reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker believes that there is a plan to prevent Trump from becoming president again. They claim that the plan involves someone within their own party who will be propped up as a candidate to keep the war machine and censorship agenda going. The speaker is determined to prevent this from happening. They express gratitude for the opportunity to ask a question and appreciate the honesty of the conversation.

The speaker states that engaging in politics dramatically increases their risk of assassination, which they do not want, as they do not have a death wish. However, they feel they have no choice but to do it because the stakes are so high.

The speakers discuss a perceived “concerted effort” and a “politics of personal destruction.” Speaker 0 insults John Podesta with, “Fuck you, John Podesta.” Speaker 1 responds, “Well, you see where I'm coming from.” Speaker 0 continues with, “Okay.” Speaker 1 adds, “When I talk, that's because I'm interested in this ongoing whatever the hell,” and Speaker 0 asks, “they're doing. What's in your closet, John Podesta? Big Podesta? Big Soros? Do you want us to play these games?” concluding, “Because we're playing to win.”

The conversation hinges on distrust of powerful benefactors and the way money influences politics, alongside reflections on recent political events. - Speaker 0 asserts that connections to the Rockefellers are “super sus,” arguing they have provided direct funding to an individual named Scott, which raises questions about influence and motives. They contend the Rockefellers are “nefarious” in American history and criticize the notion of “selling out” to such interests, suggesting that backing from these families would align with the interests they claim to oppose. - Speaker 2 summarizes a broader concern: the idea that the path to defeating the system is to imitate or intensify the same tactics used to entrench the system. They quote Charlie Kirk, noting that those in power “have no desire to reform the system,” only to “control the system and control you through it.” This is presented as evidence that the supposed challengers are actually reinforcing the very structure they claim to fight. - The discussion shifts to strategy and perception, with Speaker 1 urging a course of voting effort as a form of action, and Speaker 0 agreeing that the approach being discussed is aligned with the organization’s stance. There is a sense of skepticism about those who advocate for “voting harder” as a solution while appearing to operate within the existing power structures. - There is a separate thread about state politics: Speaker 0 mentions Wisconsin, noting a fascination that Democrats would elect a certain Supreme Court justice while the state would pass voter ID by a wide margin, which Speaker 0 sees as inconsistent with “a Democrat issue.” Speaker 1 acknowledges the point, and Speaker 0 indicates they would review the situation further by watching past coverage. - Another thread involves a personal and investigatory concern: Speaker 3 describes involvement in a case (referenced as “mother out to the case” and speaking with someone who was “clearly killed by somebody”). They recount contacting a California congressman, Ro Con (likely a misspelling of Ro Khanna), to raise the concern, but state that nothing happened. Speaker 2 dismisses the suggestion that political action followed, and there is a back-and-forth about whether the discussion is a debate or a plea for sympathy, with Speaker 2 accusing Speaker 3 of trying to build sympathy. Overall, the dialogue centers on alleged manipulation by powerful funders, the tension between reform and control within the political system, inconsistent political outcomes in Wisconsin, and frustration with inaction on a troubling case that involved a potential kill and calls to congressional attention that did not lead to results.

The speakers discuss the speaker's potential candidacy and the pressure they face from powerful individuals who want to keep them out of politics. They mention that the speaker is not for sale and that money is not the motivation for their involvement. They express frustration with corrupt individuals and their desire for control. The conversation touches on the possibility of election interference and the speaker's determination to fight against it. They emphasize their commitment to representing the people and their refusal to make deals with questionable individuals. The speaker declares their intention to run and be a thorn in the side of those who oppose them, even if it means facing extreme consequences.

Speaker 0 suggests Trump's history of targeting businesses and leaders who he perceives as political enemies should make him "radioactive" to the business world. Speaker 1 notes that, with the exception of Elon Musk, few CEOs of large companies publicly support Trump, fearing retribution. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to elaborate on a statement that some business leaders support Trump because they believe they can manipulate him. Speaker 1 explains that these leaders see the relationship as transactional, believing they can influence policy with the right amount of money, citing crypto as an example.

Speaker 1 was approached with an offer to pause their political activity, but Speaker 1 is offended, viewing it as an attempt to buy them out of running and a reflection of others' lack of concern for the country. Speaker 1 believes this is about preventing them from winning and defeating Trump, which they see as bad for the country. Speaker 0 suggests it may not be about Trump, but about Speaker 1. Speaker 1 refuses to be bought at any price, stating they are not going to let people who hate the country tell them not to run. Speaker 1 intends to be a "pain" to those trying to stop them and is willing to fight, even if it means risking their life. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to tell them to get behind their campaign. Speaker 1 believes the "swamp" doesn't pre-approve of them because they would root out corruption.

