reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There were very fine people on both sides of a white supremacist rally. I’m not referring to the neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who should be condemned entirely. However, there were many individuals in that group who were not neo-Nazis or white nationalists.

A person confronts a group arriving by bus to protest Trump in Washington D.C. The person accuses the group of being an "AstroTurfed" crowd, implying they are not an authentic, grassroots movement. The person questions if they know what International Workers' Rights Day is, calling it "Socialist day." The confrontation escalates with insults exchanged. The person threatens physical violence.

Speaker 1 claims that Speaker 0's statements are lies. Speaker 1 founded the Asylum Seeker Network of Support to fight US policy, which evolved into creating programs. Speaker 2 says Speaker 0 is there to take from them, but they are standing as a community. Speaker 0 asks if they are taking pictures of children near trans flags, condoms, and sex-related items, which they deem inappropriate for a public park. Speaker 0 tells Speaker 2 to stop touching them. Speaker 1 says Speaker 0 is not welcome in their space, but Speaker 0 says it is a public park. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of assault. Speaker 1 denies being violent and suggests Speaker 0 give them personal space. Speaker 0 accuses them of gaslighting and asks why they threw coffee at them, stating they are just there to cover the event.

A speaker was asked to apologize to Trump or Republicans for sharing a picture of a sign put up in Tucson. The speaker said they would acknowledge wrongdoing when Trump apologizes for racist, misogynistic, sexist, and inflammatory comments about women, people of color, LGBTQ, immigrants, and anyone who disagrees with him. The speaker committed to pausing before sharing posts that might incite harassment. Another speaker, a legal immigrant from Cuba, stated that what the first speaker said constitutes fighting words and hate speech. They claimed the speaker is protected by corporate media and that former President Trump has been attempted suicide twice because the corporate media promotes it.

Speaker 0 launches into a furious monologue, directing insults at someone who would report fellow Americans to the federal police, calling them dumb, idiotic, unpatriotic, and un-American. The speaker says, “Eat a dick,” and condemns anyone celebrating the capture or arrest of fellow Americans. They insist they are not moving on to other news and insist on staying on the topic, expressing anger toward those they reference as helping “the feds.” The speaker demands that the others understand they should not think the situation will benefit them or make them feel safer. They declare, “God is just and swift,” and threaten a confrontation, signaling they will address the matter aggressively while claiming to have “friends in high places” who will listen without payment, asserting they know they are a “good fucking person,” American, and a Christian who loves the nation. In contrast, they accuse the others of not loving their country, not being Christian, and not caring as much as they claim. The speaker asserts they have ample time and resources, contrasting themselves with others who supposedly have less. They reference a public figure, Candace, suggesting someone is upset by her actions toward someone named Charlie, and claim they have time to engage as needed. The speaker rejects the idea of having four kids, stating they have “a bunch of anger,” substantial intelligence, and many friends, and they condemn their opponents with coarse language. They declare they will not threaten violence and assert they would not harm a fly, stating they love flies even though they think they are awful. They insist they do not have to harm anyone, claiming God tells them not to seek retribution on their enemy and that vengeance belongs to God. The speaker ends by reiterating, “Fuck you,” and asserting that God loves them and will handle the situation, directing final hostility toward the unnamed others.

Kyle introduces himself: "My name is Kyle. I'm Antifa, and there's so much rage in me that I've had to record this, like, 15 times trying to get the message out." He says, "They fucked up. K? Go watch my other videos." He asserts that if listeners are not caught up, they’ve missed the fight, but if they are, it's time to "suit up. Boots on the ground. Nicollet and fucking 26th." He specifies, "My house is four blocks away. Anywhere between Franklin and Nicollet and 26th and Nicollet, show up ready to go." He states he is not talking about peaceful protests anymore and not having polite conversations anymore; he is talking specifically to his followers and asserts, "This is everything I have fucking talked about, and this is exactly what I said was gonna happen. This is exactly what I said was gonna fucking come when we didn't fucking go and march on fucking Whipple with guns." He proclaims, "Sorry, but welcome to America 2026 where second amendment is the only thing that's gonna keep you fucking protected from literal fucking Nazi gunmen that are killing innocent people in the street with impunity." He emphasizes, "This is not a fucking joke." He concludes with a call to action: "There's nothing fun to chant about it. Get your fucking guns and stop these fucking people."

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.

At Pride, someone was being homophobic and laughing at a liberation fight. I confronted him, telling him he shouldn't be there. I mentioned that he's not on the right side, and then they started hating on me. I only said a few words before they attacked him. My name is Sonny. Did you see that? They snuck up on him.

My name is John Sullivan from Insurgence USA in Salt Lake City, Utah. We're about to burn this shit down. Did anybody see that white militia guy shoot 3 kids? There's a whole bunch of white militia in Utah that came out against our group. We out there strapped and ready to burn that shit down. We out there to defend our fucking self.

