reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

The speaker asserts that all lives matter. Another person asks if the speaker is saying black lives don't matter. The speaker reiterates that every life matters, all of them. Someone responds "fuck all lives, black lives." The speaker asks what is wrong with saying all lives matter. Another person tells the speaker to get out of here with that bullshit. The speaker asks what's wrong and someone responds "touch killing niggas every fucking day you are."

I oppose the voice department because I believe the government wants to assimilate and oppress us. Despite numerous referendums, there have been no positive outcomes for our community. We shouldn't trust the government now and silence grassroots movements that are making real change. The government is using us to push their political agendas and paying us to support a First Nations voice to parliament. Mainstream news favors the YES campaign. I don't want non-indigenous people making decisions for me. The voice to parliament is not the solution and will set us back. We already have a voice, but no one is listening.

The speaker is engaged in a conversation with a police officer about their campaign to raise awareness about the issue of giving children puberty blockers and surgeries related to gender ideology. The police officer accuses the speaker of being inside the Disney store, but the speaker denies it. The police officer warns the speaker about potentially offensive signs and the breach of the law. The speaker argues that opinions are allowed and shares positive interactions they have had during their campaign. The police officer instructs the speaker to stay away from the Disney store and warns about potential arrest if they go near it. The conversation becomes heated, with the speaker asserting their rights and expressing their views on gender. The speaker and the police officer continue to argue about the false report and the speaker's presence on the street. The speaker encourages the police officer to arrest them, but the officer declines. The conversation ends with the speaker expressing gratitude for the officer's support and discussing their perspective on gender.

A speaker stated that it is negligent for the council to allow disinformation to be spread without correction. The speaker claimed that one of the speakers at the meeting spread misinformation and disinformation. They wanted it on the record that statements made by speakers are not necessarily factual.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they believe in a free press and if they think the public service is full of racists. Speaker 1 responds with "no" to both questions. Speaker 0 then questions why there is a demand for anti-racism training and asks if Speaker 1 has experienced racism. Speaker 1 refuses to comment. Speaker 0 expresses confusion about why Speaker 1 is on a picket line if they don't want to convey their message to the public. Speaker 1 continues to refuse to comment. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 has ever been victimized by a racist in the public service.

Speaker 0 argues that for women of color, particularly African Americans, problems arise when non-citizens are present in the community. He presents a scene on public property near county and city facilities, stating that “this is public” and asserting that the African American community is being “devastated by the illegal people that are in this community,” clarifying that he is not speaking about legal immigrants. He points to a young lady on the city council who “brags about that she came in here from Canada,” and says his ancestors “came into this country years ago and was put in slavery.” He emphasizes a crisis point, saying that when people are in crisis, they want to discuss it, and he asserts that allowing “so many illegal people to come here and not be US citizens and get housing, get food stamps” is harming the African American community, and that immigration in the city and county has devastated it. He notes that many people don’t want this topic discussed, but insists they will talk about it, and reiterates that the young lady should show she is a US citizen. He concludes by criticizing the behavior of those in the black community who come to the area to give a particular impression, implying hostility or pushback when discussing these issues. Speaker 1 interjects, calling it “a step ahead of conference,” while Speaker 0 attempts to finish speaking and respond to interruptions, insisting on continuing the discussion and asserting his claim about illegal immigration and its impact on African Americans on public housing and related services.

The speaker argues that government plans to augment or control citizens through bioengineering cannot be done without asking people first, and that the authorities have stated they will not ask. They claim a plan to induce a novel virus and to use weather warfare for manipulation, and they describe a hidden core in secret systems—secret communications and microfluidics for routing blockchain—as sources to ignore or erase. The speaker asserts that the new economy will be a bioeconomy built around cognitive cities, and that people will be compelled to augment in order to get a job or to live in a city, effectively forcing participation. They warn that the same coercive dynamic will be used to push augmentation as was seen with earlier acts of coerced compliance, comparing it to those who took a doughnut or a COVID-19 shot. They reflect on historical oppression, noting that those who resisted in the past were “mowed under” or placed in asylums, and tie this to fear that wireless updates trigger new diseases, linking disease frequency to cellular voltage and individual cell state. The speaker invites listeners to join in, appealing to empathy and humane treatment of fellow humans who are breathing, and states that if others refuse to accept the invitation, it will be because they prioritize their paycheck over the survival of the species. They declare that there will be some who are brave enough to speak out, and that those who do not join are part of a “cult,” insisting there are far fewer of them than of the speakers. They express a personal stance: they do not want to be a cyborg or have insectoid DNA inserted into their body without knowledge, consent, or permission, and say many people have already been convinced by “cute little tattoo and their new bio cyber interface” to feel differently about it. The speaker accuses certain individuals of being eugenicists who will not stop until their mission is achieved, and identifies their primary system for communication and for eliminating others as the core of their operation. They urge others to figure out why this topic isn’t being discussed and to determine if there is a reason that prevents wider understanding. Finally, they condemn the idea of humans tethered to a remote system controlled by the same military entities responsible for widespread harm, and they note that even military personnel have criticized those in power for years.