Speaker 0 is asked about winning the union vote despite his stance on gun control. He denies wanting to take away guns and clarifies that he never mentioned it. The conversation becomes heated and the speaker interrupts, asking to hold on. The transcript ends abruptly with the speaker mentioning "a lot of guys" without further explanation.

The speakers discuss the speaker's potential candidacy and the pressure they are facing from powerful individuals who want to keep them out of the race. The speaker expresses frustration with being controlled and owned by others and their refusal to work with people who don't align with their agenda. They also mention the possibility of election theft and their determination to fight against it. The speaker declares their intention to run and be a thorn in the side of those who oppose them, even if it means facing extreme consequences.

Speaker 0 asks how people can trust Speaker 1 and if he is part of the cabal. Speaker 1 responds by saying not to trust him, but to trust themselves. He dismisses the idea of controlled opposition and encourages people to do their own research and make their own decisions. He criticizes those who are indecisive and urges them to take action and make a difference. Speaker 1 talks about his sacrifices and the hardships he faces, emphasizing that he doesn't care about votes but wants to save the country. He calls out politicians and accuses them of being part of controlled opposition. He concludes by telling people to stop asking him questions and to take responsibility for their own actions.

Two speakers engage in a tense conversation about the secrets of a master mason. Speaker 0 demands the secrets or threatens to kill Speaker 1. Speaker 1 refuses to reveal the secrets, emphasizing the importance of time, place, patience, and completing the temple. Speaker 0 persists, but Speaker 1 remains steadfast. Suddenly, Speaker 1 mentions passing Jubilant and Jubilo, and Speaker 0 realizes they cannot pass. Speaker 1 introduces themselves as Jule Love, known for their determination. Speaker 0 repeats their demand for the secrets, but Speaker 1 stands firm. The conversation takes a dark turn as Speaker 0 mentions killing someone, and Speaker 1's response is unclear. The transcript ends with a mention of slaying the grand master and a discussion about what to do with the body.

The speakers discuss their fear of those who oppose them and their determination to stop them. They believe that the opposition will go to great lengths to prevent their cause. They express concern for the state of the United States and the need for people to support their mission. They emphasize the importance of doing the right thing for the country and ask for support. The conversation ends with gratitude and a plea to make the right decision.

Speaker 0 is asked about winning the union vote despite his stance on gun control. He denies wanting to take away guns and clarifies that he never mentioned it. The conversation gets heated, with Speaker 0 expressing frustration and asking for a moment. The transcript ends with Speaker 0 mentioning that there are many people who support him.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of "white guilt" and weakness, claiming he is creating more "Austin Metcalfs" by not condemning his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 1 counters that Speaker 0 has been "submitted" and is weak. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's patriotism, asking where he was on January 6th. He accuses Speaker 0 of "murdering white people" and being a degenerate. Speaker 1 claims Speaker 0 is using Austin Metcalf's name for t-shirts and propaganda. Speaker 1 states he will run for Senate in Florida as a Republican and defeat Speaker 0. He accuses Speaker 0 of trying to shut down a white man and trying to raise money. Speaker 1 says he came to give Speaker 0 a message from a father.

The speaker acknowledges the strong influence of donors, special interests, and lobbyists over politicians. They claim to have turned down significant amounts of money from these sources, stating that they are not accepting any money from anyone except the people of the country. Speaker 1 brings up the speaker's past relationship with Hillary Clinton, suggesting that it worked for her. The speaker responds by saying that as a businessman, it was their job to get along with people, including politicians. They emphasize that they did a good job in doing so.

Two friends discuss powerful people who want to keep one of them out. They mention corruption and a globalist agenda. The conversation revolves around the idea of being on a team and the control these powerful people want. They discuss offers and the need to raise money to win. One person is adamant about not making a deal with these people and fighting against election theft. They express a willingness to be a pain and continue fighting, even if it means risking their life. The conversation ends with a statement about not needing to explain further.

Speaker 0 asks how people can trust Speaker 1 and if he is part of the cabal. Speaker 1 responds by saying not to trust him, but to trust themselves. He dismisses the idea of controlled opposition and urges people to do their own research and make their own decisions. He criticizes those who claim they don't know what to do and tells them to grow up. Speaker 1 talks about his dedication to fighting for causes and calls out politicians for not addressing important issues. He expresses frustration with people who worry about controlled opposition and accuses them of being lazy and selfish. He ends by telling people to stop asking him questions and to take action themselves.