There were individuals on both sides that night, including some Americans chanting Nazi slogans. It's important to clarify that I'm not referring to the neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who should be completely condemned.

Speaker 1 describes an incident where the other driver said, "Muslim terrorists, he called me," and "A Muslim terrorist, and he tried to assassinate me." He adds, "He literally tried to kill me. If I wasn't a smart driver, I would have hit the cars in front of me." The attacker "passed successfully" but "was not done with me because I'm a Muslim terrorist." The white driver "passed you" and then "break checked me"—"a 100 times." While trying to avoid him, the speaker says he almost hit "all kinds of people" and was blocked by an "Islamophobe." The speaker asserts, "Charges are gonna be aggravated assault." He concludes, "I am done talking" and says, "Because now you're here to protect your own people, and it's obvious."

A bartender says they and other bartenders reserve the right to refuse service to anyone wearing controversial symbols rooted in hate and bigotry, like MAGA gear. The speaker claims the global perspective of MAGA is negative and makes people uncomfortable. They state that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. The speaker believes the woman wearing MAGA gear was looking for trouble, as she beelined for the trans bartender and started filming, calling it rage bait.

There were very fine people on both sides of a white supremacist rally. I'm not referring to the neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who should be condemned entirely. However, there were many individuals in that group who were not neo-Nazis or white nationalists.

I threatened violence against Trump, encouraged confronting politicians, and suggested physically attacking Trump. I also mentioned the need for street unrest until our lives improve and mentioned putting a bullet in Trump.

Fascists in our city. 'Motherfucker.' 'Oh.' 'Fascists?' 'You see these fascists right here in our Fascists?' 'Fuck you. Fuck you, fascists.' 'Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame.' 'Y'all laughing, but that's the truth. We really talking real shit.' 'Shut.' 'Y'all need to do some background studying about the federal mass objection.' 'They fooled a man.' 'No. No. No. You don't, baby.' 'Super bad.' 'No. No. No. No. No. No.' 'He cooked up. He cooked up.'

At the core of the left, at the core of a liberal, is someone that would use the sword if they had it. They are very violent people at their core. They always have it. They can't debate. They can't have conversation. So they'll resort to these tactics. They're gonna do everything they possibly can to try to murder this movement because they can't beat us. So they're gonna try to take weapons. And now we're very aware of that. I'm aware of it. We have to have full time security. This is not a joke. This is who these people are.

The transcript shows a volatile exchange centered on immigration and constitutional rights. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks how many constitutional rights the other participants are willing to give up to “get these people out,” framing the issue as a test of loyalty to the country. He emphasizes a confrontational stance against immigrants and their supporters, pressing for an explicit, finite number of rights to sacrifice. Speaker 1 responds with extreme, inflammatory rhetoric. He declares, “As many constitutional rights as it takes to keep the race in the country alive is how many I’m willing to walk on,” and identifies as a “national socialist authoritarian,” asserting a willingness to sacrifice rights to preserve a “race in the country.” He attacks the idea of protecting the Constitution, stating, “my constitution, my democracy, my fucking… inalienable fucking constitutional car driven rights,” and contrasts that with what he sees as the real priority of protecting the country and race. He references “the force doctrine” and asserts that “your rights are whatever the fucking force doctrine says you’re allowed to do.” He also claims that the United States acts as “the force doctrine of the entire world.” During the exchange, Speaker 0 derides Speaker 1 as “white racist fuck” and “unamerican,” while Speaker 1 escalates, declaring that he does not care about the constitution if it endangers the country or race. He asserts, “What I care about is our country,” and later says, “Willing to let this country burn and your entire race burn if it meant that you didn’t violate the constitution? I don’t give a fuck about that.” He proclaims, “If I need to throw away the first amendment, the second amendment, the third, the fourth, the fifth, sixth, and all of them in order to make sure that The US and its people stays alive,” questioning how that could be acceptable. The dialogue includes explicit harassment and slurs, including “chill faggot,” and culminates in a moment where Speaker 0 calls for clipping the exchange, expressing it as “fucking gold.” The participants debate whether constitutional protections should yield to perceived national or racial imperatives, with both sides railing against the other’s stance and repeatedly foregrounding the primacy of protecting the country over preserving constitutional rights, according to their respective positions.

The speaker states that an uninvited individual acted disrespectfully by being near the family, demonstrating their character. The speaker believes this person knows it's inappropriate to be near the family. The speaker asserts that actions speak louder than words. The speaker accuses political operatives of trying to turn the situation into a political issue of hate, bigotry, and racism. The speaker claims conservative operatives have been posting nonstop about the case.