Speaker 0 contends that there is no link between immigration and sexual violence against women and girls. They then raise a pointed question about grooming gangs, identifying them as being of largely Pakistani descent that are “blotting our communities,” and ask if there is anything the other speaker has to say about this issue. Speaker 1 responds by saying the question is perfectly valid, but notes that they have moved on to other topics. They request to stick with the subject at hand. They explain that they were not asked to come in, and that they have strong feelings about immigration, which they stated in their reply. They state clearly that they are not going to start injecting racial connotations into discussions about immigration or crime. The brief phrase “The woman behind” appears at the end, implying a note about a person present, but the sentence is cut off.

This movement aims to change and upend the system. The speaker lacks hope for implementation under the current attorney general, but hopes the office will do the right thing in the future. The issue behind defund the police is the need to reimagine how we are creating safety. Many cities focus one third of their budget on policing, which is not the best way to achieve safety. The status quo thinking that more cops equals more safety is wrong. Upper middle class suburban neighborhoods don't have many police, but they do have well-funded schools, high homeownership rates, thriving small businesses, and access to public health and mental health services. This movement is about reevaluating budgets to reflect the right priorities.

The speaker criticizes the belief that more police equals more safety. They support reallocating funds from policing, like Mayor Eric Garcetti's proposal in Los Angeles.

Speaker 0 argues that “they are not here to cause safety in this city” and that “what they are doing is not to provide safety in America.” They claim those actions are “causing chaos and distrust,” and that such actions are “ripping families apart,” and “sowing chaos on our streets,” adding that in this case they are “quite literally killing people.” The speaker contends that the opposing side has already begun to frame the incident as an action of self-defense, and, after having seen the video themselves, states directly that this portrayal is “bullshit.” They insist that the situation does not reflect self-defense but rather that “this was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying, getting killed.”

Geraldo claims to know everything, but he's wrong. A Department of Justice study found no systemic racism in police contacts. Geraldo, you had a brief stint as a cop. Stop already. You push a race narrative with no data. There are hundreds of thousands of police officers and millions of Black Americans. If police were hunting Black men, where's the evidence? This rhetoric is why people are enraged. You're injecting racist rhetoric. Go tell black families who've lost sons to violence that your rhetoric is factual. That's all you have. You just want to see the country burn.

The speaker agrees that cities and towns are being overrun and crime is out of control. However, they disagree about the source of the problem. The speaker claims the "MAGA gang" and white supremacists are descending upon places like Springfield, Ohio. The speaker attributes community problems to white supremacists, not to those who have come to strengthen the economy and help the country recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. The speaker believes the problem is "him and his minions."

The speaker always wanted to broadcast in their hometown. However, they became bothered by the media's direction, even before George Floyd, due to moral and ethical concerns. After George Floyd's death, mandates required that half of interviewees had to be non-white or from a protected class. CBS News allegedly prohibited using the term "riots" in reporting. The speaker feels blessed to be on the other side now. The other speaker believes the net effect was the death of many people and the destruction of an American city. They are bothered that it's been memory-holed and no one has been held accountable.

Speaker 0 outlines a controversial "Solution" regarding vaccine refusers. He states, "Every study published in the last five years, when you look at vaccine refusers, I'm not talking about, well, hesitance, most of them we can talk into coming to terms, but refusers." He then adds a stark claim, "We'll just get rid of all the whites in The United States because it is the most diverse city in the entire United States." He closes with, "There are seven Asian languages spoken the solution." The remarks distinguish "refusers" from general hesitancy and present the speaker's call for removal of a racial group as part of a "solution," while noting the multilingual diversity of a city.

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.”

