reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses a book titled Tiny Hats Selling the Slaves and asserts that it reveals information they claim is omitted in mainstream sources, specifically mentioning Rockefeller schools. The speaker identifies a rabbi as the author and asserts that the term layaway originated from rabbis selling slaves, citing pages detailing auctions and slave sales conducted by rabbis. Key individuals and claims include Jacob Cohen, described as owning a plantation and presiding over a synagogue, with 294 enslaved Africans on his plantation. The speaker claims that “all the plantations were ran by the tiny hats.” They assert that Charleston in 1825 was the original place of the slave marts and that the merchants, ships, and overwhelming control were held by the tiny hats. The speaker alleges that Charleston was a center where “tiny hats, slave traders” operated, and that because they own all newspapers, if slaves tried to run away, ads were placed to recapture them, implying control of both sides. The account extends to a broader assertion that the tiny hats own the police, enabling suppression of runaway slaves. The speaker contends that only two people spoke up about this, suggesting that the information is hidden from the public. They connect these claims to Christopher Columbus, asserting that this context clarifies who Columbus was, and conclude that “the tiny hats, the Charzarians, had been kicked out of all these countries.” Overall, the speaker presents a narrative in which a hidden, pervasive control by a group referred to as “tiny hats” (a religiously loaded antisemitic descriptor) extends across slave auctions, plantation ownership, media ownership, law enforcement, and historical figures, culminating in a claim about the exile of this group from various countries.

Black people sold black people; white people just paid for it. The speaker's great-great-grandmother was sold by her father to another black man, who then sold her to her husband. Slavery existed worldwide, including in the Arab, Persian, and Greek worlds, and among Europeans. Slavery is not unique to black people. Racism is given too much respect. Discrimination would still exist even in a mono-racial world; people would discriminate based on traits like eye color. As long as you are competition and a threat, someone will try to remove you, regardless of race. Conversely, if you add value, you will be appreciated, regardless of race.

The speaker asserts that “the tiny hats own the slaves” and also own the police. They read a list of police names—Louis Gomez, Eliza, Solomon, Goldsmith, Moses, Marx, Moses junior, and Levi (or Levi)—to illustrate this claim. The argument continues that the tiny hats possessed the merchant ships and were the auctioneers of the slaves, thereby controlling the slave trade and all aspects of it worldwide. In addition to owning the trafficking network, the speaker says the tiny hats owned the police so that, if slaves ran away, they could be tracked down. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding this perspective, stating that books like the referenced work show a completely different story. They also argue that the school system won’t teach this history because the school system is owned by the same people. The overall message links the control of slave trade, the ownership of law enforcement, and the dissemination of history to a single, conspiratorial ownership by the “tiny hats,” underscoring their view that this is a critical, overlooked truth.

Speaker 0 argues that history gets deep when examining tiny hats and slavery, claiming this was left out of history books because “the history books” are owned by “tiny hats.” They state that those who owned slaves, were slave traders and auctioneers, also owned newspapers, and played a role in creating social division. They claim it becomes interesting to uncover the exploitation of slaves and the way people were treated, noting that those who defended slavery would be exposed as supporting it, and that slave dealing was “an extremely profitable business.” They connect these ideas back to the Rothschilds, saying this is a recurring topic they have discussed, and mention Malcolm X as another figure who talked about it, urging others to look into it. Speaker 1 contends that a Black person is not antisemitic when he says that the man exploiting him in his community is white, because it is a white man who owns all the stores. They question whether it is an accident that the whites who own these stores are Jewish, and assert that if it is an accident, then the statement that “the Jew on the corner is exploiting me” is not antisemitic but merely a description of the man exploiting him.

Unlike most African Americans freed after the civil war, your ancestors were not. This document is an enrollment card for the Chickasaw Freedmen, former slaves owned by the Chickasaw Nation. Your ancestors were enslaved by Native Americans, making you one of the few African Americans not enslaved by white people, but by Native Americans.

Reconciliation involves Africatown becoming a thriving place in ten years, with efforts made to aid its transformation through relationship building and giving back. As a first step to make amends, two individuals sold land in Africatown to the city for $50,000, a fraction of its appraised value, for community development. They still own about 14% of the land in historic Africatown. There are specific requests to see accomplished, including land ownership within the historic district via a land trust, which could then be leased out for businesses. A partnership with a company like Walmart was suggested. A trust could provide services currently lacking, such as access to basic necessities and improved infrastructure. Educational trust funds could also help descendants avoid student loans. Descendants believe that they should have the same level of education that the Mere family experienced. Focus should be on Africatown, but also on other survivors impacted by this story.

It's interesting how discussions about slavery often imply that America created it. However, many ancient empires, like Egypt, Rome, Greece, and Mali, also relied on slavery. In Africa, tribal conflicts led to the capture and sale of people into slavery long before European involvement. These conversations are challenging and often avoided due to their emotional weight. The narrative of oppression has overshadowed the rich and complex history of various peoples. America uniquely fought a civil war over slavery, aiming to humanize slaves and legislate their freedom. Despite this, many in America still express grievances about privileges that others around the world lack. Today, slavery persists in various countries, and many people still endure these harsh realities.

