to harvest from children; white magic uses unity and consent. They both conjure the same entities. One is loving, one is painful. Look at the ages of the disciples: 12 to 15. Only Peter and Jesus paid the toll; the others were not adults. Speaker 2: Quick question: who do you think is God? What is good in the world according to your worldview? Speaker 1: There is a loving creator. That has nothing to do with what I said. If you equate Jesus with God, that’s a you problem. Speaker 2: Are you going to say what you actually believe? Speaker 1: Move on. There’s a loving creator who created us in his image and loves us. Speaker 3: There’s been a lot of indoctrination of children recently. The biggest discussion is wars. Speaker 1: You can give us a little more. Speaker 3: They’re doxxing this kid. People know. Speaker 1: I’m an alpha warrior. Speaker 0: I have to check the Mossad Media Matrix. Speaker 3: Grandma gave him permission. It’s not going to end well. Speaker 1: I’ll be listening. Somebody can go listen there or you could hide on my page as a handle. You’ll be on my team, though. Speaker 4: Veritas suggested forgiving the heretic, but I don’t think it’s ours to forgive. It’s hubris to think that. We’re trying to have an open debate, but disrespectful behavior isn’t acceptable. Speaker 1: I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. Speaker 4: We can wrestle with scripture without ad hominem. You’re okay to say Muhammad’s a better approximation, but that’s a different topic. Speaker 1: Start by looking into the ages of the disciples. Thank you. Speaker 2: The real concern is elsewhere. Veritas has gone over that research and it suggests the opposite.

Speaker 0 argues that abortion is murder and frames it as a ritual akin to human sacrifice, claiming civilizations like the Incas and Vikings killed people to appease gods and gain power. They insist abortion isn’t ritualistic, reference an abortion truck outside the Democratic convention, and challenge the idea that abortion is a right, suggesting that abortion is the only right people have. They express empathy for individuals who might face pregnancy decisions, recounting childhood conversations about a 12-year-old farmworker who might be pregnant from rape, and acknowledge sadness about abortion, but insist that now abortion is “the only right you have.” Speaker 1 pushes back by denying that abortion is a ritual and emphasizes that people do not have the right to keep someone from taking a medical injection or consuming unknown products, arguing that the only right claimed is to murder one’s own children. They describe the statement as dark and urge Speaker 0 to reconsider their stance. Speaker 0 responds with a personal perspective as a father, asserting that the most important thing in life is having children and that one’s children are what will matter most. They reject the notion that jobs or material concerns are paramount and criticize the idea of just killing one’s children. They apologize to Brookie for the upset but maintain their view that abortion is grotesque and sad, noting that many people who have abortions are not happy about it. Speaker 1 contends they don’t care about what Speaker 0 says and asserts a lack of interest in further discussion. Speaker 0 elaborates on the idea that the issue is highly ideological and that the reality of abortion is often hidden behind abstractions. They argue that a human being is beheaded with a knife inside a woman, insisting that if beheading didn’t take place, that person could have led a different life, and that it is not for us to kill people simply because they are “in the way.” They warn that if it is permissible to kill children who are in the way, then the elderly or even others could be killed as well, concluding with the assertion that you can’t do that. Speaker 1 reiterates that abortion is a matter of human rights, while Speaker 0 maintains that there is no human right to kill people, insisting that killing people is the enemy of human rights and that the human right is to live. The conversation ends with an unresolved tension between preserving life and recognizing individual rights, framed by extreme positions about abortion and its moral implications.

Speaker 0 argues the goal is to reduce crime, but the other is 'talking about legalizing sex slurs' and questions 'what religion supports prostitution.' He asserts that 'sex trafficking is very much part of prostitution' and that 'No one should be on our streets selling their bodies.' He notes 'there are legal people who do sex work, and they're not all being forced to' and insists 'This is not a gender thing.' He says 'I know what sex trafficking is looks like' and the abuse. He adds, 'It's legal in some places, and they do it of their own possession.' He calls it 'a public health issue. It's a public safety issue, and it's a moral issue,' and 'for me, it is a fake issue.' He questions, 'I don't know where in his Quran does it state it's okay for a woman to be on the street selling their body.'