The speaker states that the idea of law enforcement intentionally allowing individuals to cross the border illegally for the purpose of voting is preposterous. The speaker believes everyone should condemn that rhetoric.

Not all indigenous people want their voices heard, contrary to popular belief. While many individuals genuinely aim to improve things, it is important to acknowledge that we are not a homogenous group. There are numerous Aboriginal people who are voting against certain proposals.

Speaker 0: The speaker argues that digital ID is bad and that the government is coming for children by announcing digital ID cards for 13-year-olds. They claim this is not a good thing because children have the right to grow up in privacy, to come of age, to explore, to experiment, and to make mistakes, with everything they do logged, tracked, and documented into a device that will follow them for the rest of their life and potentially discriminate against them. They say digital ID will document things like skill reports, mental health issues, behavioral issues, accomplishments, and failures, and that having so much information about a person before adulthood would make it easy to build systems that profile people based on socioeconomic background, behavior, and psychology, determining what type of citizen they are before they have a chance at life. They posit that as a parent you raise your children with boundaries, ethics, and moral, but the government has its own ethics, morals, and boundaries. They claim the government will have the power to give a child a bus pass, a bank account, access into entertainment venues, and a work permit when they turn 16, and the government can decide what makes a child applicable for that. They ask who should raise the child— you or the state. They argue that assigning a QR code to enter a playground and another to go skateboarding normalizes surveillance as safety for children, and that future generations could be convinced to accept more surveillance and control because they have been conditioned since childhood to see it as normal. They acknowledge pushback, noting some may call the concerns exaggerated, but they insist there is no reason to think digital ID will be used ethically, and they insist digital ID is forever. They challenge the idea that the last 500 years of humanity justify the next 500 years as superior, and say the government cannot provide a solid explanation for this institutional change. They dismiss migration as “bollocks” and claim the only justification given is convenience. The core claim is that the refusal to provide a straight answer hides a motive: control, plain and simple. The speaker concludes that there is an opportunity to change history in a positive way, and that opportunity starts with individuals choosing not to comply and saying no, for the sake of their kids and future generations.

Speaker 0: The speech opens with a critique of denouncing and a reference to the red guard/ c ultural revolution, questioning why nobody denounces others the way that era was denounced. The speaker recalls that the entire point of Charlie Kirk’s public life was to have actual debate, and asserts that Charlie “died for it.” The last several months of Charlie’s life were devoted, in part, to arguing about this event and this speech, which he asked the speaker to deliver earlier this year, this summer. The speaker notes that Charlie faced immense pressure from people who fund Turning Point who wanted him to remove the speaker from the roster. This has all become public, and the speaker describes the situation as sad, stating that Charlie stood firm in his often stated and deeply held belief that people should be able to debate. The speaker emphasizes that if someone has something valid to say and is telling the truth, they ought to be able to explain it calmly and in detail to people who don’t agree with them, and that they shouldn’t immediately resort to “shut up racist.” The speaker adds that “shut up racist” is the number one reason they voted for Donald Trump. They declare that if they were a racist or a bigot, they would simply say so, noting that it’s America and one is allowed to be whatever kind of person they want. They insist they are not a racist and have always opposed-bigoted views, but criticize the style of debate that prevents the other side from talking or being heard by immediately going to motive, asking why the question is asked, and stating they detect “a certain evil in your soul” in the question. They say that listening to such a question implicates the listeners too, and that someday they may be asked to denounce that person; they assert that friendship is not a reason to defend someone and that love is no defense. The speaker reflects that they thought that phase had ended and that they are not going to engage in those rules. They affirm that if someone doesn’t like what they think, that’s fine as long as they get to express it. That remains their view.

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 1: "The narrative that they have pushed forward in the last ten years is that there is a relentless assault on against black people be on behalf of white people, and the data does not show that." Speaker 1: "White individuals are actually more likely to be attacked, especially even per capita, by black individuals in this country." Speaker 3: "it's just pure race race mongering, hate mongering. It's wrong." Speaker 3: "Where is the George Floyd policing act? It didn't pass." Speaker 0: "The media doesn't care about this, and we should start asking why." Speaker 1: "All of a sudden, when we make the left live up to their own standard of rules, there is complete silence by the entire American media."

It's unfortunate another child's bad choice will affect him for life. The speaker has compassion for every human being. This is not a race issue, nor a black and white issue. The speaker does not want the situation politicized. The speaker does not appreciate online remarks from people who weren't present during the event.