reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 thanks Joe for covering the antiques in the crowd. They ask if it feels better and offer to spray something.

The speakers open with thanks and ask if they’re live, noting the rapid pace and performance so far. They react to Ronaldo and Messi, joking about the names—“Ronaldo? You like Ronaldo? I’m goodie,” and “Messi? Messy? My Messy?” They identify someone as Steve, then prompt movement forward—“Here we go.” A brief exchange follows about touching—“Can I touch? Can you touch? Yes. You can touch.” The moment escalates with exclamations about speed—“Oh, fuck. Oh my gosh. This is fucking speed.” The tone shifts from curiosity about players to a high-energy, candid reaction to the moment, ending on the intensity of the speed. The exchange ends there.

Speaker 0 notes the intense public interest in the relationship and asks how Speaker 1 deals with it. Speaker 1 responds that they try not to worry about what others think and focus on doing what feels right for them. Speaker 0 then asks how they met, but neither party is comfortable commenting on the topic.

Speaker 0 is saying goodbye to Charlie, who is going on a trip. Speaker 0 asks if they will ever see Charlie again. Charlie says they will. Speaker 0 says goodbye and that they love Charlie.

Speaker 0 is checking in with someone and expresses that they have accomplished something. The other person asks if they are leaving, to which Speaker 0 confirms. Speaker 0 then asks for some information, but the other person refuses. Both speakers clarify that they are not suicidal and enjoy life.

Speaker 0 acknowledges Speaker 1 was right about something. Speaker 1 anticipates the film they are making will be the best ever. Speaker 0 agrees. Speaker 2 also expresses enthusiasm. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 2 is recording, and Speaker 1 says they will delete it, clarifying they didn't record Speaker 0 or Speaker 1. Speaker 2 compliments someone's appearance.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if he is a PVV Member of Parliament, and Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 says he recognizes them all, to which Speaker 1 agrees. The interviewer then asks about Speaker 1’s ambitions for the next four years, but Speaker 1 says he will answer later. Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1 is high on the list and again says he will be told later. The interviewer mentions that Speaker 1 was described as “the new talent shaved,” and Speaker 1 responds that that will go well. Speaker 0 remarks that he hasn’t noticed it yet.

Speaker 0 introduces the topic and initiates the conversation. Speaker 1 acknowledges the person next to them as their friend and highlights the challenges they have faced to reach their current position. They affirm the validity of using preferred pronouns.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are familiar with Stu Peters, and notes that Peters “made eight separate appearances on his podcast.” The conversation then shifts to Kash Patel, with Speaker 1 thanking him for making the time to be there. Throughout the exchange, all parties—Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and Kash Patel—exchange thanks, repeatedly thanking each other for being present. The overall transcript is a brief, courteous acknowledgment of Stu Peters and a short introduction of Kash Patel, punctuated by multiple expressions of appreciation.

Speaker 0 stated that someone "trained me to have to be perfect." Speaker 1 then mentioned "working for Diddy," to which Speaker 0 responded, "Absolutely." Speaker 1 expressed affection for Diddy, calling him a "good friend" and "good guy." Speaker 0 stated that "he expects—" before Speaker 1 interjected, asking, "Is he a good guy?" Speaker 0 responded, "I don't wanna answer that question." Speaker 1 concluded by saying, "I think he's a good guy. I'm a stick up for—"

Speaker 0 is telling people to mask up. Speaker 1 is also wearing a mask. Speaker 1 asks how someone is doing and tells them to stay safe. Speaker 1 comments on how covered up the other person is, implying they are wearing more protective gear than Speaker 1. Speaker 1 offers the other person water.

The speakers discuss the importance of giving back and helping others. They believe that it is their responsibility to share their success and resources with those less fortunate. They mention spending time with younger individuals to mentor and guide them in their careers. They also talk about their organization's commitment to volunteer work and supporting those in need, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Speaker 0 describes a strong connection with someone, feeling like "one person" in their shared activities. Speaker 1 emphasizes someone's commitment and work ethic related to football, highlighting gym time and team leadership. Speaker 0 states that every time they go to the gym, they get stronger, better, and faster, expressing pride and receiving a hug for accomplishments in the weight room for football. Speaker 1 expresses grief, stating it's unnatural to bury one's children and acknowledging the tragic outcome for both the family and the assailant, whose life is also considered over.

Speaker 0 encourages speaking louder and with confidence. They reassure Justin that it's okay. Speaker 0 also mentions that unlike Justin, they have the ability to do something (possibly related to Ellie) at the moment.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 was stolen and adopted. Speaker 1 confirms and reveals they found out about their adoption at the age of 5. Speaker 0 inquires if Speaker 1 ever tried to find their biological family, to which Speaker 1 responds negatively. However, six years ago, Speaker 1's brother reached out to them, but Speaker 1 clarifies that they didn't want to ask for money.