"The president has been trying to provoke violence here, right here, in the black communities and in the brown communities, having ICE kidnap our neighbors, having black having the black community be harassed and profiled and want, want a response. We say, hell no. We won't go." "Today, we get today today, we gather to speak plainly about policy path that sounds strong, but in truth, it weakens the very safety we see." "Black people are more likely to be stopped, searched, questioned, arrested, and harmed encounters with the law." "When we add the president of federal agents or the national guard to daily life in these neighborhoods, the burden can multiply." "We're fighting for freedom and safety for all people."

The speaker states they have never promoted violence, but have also never excused violent actors, such as those involved in January 6th. The speaker suggests Pam Bondi should address terrorism with her boss regarding the release of January 6th participants.

A speaker derides a counter protestor, insisting “I’m not the big guy.” They claim “They’re not even rocking” and add “They sent your pizza.” The speaker adopts a boastful stance with “Tall and proud.” They respond to a Nazi accusation with, “If you’re you’re Nazi, isn’t, then I’m a Nazi, bitch,” followed by the line, “Shut the fuck up, Nazi.”

I spotted a guy with a sign that seemed to threaten CEOs. I asked him if Julone, or Luigi, was his hero, considering the message he was putting out. He didn't want to talk, but I pressed, asking who his hero politician was. I asked the group to raise their right hands. I asked if their cause involved killing CEOs because that's what the sign implied. They called me an extremist while holding up pro-Luigi signs. They seemed angry and exposed. They started blocking their original sign with an "F Trump" sign. I pointed out they didn't want to answer if they thought killing Elon Musk was a good idea. Then, they began taking pictures of me. I simply asked if they were cool with a sign that threatened the president's life, and they freaked out. All I wanted was an answer on whether they thought threatening the president was appropriate.

While the speaker was at dinner in West Palm Beach, an unidentified man told him to "go fuck himself" and called him a "fucking asshole." The man claimed the speaker's actions were criminal due to his politics. The speaker repeatedly asked the man to explain what he found criminal about his actions and why he should "go fuck himself," but the man did not elaborate. The speaker stated the man cursed at him in the restaurant and then "walked away like a coward."

Speaker 0 describes a situation where some individuals “gum felt empowered and emboldened enough to put this picture of me up to try to threaten and intimidate me,” adding that they didn’t succeed because “I signed up for this.” The person who posted the picture “said a bunch of terrible things, not just against me, but against a lot of groups and individuals who, by the way, was arrested today in Wisconsin.” The speaker’s point is that if this person feels empowered or safe enough to threaten them, what would they do to “a kid” or “a Jewish family walking down the street?” The speaker attributes this behavior to the “normalization of this,” describing how people watch such acts on television and feel empowered to imitate them. They argue that while the aggressor may think they can act, they cannot: “a, you can't.” They extend the concern to someone in law enforcement, asking, “if you think you can do it to somebody that's in law enforcement, again, what are you gonna do in an alley or in a street to a Jewish family or a kid walking down the street?” The message is a firm prohibition: “We say no. We're drawing the line.”

Two voices, Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, erupt in a heated argument filled with confrontation, insults, and conflicting accusations. Speaker 0 insists he did not assault anybody and denies any wrongdoing, repeatedly accusing others of criminal behavior and bullying. He berates the others as “piece of shit,” “fat bucks,” and “bunch of fucking pussies,” while predicting that they will die a “sad fucking lonely death.” He claims, “Arresting American citizens” and says, “You slam it on him,” denying that he slammed the door. He asserts that “you guys are abducting people off the streets” and challenges the group to meet him, asking for a street wave and directing them to a location. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0, urging him to avoid assault and to provide clarification on what just happened. He notes that they “exited here” and that they are “around you guys.” He and Speaker 0 discuss their location: “ Sheridan and Belmont. Sheridan and Belmont. We’re on the corner,” specifying the intersection to reach them. He asks for patience, saying “Hold on. Stand by.” He reports surrounding actions and voices concern about the confrontation, emphasizing they will soon be in contact with each other and that they are near the other party. The exchange grows more acrimonious as Speaker 0 continues to threaten and insult, telling the other party to tell a Facebook group where they are “Camping out like a bunch of buck bunch of fucking pussies.” He repeats the charge that others are “arresting American citizens” and asserts that the situation is not assault, while Speaker 1 maintains it could be considered assault “at the next stoplight.” The dialogue reveals a tense, personal clash, with Speaker 0 attacking the other side’s families and immigration background: “All your families came from different fucking countries.” As the tension escalates, both speakers exchange directions and indications of where they are relative to the others. Speaker 0 directs a left turn at various landmarks, asking, “Where do I turn? I turn left, turn left, right, turn left,” and acknowledges the need to communicate their location to the other group. The dialogue ends with continued dispute over the events, the concept of assault, and where each party should proceed, punctuated by raw insults and threats. The exchange centers on alleged abduction and assault, the fear of being targeted by authorities, and the urge to confront the other group at a nearby intersection near Sheridan and Belmont.