reSee.it - Related Video Feed

An individual questions why their picture was taken at a public protest, suggesting it's a tactic used by an organization to "geo attack" and dox them, further claiming their picture will be uploaded to a database. The photographer states they are documenting the protest for an article. The individual expresses fear of being doxxed, especially after the photographer took their picture. They inquire about the reason for the picture, with the photographer responding they like their face. The individual finds this "creepy" and asks for information about the protest, specifically the difference between the orange and yellow groups and who organized the event.

The speaker introduces a comparison of ICE to the Ku Klux Klan. One speaker defines the KKK as a domestic terrorist group that used fear and force to change the political environment based on race and ethnicity. Another speaker asks if they are aware of the perception of how ICE's power and discretion are being used to enforce laws and if they see any parallels to the KKK. The speaker responds that they see no parallel between what is constitutionally mandated in enforcing the law and the KKK. They deny seeing ICE in the same category as the KKK. The first speaker urges listeners to vote and bring 10 people with them, suggesting the other speaker could be the next president.

Speaker 0 questions why a swastika is not immediately considered anti-Semitic, while Speaker 1 explains the need for context. Speaker 0 expresses confusion and frustration, emphasizing the symbol's association with anti-Semitism. Speaker 1 mentions their role as a police officer and the need for distress to take action. Speaker 0 is dissatisfied with the response and seeks clarity on when a swastika is not anti-Semitic. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 reiterating their role and responsibilities.

Speaker 0 launches into a hostile condemnation of 'fascists' in the city, exclaiming: 'Motherfucker. Oh. Fascists in our city. They what? You see these fascists right here in our Fascists?' Then: 'Fuck you. Fuck you, fascists. Shame. Shame. Shame.' He adds, 'Shame. Y'all laughing, but that's the truth. We really talking real shit. Shut.' He insists, 'Y'all need to do some background studying about the federal mass objection.' He continues, 'They fooled a man. No. No. No. You don't, baby.' Then: 'Super bad. No. No. No. No.' 'No. No. He cooked up. He cooked up.' The overall tone is a raw, unfiltered rant.

The speakers are asked what makes Trump a fascist. One speaker says Trump "just does everything he wants" and is a "convicted felon." Another speaker claims Trump is trying to control the media and the narrative, citing the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and allegedly not allowing the Associated Press into the White House. When asked if renaming the Gulf of Mexico is pointless, the speaker says yes, despite the questioner suggesting it could have a positive tourism impact. The speaker also states tourism is down heavily. Another core tenet of fascism is "creating an enemy" and "blaming the phones on hand." One speaker admits they received the sign and talking points from the people who gave them the sign. Both speakers say they are protesting executive overreach.

The speaker is filming at a public protest and refuses to stop recording despite being asked not to film people's faces. The other person argues that it's a public space and a newsworthy event, so they have the right to record. The situation escalates as they exchange heated words, with the speaker eventually agreeing to leave. The conversation is chaotic and ends with the speaker continuing to film while making references to "Rick and Morty."