The discussion centers on the idea that his shtick hinges on the perception that he is the character he plays—“every man” who isn’t right wing but a populist fighting for the people against the powers that be. This is illustrated with a personal anecdote: “This is the truck that I drove this morning. This is the truck I drive. It's a 1987 Chevrolet Silverado. There are no electronics in this. There's no air conditioning. There's no radio, and there's no way for the government to turn off my engine if I'm disobedient.” The speaker cautions that “the moment that it's revealed not to be true, it's over. It's like you're worth 50,000,000 not worth $50,000,000. 30 to 50. Get off the fucking Internet, son. Don't stop believing that stuff.” Speaker 1 pushes back, claiming, “No. No. I'm a but see, I'm not out of the closet to leave this. I don't run around pretending to be a man of the people. I'm absolutely not a man of the people at all.” The conversation touches on money and upbringing: “I had the privilege of not being interested in money because I and I grew up in a family where we're worried about money, so I just never really thought about money.” Speaker 2 contributes background on Tucker’s lineage, noting, “Tucker's great, great… great grandfather was known as the cattle king of California, the largest, landowner in The United States in the nineteenth century. Just to give you an idea of the enormous wealth.” The discussion continues with Tucker’s financial succession, “Tucker and his brother did end up with a part of the oil and gas, minerals that she owned in her estate. So even that went well for Tucker.” There is a mention of apparent wealth and inheritance: “Well, I'm, like, extraordinarily loaded just from, like, money I, you know, inherited from my number of trust funds. From a Swanson deal.” The dialogue clarifies family ties: “She wasn't your mother. How I felt. That's I had a mother. I mean That's right. My dad got remarried to someone I think of as my mother.” There is a note on the father’s marriage to Patricia Caroline Swanson in 1979, described as “the heir to the Swanson billion dollar fortune. They're frozen food family. Serve Swanson dinner soon.” The exchange reiterates inherited wealth and the question of authenticity: “You're a trust fund baby, are you not? No. Completely. I've never needed to work.” The closing reflection suggests a critique of the shtick: “I think there's kind of a deep phoniness at the center of his shtick.” The final line cites a concrete memory: “I worked in a kitchen in 1985. Everybody in the kitchen had a criminal record. Every single one. But, of course, every dishwasher has been to prison for something. Right?”

I initially felt disappointed and upset when I learned about my family's history of being enslavers. However, I still believe in reparations and racial justice. Despite this, I feel enriched by knowing this history and seeing how far my family has come, such as my mother marrying my father in 1960.

The first slave owner in America was a black man named Anthony Johnson, who owned 602 acres of land and enslaved both white and black servants. Johnson sued for the return of a black servant named John Casor, leading to a court ruling that allowed Johnson to continue owning Casor as a slave. Free black people also owned slaves in various parts of America. The transcript mentions specific examples of black slave owners and their holdings. It also highlights that slavery was not exclusive to Africans and was practiced in various parts of the world. The purpose of sharing this information is to challenge the narrative that only white Americans were involved in the slave trade.

Anderson Cooper learned about the death of his relative, Boykin, who was murdered by a rebellious slave. The ancestor was beaten to death with a farm hoe. Cooper expressed amazement and described the information as incredible. He then stated that people should try not to live a life that could lead a descendant to say their ancestor's head was smashed in with a garden hoe. He ended by saying "Great job, that guy."

The speaker shows a list of Mayflower passengers to Angela Davis, revealing her ancestors were on the ship. Angela, known for her anti-white views, is shocked to learn her ancestors were colonizers and slave owners. She is reminded that she can't choose her bloodline and is urged to pay reparations by 23andme.

Baron James, the head of the Paris branch and the youngest of the five sons of the original Rothschild, once gave a very open description of the 19th-century Rothschild policy of keeping wealth within the family. He wrote, "In our family, we've always tried to keep love in the family." It was more or less understood, as Charles wrote, that children would never consider marrying outside the family so that our fortune would never leave it. You certainly couldn't express that sentiment so candidly today.

I was hesitant to uncover my family history, fearing disappointment. Eventually, I agreed to do it for the sake of future generations. Surprisingly, I discovered that my Puerto Rican ancestors actually originated from Spain. They moved to Puerto Rico because the slave trade was abolished in Spain and Curacao, and they brought their slaves with them. Contrary to what I was told, my family were not printers and journalists, but rather involved in the slave trade. This revelation deeply saddened me.

Darren James, head of the Paris branch and youngest son of the Rothschild family, openly discussed the 19th century family policy of keeping wealth within the family. He mentioned that they aimed to maintain love within the family and it was understood that the children would only marry within the family to ensure the fortune stayed within. He acknowledged that such a statement would not be acceptable in today's society.