Speaker 0 presents a disturbing set of preferences expressed as a personal viewpoint. The speaker rejects any idea of waiting or gradual enjoyment, insisting, “No, bitch. I wanna drink it straight from the tap. I want it raw. I don't wanna wait a moment. Right when the milk is good, I wanna start drinking the milk.” This metaphor is used to describe a desire for immediacy and immediacy in relationships. The speaker then extends the metaphor to women, arguing against aging in a traditional, patient way. They state, “Same thing goes with women. I don't wanna turn 30 and find some 20 year old, 29 year old woman that I have something in common with and it's like, hey, properly aged like wine. Women don't age like wine, they age like milk. They don't age like wine. That's not how their hormones work.” The claim asserts that women do not age gracefully like wine, but rather age like milk, contradicting the notion of aging well. Continuing, the speaker proposes a specific, controversial timeline for marriage and reproduction. They say, “I gotta find my 16 year old wife. Probably when I turn 30 or something.” They justify this with calculations about age differences: “Here's the thing, I don't wanna be like, let's say I get married to an 18 year old now. Six year age difference. When I turn 40, she's gonna be 34. Ew. Well, if I'm 30 and she's 16, fourteen year age difference. When I'm 50, she'll be 36. When I'm 40, she'll be 26.” The speaker draws a progressive, increasingly favorable age difference for themselves as they age. The speaker amplifies their stance with an explicit age preference, saying, “Now we're talking here. Now we're cooking with gas. Now you can see an alternative vision for how things could be. I want a 16 year old who's untouched. Untouched, pristine. Untouched, uncorrupted, innocent.” They further claim, “That's what we all want. And all 16 year olds want an older guy who's like capable and strong and everything to sweep them off their feet. That's what everybody wants. That's what everybody wants.” Overall, the transcript centers on a provocative, highly problematic set of beliefs about age, consent, and the supposed desirability of a 16-year-old partner, framed through aggressive metaphors and explicit preferences.

The speaker states they cannot support a party that wants to redefine family, which they consider the core of society. They cannot vote for laws that would allow children to mutilate their bodies, possibly without parental consent, or that would allow LGBTQ+ couples to marry. They also cannot support a party that favors parents losing custody for not affirming a child's transition, children of opposite sexes sharing bathrooms, or biological males competing against the speaker's daughter in sports. The speaker is not pushing their views on others, but sharing the reasons for their voting decision. They suggest voters should ask which party promotes values that are unbiblical and directly contradict a Christian worldview. While both parties may promote some biblical values, the speaker believes the listed issues are weightier matters and influence their vote.

The speaker claims that pedophiles are using the LGBTQ+ movement as a mask to normalize pedophilia and avoid legal repercussions. They state that pedophiles engage in ritualistic sex with children and want pedophilia decriminalized. The speaker argues that if children can decide to undergo gender-affirming care or sterilization, they should also be able to decide to have sex. They believe pedophiles will use this argument in court, suggesting that if a child is old enough to make decisions about their gender identity or reproductive capabilities, they are old enough to decide when they are ready for sexual activity. The speaker concludes that the LGBTQ+ movement is a tool for pedophiles to advance their agenda.

The speaker discusses the connection between queer theory and pedophilia, using examples from various queer theorists. They mention Michel Foucault as a prominent figure in queer theory and discuss his views on age of consent laws. The speaker also mentions Gail Rubin as the author of the founding document of queer theory and highlights a defense of pedophilia within that document. They criticize Pat Califia for their views on children's consent and involvement with adults. The speaker concludes by stating their opposition to queer theory and its harmful effects, emphasizing that it is not related to homosexuality.