Speaker 0 describes the situation as not a lone incident but an intentional design to start an internal component of what he calls a color revolution, one among many to expect. Speaker 1 asks for clarification on what is meant by a color revolution, who is driving it against the United States, and who is in charge. Speaker 0 replies that a hard look back to 2016 under Obama is necessary and believes Obama is still in the mix, with John Brennan as the operational commander on the battlefield in the United States. He says there are indicators from Brennan’s statements and actions, and that Obama is part of the command structure. He mentions an international component he calls the axis of resistance, consisting of communists emanating from the CCP’s control and communists inside the United States, arguing that there are communists in Congress who voted in 1992 not to vote against socialism. He adds Islamists, narco cartels, and terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, and the Cartel del Sol as part of this axis, with people at the “pincer” of it organizing and controlling the activities. He asserts the color revolutions in Ukraine as an example and claims the war there is a “total loser war” that must end. He says Trump must tell his team to ensure executive orders are implemented at all levels and emphasizes the phrase, “lawyers advise, leaders decide,” urging President Trump to gather all relevant agencies (CIA, DNI, Sec War, Sec State, Sec Commerce, and especially the Secretary of Homeland Security) and make a decision. He states that the color revolution is a long-term effort that accelerated after Trump’s 2016 victory, with ongoing actions described as economic warfare, cyber warfare, and political interference. He cites the New Virginia Majority, a communist movement inside the United States aiming to place communists in local government and school boards, and mentions contrived cultural shifts including Islamification in various parts of the country, including Florida, Dearborn, and Houston. He asserts Islam is not compatible with Christianity and Sharia law is not compatible with constitutional law. Speaker 1 agrees there were people who served their country; she supports removing those who served but opposes letting any of them into the United States, emphasizing a different culture. Speaker 2 agrees. Speaker 1 notes the large Muslim population spread across many regions, suggesting others could have taken Afghan refugees, but questions the appropriateness of bringing them in. Speaker 2 states it is not surprising that a CIA-trained individual who previously appeared untroubled could appear in Washington, D.C. to shoot at troops, and explains a broader pattern: old-school descendants became part of a strike force, loyal at one time but funded and equipped by the U.S., who were later abandoned during the Obama–Biden period. He describes withdrawal from bases and overnight equipment removal, followed by a lack of transition to self-sufficiency, leading to brought-in desperate fighters who may be paid to kill National Guard members. He asserts these events demonstrate a deep state pattern involving Biden, Obama, and Brennan.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 what they think about the imagery behind them, given that Speaker 0's parents were born in the USSR, and questions whether it conflates ideologies and a movement. Speaker 1 responds that communism doesn't necessarily mean dictatorship, but acknowledges that it often turns out that way. Speaker 1 then admits to feeling like a hypocrite and shrugs.

The exchange centers on filming rights and the status of the location. Speaker 0 challenges whether they are allowed to film, asking, “Oh, turn off the camera? Yeah. Do I not have a right to have the camera? I’m not giving you permission to check my face.” They then inquire about authority, asking, “Are you a public servant? Or United Nations against the city. Okay. Does because this is my city, and so I have a right to film.” This line underscores Speaker 0’s insistence on their right to record within the space, coupled with a demand for clarity about the other party’s authority to restrict that right. Speaker 1 responds by questioning the premise of the filmed area, asking, “This is United Nations compound?” and clarifies the location’s status by confirming whether it is a compound. The conversation shifts to the status and sovereignty of the area, with Speaker 1 asserting control and jurisdiction over the space in question. A pivotal point in the dialogue arises when Speaker 1 provides a long claim about the compound’s ownership and territorial status. They state, “Since Sunday evening, we took over this compound. This is international territory.” They further elaborate the contrasting jurisdictions, stating, “When you step outside, it’s US. Here is international territory.” This statement frames the location as international territory within the compound, implying a distinct legal or political status compared to the surrounding area. Overall, the interaction is a brief confrontation over visual documentation and the governing authority of the space. Speaker 0 emphasizes the right to film and presses for clarity on who can permit or deny that right, while Speaker 1 asserts that the space is an international territory under their control since Sunday evening, differentiating it from the surrounding US jurisdiction. The dialogue highlights tensions between individual or press rights to film and a claimed change in sovereignty or control of a contested compound.

The speaker is asked about retweeting a quote from Mussolini without knowing it was from him. The speaker defends the retweet, saying it's okay to like the quote without supporting Mussolini. They mention having a large following and wanting to be associated with interesting quotes. The conversation ends with a plug for subscribing to their YouTube channel.

Speaker 0: Let me ask you tonight. Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist? Speaker 1: Yes. I do. Speaker 0: This is what kicking the shit out of fascism looks like. Speaker 2: Try to prevent the spread of the lawlessness and the fascist chaos that's been unleashed against us. Speaker 1: So when we say Donald Trump is a fascist, fascism, a huge component of fascism, is uniting racism, bigotry, a form of racist nationalism. Speaker 0: This is we are now living in a fascist dictatorship. Speaker 1: Mhmm. And we are worried about potential rise of fascism in this country. We're worried about our democracy falling to an authoritarian and potentially fascist form of government. Speaker 0: Not only to roll over to Donald Trump's will, but to roll over our democracy and allow him to take over this country as a fascist dictator. Speaker 1: When fascism isn't just coming, it's already here. Speaker 0: The former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mark Milley, said, no one has ever been more dangerous to this country than Donald Trump, and he is a fascist to his core.