During slavery, cotton was like oil today. The rich controlled it, linking North and South. Jewish people dominated the cotton trade, sending it to England for cloth. Rothschilds and Lehman Brothers got rich from cotton. The truth must be told.

Black people sold black people, white people just paid for it. Slavery existed worldwide, not just in America. In Europe, even white people were enslaved. Racism exists regardless of skin color.

Pierre DuPont is discussed as having a difficult time locating this man, identified as “K,” with his father being the former governor of Delaware who passed away in 2021. The speaker provides the birth date 11/14/1959 and notes that there is very little information about this man online. The conversation shifts to the DuPont family more broadly. It is stated that the DuPont family goes back generations and originally made their money from gunpowder, described as “pew pew powder.” The family expanded into materials such as rayon, nylon, and Kevlar. The DuPont fortune is estimated at over $18,100,000,000, and there are 3,500 descendants from this family. The origin is traced to a man in Paris, France, after which the family moved to the United States, specifically Delaware. The speakers claim that the DuPonts are adept at making money, procreating, and keeping wealth within the family. A specific anecdote notes that Irene DuPont married his second cousin, Irene DuPont, highlighting the theme of keeping wealth in the family. Irene and Irene reportedly had nine children. The discussion includes an aside suggesting that a subset of DuPont descendants have committed unhinged actions, which the speaker attributes to inbreeding. The overall narrative emphasizes the long-standing wealth, extensive descendants, and repeated intermarriage within the DuPont lineage, tying these elements to both the maintenance of wealth and certain behaviors observed among some descendants.

Speaker 0 presents a line of inquiry and a set of provocative claims about Monsanto. The conversation begins with a question about whether the listener has heard of the Monsanto family and what they associate with the name. The reply prompts the common stereotype that the name is linked to chemicals—specifically “the chemical, the nasty, like, shitty chemicals.” Building on that stereotype, Speaker 0 then introduces a controversial and broader assertion: that Monsanto is not only connected to chemicals but originated as a powerful, Caribbean Jewish pirate-style family. The claim continues with a provocative framing: they “got started in the big slave trade in New Orleans.” The speaker states that the Monsanto family were slave traders first, positioning them as “one of the most prominent” in that historical trade, and argues that their involvement in slavery preceded their later involvement in chemical ventures. The speaker emphasizes a causal thread or progression: the family’s early prominence in slave trading laid the groundwork for their later notoriety in chemical industries, leading to the claim that they “poisoned us with chemicals.” This phrase is presented as a historical fact in the speaker’s view, highlighted by the assertion that it is “a fact” that is not discussed openly. The speaker contrasts this alleged history with contemporary public discourse, noting that many people are talking about Monsanto on platforms like TikTok, but “no one talk[ing]” about the alleged slave-trading origins and the supposed early acts of poisoning associated with the family. In sum, Speaker 0 frames Monsanto as a name associated with chemicals in public perception, but counters with a narrative that the Monsanto family began as slave traders in New Orleans, describing them as a prominent lineage tied to the slave trade before transitioning into chemical enterprises, and asserting that they “poisoned us with chemicals” as a matter of historical fact that remains under-discussed in popular discourse. The speaker points to online chatter about Monsanto on TikTok as evidence that the topic is discussed superficially, without addressing these claimed origins.

Black people sold each other, not just white people. Slavery existed worldwide, not just in the US. Discrimination is human nature, not just based on race. As long as you're a competition, you're a threat. Adding value will make you appreciated, regardless of race.

Black people were given positions of power, but they remained poor and lacked resources. The slave patrol was used as a means to exploit and control poor people, especially those of color. The elite used this division to prevent rebellions where black and white people united against them. The strategy of divide and conquer was effective in turning poor white individuals against black people.

Speaker 0: Judah Banchanah was the largest Jewish slave owner in the South and a key member of Confederate President Jefferson Davis government. This is a person who had some very impressive qualities but did sickening, horrible things.

A list of Mayflower passengers reveals that Angela Davis, known for her anti-white and pro-reparations stance, is descended from one of the 101 individuals who sailed on the ship. Upon learning this, she struggles to accept that her ancestors were not only colonizers but also slave owners. The implication is that she cannot selectively acknowledge her heritage, suggesting that she should take responsibility for her lineage.

Reparations are not supported because not all individuals suffered equally during slavery. It is important to recognize that some free blacks owned black slaves. Instead of focusing on winners and losers, we should move beyond victimhood and acknowledge the achievements of black communities in the face of oppression. Blaming white America for challenges like violence and out-of-wedlock births is counterproductive. The real crisis in America is a moral and spiritual decline, leading to high rates of homicide and suicide. To address this, we must unite beyond race and focus on personal responsibility and valuing life. We should define ourselves by our future aspirations, not by past wrongs. Motivating change requires envisioning victories, not dwelling on injuries.