The speaker argues that the Quran does not explicitly forbid sexual intercourse with 5-year-olds. They point out that a verse in Suratul Talaq mentions divorce and states that it is permissible to divorce those who have never been pubescent. However, the speaker emphasizes that this verse does not mention puberty as a requirement for marriage or sexual intercourse. They challenge anyone to find a verse in the Quran that explicitly prohibits marrying or having sexual intercourse with prepubescent individuals. The speaker concludes that without such a verse, it can be interpreted as permissible. They criticize this interpretation as promoting pedophilia and severe wife abuse.

In Islam, marrying a 100-year-old woman may cause harm, but marrying a developed 13-year-old may not. The speaker believes it's about avoiding harm in relationships. They mention the legality of marrying older vs. younger individuals in different countries, emphasizing the relative nature of pedophilia.

Speaker 0 expresses confusion and alarm, saying "Please tell me I'm fucking please tell me I'm reading this wrong. Gosh." They reference a claim: "It says, we too learn in the following I don't know how to say that word, that there is no legal significance to an act of intercourse with a girl less than three years old." and "A girl three years and one day old can be betrothed via sexual intercourse." They warn: "This isn't the Talmud, guys." They add: "This is what your rabbis are learning." Then: "This this three years and one day old can be betrothed via sexual inter" and finally dismiss with "Nope. Miss me with that shit. Nope."

The speaker is suspicious of anyone claiming something is central to faith when Jesus doesn't mention it. They believe the religious right has made homosexuality and abortion the biggest issues for Christians in the last 40-50 years, despite the Southern Baptist Convention being pro-choice until the late 1970s. The speaker argues there's no historical, theological, or biblical basis to believe that being Christian means being anti-gay and anti-abortion. While abortions existed in the ancient world, the speaker believes the idea of a set Christian orthodoxy on abortion isn't rooted in Scripture. They welcome theological debate on the issue. Biblical evidence supporting a pro-choice stance includes God breathing life into Adam, which suggests life starts at first breath. Jesus broke first-century norms about women, affirming them as full and equal people. In the story of Mary, God asks for her consent before the incarnation, suggesting creation must be done with consent and freedom.

Speaker 0 stated that forced child marriage should be supported and that the age of consent is absurd. They believe a woman is never capable of consent and should be forcibly married after her first menstruation. Speaker 1 said young men and women should be groomed for marriage because they become sexually mature in adolescence. He stated that he wants a 16-year-old wife and that the age of consent should be much lower, as he doesn't believe in the concept. He claimed that marriage is consent, and there is no such thing as marital rape because marriage implies a constant obligation to provide sex on demand, which is the only moral way to have sex.

The speaker argues against the criticism of marrying young girls by stating that Ayesha Abdul Alain was physically mature at age 9, unlike those who molest children. They claim that when a girl goes through puberty, she is ready for marriage, as seen in various societies throughout history. The speaker suggests that modern society's abolition of minor marriage has led to increased sexual activity among young girls. They believe that Islam and following the example of the prophet can prevent child molestation and rape.

A man in his forties discusses the moral implications of a 15-year-old girl being involved with an older man. He acknowledges the debate surrounding the legal age of consent and emphasizes that everyone has different moral standards. He mentions that the law applies to everyone and briefly mentions that the legal age of consent allows a girl to choose her sexuality from the age of 15. Another speaker agrees with the man's point and adds that relationships between young boys and older women are also unequal. The conversation ends with the acknowledgment that the topic is not trivial.

Speaker 0 believes that children should be allowed to explore their own sexuality with their peers, but also acknowledges the role of adults in society. Speaker 1 states that their organization aims to give children higher status and recognizes their right to sexual freedoms while protecting them from harm. Speaker 2 argues that an equal relationship between adults and children is not possible due to differences in maturity. Speaker 1 counters by emphasizing the importance of comprehensive sexual education for children. Speaker 2 maintains that inequality exists in such relationships due to immaturity. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that pedophiles engage in reciprocal relationships with children and that maturity is subjective. The discussion ends with Speaker 2 questioning how a 12-year-old can make a mature judgment about sex. Speaker 1 highlights the child's ability to recognize pleasure and express consent, emphasizing the importance of a responsible and caring approach.