The speaker is wearing a MAGA hat and is being followed and "belly bumped" by someone. The speaker tells the person to not touch them and to get away. The speaker accuses the person of being a "freak" and wanting "some action." The speaker threatens to call the police and plans to complain to the management about the person's behavior. The speaker believes the person's actions are due to the MAGA hat.

The speaker mentions that their face is not on Instagram and they have learned that it is all fake. They also mention wearing a Trump hat and attending a Trump rally during the daytime. They claim to be a journalist and have their camera on their shoulder. The speaker states that Antifa is an idea, not an organization.

In the video, someone asks if the cop who pushed them is from Portland and associated with Antifa.

The speaker denies supporting fascists. They question who is being accused of supporting fascists and repeatedly state "No." The speaker asks for clarification regarding their identity and poses the question, "Who am I?"

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.'

Two speakers volley questions about fascism and anti-fascism. Speaker 1 asks: "Are you Antifa?" and "You're pro fascism?" "But can you at least say that you're anti fascist?" Speaker 0 responds: "I wouldn't say so." "I'm not really... I have still both political views on things." "I'm not gonna say that if I don't know." The exchange probes neutrality: "You think we're new you think you were we were neutral on fascism in World War two?" "The US was Antifa against the Nazis." Speaker 1 presses: "So then, like, why wouldn't you want to be Antifa?" Speaker 0: "I don't know. I'm trying to." "I can't believe Trump has you, like, so cooked in the brain that you don't even know how to say that fascism is wrong." A sponsor line interrupts: "Innovega is redefining what's possible for people with vision loss." Later, "Are you against fascism?" and "If you are against fascism in the comment section, type three in the comment section you're against fascism." The discussion veers to "Partying convicted felonies. Well, let's talk about that. So"

An individual is asked repeatedly if they are with Black Lives Matter. The person on the phone says he is not being charged with anything. He denies being with Black Lives Matter.

The speakers are asked what makes Trump a fascist. One speaker says Trump "just does everything he wants" and is a "convicted felon." Another speaker claims Trump is trying to control the media narrative, citing the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and allegedly not allowing the Associated Press into the White House. When asked if renaming the Gulf of Mexico is pointless, the speaker agrees. The speakers are asked again what makes Trump a fascist. One speaker says a core tenet of fascism is creating an enemy. The speaker admits they received the sign and talking points from someone else. They say they came out to protest because of executive overreach.

They assert that recording is not illegal and proceed with filming. They question why their information is being taken down, and are told, “Because we have a nice little database.” A statement follows, “He is considered a domestic terrorist.” The exchange ends with, “So We're videotaping you? Are you crazy?”

Steve Bannon is riling up a violent base with phrases like "victory or death." Another person argues it means "die trying" instead of killing opponents. The first person sees this as fascism and is scared for the upcoming election, focusing on Bannon and Trump's destructive intentions.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and then expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer yes. The speaker mentions being in 3 seats and wanting power. They tell someone to leave and make a crude comment about subscribing to someone's beliefs.

Speaker 0 questions the masked individuals: “You guys covering your faces? You wanna take those masks off? Is this a kidnapping? Yeah. You don't look like it.” They continue, asking, “Why are you hiding your faces? Why are you hiding your faces? Can I see some faces here? How do I know this is the police? Seems like bullshit to me.” They conclude, “Certainly looks like it. Bit of a kidnapping going on here.”

The speaker asks an officer what is happening and what is going on. The speaker repeats, "What's that?" and "What?" The officer responds that they can't describe exactly what's going on, stating, "It's an ongoing investigation." The speaker repeats the word "crime" multiple times.

Speaker 0: The speaker expresses frustration about attempts to discourage voting through violence. They criticize those who engage in racist actions and invade people's privacy. The speaker warns that if their vote is stolen, they will remember the person responsible. The speaker then asks if they can take a picture of the person they are speaking to. The person agrees, mentioning that it is a one-party consent state. Another speaker advises against being friendly with certain individuals, claiming they support hate groups and religious extremism. The conversation ends with one person requesting a Republican sample ballot.