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.

Both speakers were members of the secret society Skull and Bones, but they cannot discuss it. This secrecy will fuel conspiracy theories. Speaker 0 mentions a web number 322, but they haven't seen it. Speaker 0 is determined not to lose and has a clear vision for leading the country.

Speaker 0: At some point, many people will hate you for what you've done. Despite preaching inclusivity, they won't include you. The majority still holds power, and we allow it because we take sides in arguments. No one will understand our perspective.

They discuss their determination to stop someone and not let them succeed. They express their belief that this person will stop at nothing and the need to prevent them from achieving their goals. They mention feeling worried and fearful about the state of the United States and express a desire for support. They argue that voting for them would save the person they are referring to, while voting for someone else would lead to their downfall. They emphasize the importance of doing the right thing for the country and ask for support in the Iowa caucus. The other person agrees to consider their request.

The speakers discuss a potential offer to buy Speaker 1 out of the governor's race. Speaker 1 is offended by the offer and expresses his commitment to running for the betterment of Arizona and the country. Speaker 0 suggests that the offer is a recognition of Speaker 1's power and offers a counter proposal. Speaker 1 refuses to be bought and emphasizes his dedication to the people and his refusal to let those who dislike the country dictate his actions. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 expressing hope for his case and his intention to fight against corruption.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 to publicly address an issue larger than Austin, accusing him of "white guilt" and weakness that is creating more "Austin Metcalfs." Speaker 0 urges Speaker 1 to condemn his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being degenerate, murdering white people, and not being patriotic. Speaker 1 claims that silence has not helped and asks where Speaker 0 was on January 6th. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0 is only condemning his solution to help people where they're weak, particularly young black males. Speaker 1 says he will run for Senate in Florida as a Republican and defeat Speaker 0. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of wanting to shut down a white man. Speaker 1 states he came to give a message from his father. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of trying to shut him down because he is a black man.

The conversation centers on whether political opponents or powerful interests would buy off or influence a candidate, and what that would mean for a political race and the country. Speaker 0 questions if a price exists to “be bought,” and both eventually reject money as the primary issue, insisting the matter is about the country itself. They discuss the idea that fresh faces are needed because no one in a federal race has ever lost and then won, though Speaker 0 contests that notion as a possibility. They reference powerful people in the East who want to keep the candidate out and are willing to spend heavily, making the conversation forbidden and not to be repeated. A fear is expressed that someone might be offered financial incentives, such as being placed on a payroll to be kept out of the race. They acknowledge the presence of entities willing to “put their money where their mouth is” and the risk that they would “murder” or eliminate opponents to stop certain candidates, describing a dangerous political landscape. The dialogue shifts to the cartel and corruption, with mentions that “the cartel is operating in 50 states,” though details about who knows what are avoided. They discuss the strategy of staying on “the team” of those who want to influence the race, suggesting creditors or backers aim to control the candidate’s actions and align them with a globalist agenda. There is insistence that the person should not “scratch their back” for others in Washington, viewing DC as a “back scratching club.” Speaker 1 argues that defeating Trump is a central aim, claiming that DeSantis is not America first and that removing Trump would be a dangerous outcome for the country. Speaker 0 expresses support for Trump but questions whether he can win again, suggesting the real issue is money and the ability to raise funds to win. They note that consultants benefit from a continuing cycle of money and that those consultants do not want their payday to end. A key sentiment is resistance to being controlled or owned, with Speaker 1 declaring he will not accept backroom deals and will be “the biggest pain” to those trying to control him. They discuss public support and the importance of defending their movement and the people of Arizona, stressing a commitment to carry their torch and voice. The dialogue ends with a defiant vow to continue, even if it risks dangerous retaliation, and a readiness to persevere rather than pause on the battlefield.

The speakers discuss the speaker's potential candidacy and the opposition they face. They mention that money is not the issue, but rather the desire to serve the country. The speaker expresses frustration with powerful people who want to keep them out of the race. They also mention concerns about the cartel and a globalist agenda. The speakers discuss offers to put the speaker on a company's payroll and their refusal to make deals with certain individuals. The speaker emphasizes their commitment to fighting for the people and not allowing the election to be stolen. They declare their intention to run and be a thorn in the side of their opponents, even if it means facing threats.