In a perfect world, each community and caregiver would decide if a child is ready to consent to sex based on factors like behavior, job, education, and cognitive ability. It's important to consider the individual's history of abuse as well. In an end cap society, if someone engages in a relationship that isn't agreed upon by the community, they must accept the consequences. It's crucial to respect different cultures, but also acknowledge that child sexual abuse and trafficking could decrease if communities were more involved in their children's lives. The government's handling of these issues is seen as inadequate, and some minors may be more prepared for sexual activity with adults than others. Age limits are typically set based on life expectancy, which varies across countries.

The conversation opens with Speaker 0 making a provocative claim that everything people experience, including rape and addiction, is attracted into their life, and that the people involved in rape or pedophilia are attracted to those acts. Speaker 1 pushes back, asking for clarification about cases of pedophilia and how these dynamics should be understood. Speaker 0 continues by saying that the children are attracted to the pedophile, and Speaker 1 challenges them to pursue the line of thought by asking to go there. They discuss how labels of good and bad are often tied to who one chooses to side with. Speaker 0 expresses discomfort with the implication of the discussion and provides a hypothetical: if someone assaulted his wife at home, he would “forcibly stop” them and would value stopping the act “100% certainly.” He argues that morality at the moment would drive one’s reaction to harm, and asserts that when one sees something as evil, one would act to stop it, emphasizing that it is evil in one’s perception. Speaker 0 then asserts a universal standard: it is not acceptable to beat a child to a pulp or to sexually assault a child. He argues that there is something fundamental inside humans—a driving force toward life, love, freedom, and the experience of living in the world—and when someone intentionally interferes with that, there is an obligation to try to prevent or stop them. He adds that one can override impulses, acknowledging personal temptation to harm that has been resisted. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of repressing desires and then attacking his customers publicly. He suggests Speaker 0 is taking information that contradicts his stated beliefs and refuses to broadcast it because it conflicts with his system, describing it as a fight that Speaker 0 is ready to engage in. The tension is evident as Speaker 0’s and Speaker 1’s reactions become increasingly heated; Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1’s hands are shaking. Speaker 1 criticizes the stance of not exposing certain information on the show, arguing that it challenges his beliefs and that he is unwilling to “pacify” his research for anyone. He asserts that there are upsides to events, even to the murder of children, stating that there are upsides to it. Speaker 0 concludes with an abrupt decision to stop the discussion: “I think we’re gonna have to stop here, John.”

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the hepatitis B vaccine agenda and controversy around its use for newborns. Speaker 1 describes an upcoming September meeting where hepatitis B vaccine is on the agenda, predicting an effort to change the birth dose so that children wouldn’t receive it at birth. They say that if a mother has good prenatal care and known hepatitis B status, that may not matter, but if a mother does not attend prenatal care, the child would have only one opportunity to receive the vaccine. Speaker 0 reacts strongly, arguing that the person promoting the vaccine is inappropriately chosen to advocate for it. They state that the vaccine “was made for people who partake in promiscuous sex with multiple partners or share heroin needles,” and disclaim any direct accusation about the person’s needle-sharing, while asserting that this individual fits a certain group. They question why this person should mandate a hepatitis B vaccine for their child, insisting that in the United States people should be allowed to live freely, but not have the government or advocates push a vaccine tied to a particular lifestyle onto a newborn. Speaker 0 contends that the day-one vaccination would not provide long-lasting protection, especially if the person’s argument is framed as addressing a disease tied to sexual activity. They point out that the majority of pregnant individuals in America are not hepatitis B positive (citing a statistic they recall), and ask why their child should receive an injection for a sexually transmitted infection on day one of life. Speaker 0 challenges religious leaders who support the vaccination program, asking what they would say to families who do not plan for their child to engage in the behaviors associated with hepatitis B transmission. They question the alignment with religious beliefs, asking believers of various faiths whether they intend for their child to share heroin needles. They suggest a paradox in relating the injection to the condition of being created in the image and likeness of God, and conclude with a provocative remark about losing sight of religious or moral principles. Throughout, the speakers frame the hepatitis B vaccination strategy as an ideological fight over who should decide what is injected into newborns, juxtaposing public health goals with concerns about personal freedom, lifestyle, and religious beliefs.