Speaker 0: Take this in and understand what we’re actually dealing with. Many views exist—from Trump being a pedophile protecting pedophile buddies, to Israel infiltration and cover-ups, to it being a Democrat hoax. The reality, as described here, is that there is a supranational global cabal that has operated for nearly a hundred years, using money laundering, blackmail, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and other nefarious operations to fund and overthrow countries, serving as the shadow power of the world. We can see who these people are, their intentions, and the outcomes of their policies, and they are still being shoehorned into the most important positions in the world specifically because they’re part of this cabal. Main players mentioned include Larry Summers, who, per Epstein documents, was named executor of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate after his death. The money Epstein received from Les Wexner and others to create a starting fund and build a reputation as a financier is said to be returning to the coffers of Larry Summers, seen as part of this operation. The analogy is that this operation is like a corporation with Epstein as a brand under an umbrella, where if one asset (like Irish Spring) fails, its resources are absorbed back into the wider corporate structure. Summers, formerly Treasury Secretary, who helped destroy Glass-Steagall and contributed to the 2008 market crash dynamics, is said to have his bailout-money influence guided by Larry Fink at BlackRock. Summers, who was head of Harvard and later appointed to OpenAI’s board, is linked to the governance of the AI company behind ChatGPT. Larry Ellison is described as corresponding with Epstein and Ehud Barak (former Israeli prime minister) about which politicians serve their interests, including arranging a meeting between Marco Rubio and Tony Blair due to shared interests in this cabal. Epstein is depicted as a central, manipulative figure involved in selling weapons from Israel, meddling in elections, and influencing universities in Russia, raising questions about his influence and reach. The speaker emphasizes Epstein’s reach across political and corporate spheres and the question of his power, asking how such influence is possible. Speaker 1: The question is, how do you go about that? Speaker 0: He didn’t even go to school for trading; it’s all fabricated. He is a spymaster and a kingpin in a mafia. This group, including Les Wexner, Jeffrey Epstein, Larry Summers, Larry Ellison, Donald Trump (at this point), is part or perhaps the managing structure of the same organization discussed in the Eagle two documents from the 1960s, where the CIA sought autonomy from Congress by creating its own income streams, including drug trafficking in Vietnam. The opioid and drug-running links are tied to Iran-Contra, with George H. W. Bush involved in opium trade and the drug-running networks. Bill Gates and other figures are alleged to have involved in cover-ups during CIA-driven operations in South America, with Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance cited as exposing such networks. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, when Bill was governor of Arkansas, allegedly helped run headquarters in Mina for flights to and from Colombia, spreading drugs across the United States. The assertion is that the same group runs drugs, rigs elections, and is involved in various crises, including alleged connections to COVID-19, Russiagate, 9/11, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, forming a pattern of the last decades of upheaval in America. The discussion moves toward Epstein’s network and the sources of his money, with emails revealing connections, against a backdrop of broad search for Trump and the prevalence of unconfirmed, baseless anonymous claims. The core claim is that the true representation is the “new world order” and a banking-based intelligence network where intelligence agencies originated from banks. The CIA’s founding from the OSS is tied to MI6, which allegedly drew on the Rothschild banking intelligence, tying the CIA, MI6, and banking elites together. The speaker concludes that the same names—running drugs, stealing elections, burning down skyscrapers, and flying airplanes—appear repeatedly, linking DEI, ESG, white discrimination claims, and Epstein to the same global web.

Excuse me, who does your makeup? Would you consider playing us? We are four of the Ultras. We're at a pretty high level. Are you sure you want to play us? Okay, that was fun. Playing for those Ultras is really hard. You know we're professional athletes, right? What sport do you play? I smell Ultra. Want to play for an Ultra?

Speaker 0: I'll be the one to do it. If you guys enough that you guys follow me, I'll take one for the team. I'll do it. I'll do it.

Speaker 0 raises the question of whether cities should be allowed to ignore federal law regarding reporting of illegal immigrants and effectively provide sanctuary to immigrants. Speaker 1 responds by explaining that cities ignore federal law because there is no funding at the federal level to support the kind of enforcement required. He references the New York Times, noting that a city near his state implemented similar sanctions and subsequently experienced adverse effects—“their city went in the dumpster,” with stores closing and other consequences—leading to a policy reversal. He argues that the underlying issue is the need for a federal government capable of enforcing laws and asserts that the administration has been fundamentally derelict in not funding the requirements needed to enforce the existing laws. Speaker 0 follows up with a direct question to Senator Biden: yes or no—“Would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?” Speaker 1 answers: No. Speaker 0 closes with a brief, informal remark: “You okay.”

Speaker 0 acknowledges the challenge of competing against Caster Semenya, who is far ahead. Speaker 1 expresses their attempt to avoid the situation this year and highlights the emotional impact, particularly between themselves, Miloson, and Joanna. They emphasize that the outcome is beyond their control and rely on those in power to initiate change. Speaker 0 mentions witnessing the three of them coming together in a unified hug. Speaker 1 explains that they regularly see each other and understand each other's feelings.

The excerpt opens with a reference to a conference from many years ago, suggesting that the listener might have been in attendance. The exchange then shifts to a brief, awkward moment where someone apologizes and asks for permission to proceed, followed by a request for help. A responder states "No," and a separate remark introduces "the subpoena, for example," indicating a mention of a subpoena within the discussion. The conversation continues with an affirmative interjection—"Oh, good"—and a request: "Can you take off the stage?" The reactions include a startled "Wow" and a meta-comment noting the situation is starting in a dramatic way: "Getting off to a dramatic start already." The exchange ends with a clipped closing, simply "Well," signaling an unresolved or continuing moment in the dialogue. Overall, the passage captures a tense, performative moment at a conference, blending retrospective reference, administrative tension (subpoena), and a stage-direction style query, all underscored by a sense of escalating drama at the outset.

Speaker 0 greets the audience multiple times and asks how they are doing. They also ask for the audience's names and say goodbye. The speaker then asks someone if they have an English name and what they do for fun.

The interview includes discussion of Speaker 2's relationship with Jordan, which is a topic they are not comfortable commenting on, though Speaker 0 has recently posted about it on Instagram. Speaker 1 references photos of Speaker 2 in Jordan, including one where he's a fisherman and she's a mermaid, and another where he's balancing Jordan on his feet in a "Titanic" pose. Speaker 2 says he is on social media but doesn't follow Speaker 0. Speaker 1 notes that Speaker 2 seems to be having more fun these days. Speaker 2 says he enjoys football, the process, the grind, and the competition, and that coaching is fun. He feels like he hasn't worked a day in his life.