An LGBTQ pastor is confronted about the gospel. The pastor quotes Matthew 19:4, stating marriage is between one man and one woman. When asked about the culture of the time, the pastor references Romans and asks if the other person believes in a moral code. The other person responds by saying the pastor is lost. The pastor states the basic principle of the gospel is to repent, turn to Jesus, and know him. The other person claims the basic foundation of the gospel is love. The pastor believes they are being saved from sin and death, and that the other person is leading people astray into hell.

The speaker asserts that the age of consent is a feminist social construct. They question why people are upset about someone being 17 rather than 18, noting that in Florida the age of consent is 18, while in Illinois it is 17 and in other states it is 16, with variation across countries and states. They point out that when the age of consent is 18 in Florida, dating somebody a year younger is framed as “the worst thing possible,” highlighting how perceptions shift with different statutory ages. The speaker then contends that age of consent is, at its core, about the age at which an adult can consent, and asks, “Do we really believe that you have to be 18 years old in order to consent to sex, otherwise it's rape?” They challenge the notion that adults who are past puberty cannot engage in relationships without it being deemed rape, suggesting a critical view of the rigidity around consent age. In terms of the broader purpose of the age of consent, the speaker offers a provocative interpretation: “What I think age of consent is about is really, … what it's really about is artificially increasing the sexual marketplace value of older women.” They emphasize that this is not presented as a new idea but as a conclusion they have discussed before on the show. The overall argument centers on questioning the universality and motives behind fixed consent ages, contrasting state-by-state differences and scrutinizing the social and market implications they believe are embedded in the concept of consent.

A man in his forties discusses the moral implications of a 15-year-old girl choosing her sexuality. He acknowledges the debate surrounding the age of sexual consent but emphasizes that everyone has different moral standards. He shares a personal anecdote about his own daughters and expresses concern about a 15-year-old girl dating a 45-year-old man. He believes that such relationships are not equal. He concludes by mentioning the concept of sexual majority for both boys and girls.

In a debate, Mr. Keyes argued that marriage is irrelevant where procreation is impossible in principle. He clarified that the definition of marriage is based on the principle of procreation between a man and a woman. He criticized changing this definition to include same-sex couples, as it undermines the institution's purpose of regulating procreation-related responsibilities. Keyes emphasized the importance of reasoning and logic in defining marriage, contrasting it with emotional arguments. He distanced himself from personal opinions and focused on the rational basis for his stance.

In this video, the speaker discusses the topic of sexual intercourse with young children. They argue that the Quran does not explicitly forbid it, citing a verse that mentions divorce and the absence of puberty. The speaker challenges the audience to find a verse in the Quran that prohibits marrying or having sexual intercourse with young children based on harm or puberty. They conclude that, according to the Quran alone, it is permissible to engage in sexual intercourse with 5-year-olds. The speaker suggests that this perspective supports pedophilia and severe wife abuse.

The speaker discusses the connection between pedophiles and the LGBTQ community. They argue that pedophiles want pedophilia to be accepted and removed from criminal laws. They claim that pedophiles will use the LGBTQ movement to support their argument that if children can make decisions about their gender and reproductive choices, they should also be able to decide when to engage in sexual activities. The speaker suggests that the LGBTQ movement is being used as a disguise by pedophiles to advance their agenda.