reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker references a recent video about The International Jew by Henry Ford, published in 1921. The organizer asserts that Ford’s book argues the Bolsheviks seized control of nearly every aspect of society. The speaker notes that, according to the book, when Christopher Columbus came to the Americas in 1492, he was expelled from Europe and was part of the Bolsheviks, and that 300,000 more were sent with him, suggesting long-standing infiltration of the country. The speaker claims that during George Washington’s era there were 3,000 Bolsheviks in the United States, and within about thirty to forty years this number grew to 3,300,000. It is stated that Bolsheviks “own the tobacco industry, they own the steel, they own the newspapers, they own every industry you could possibly [own], the slave trade.” The speaker adds that there is a narrative in which white people are described as slaves or slave owners, and that it was the Jewish people who were the slave owners and were described as white people. The speaker concludes by saying the book blew their mind and emphasizes the perceived breadth of influence attributed to these claims.

The speaker questions why the history of slavery is only taught from the 16th and 17th centuries, suggesting that there is a hidden truth. They argue that slavery originated before this time, with Islam and the Ashkenazi Khazars playing a role in its development. The speaker discusses a four-tier system involving exiled Negro nomads, indigenous black African hunters, Islamic trappers, and Ashkenazi ship merchants. They highlight the significant number of enslaved Africans delivered through the Trans Sahara route and the involvement of Islam and the Ashkenazi in the slave trade. The speaker also mentions the Romans as globalist slavers and suggests that their influence has migrated to Wall Street, Hollywood, and Washington DC. They call for unity among Jewish brothers and emphasize the need to break free from the slavery system.

The speaker discusses a set of claims about "tiny hats" owning and influencing major media and culture. They say: tiny hats owned the newspaper, the radio, and the television, and played a major role in the manufacture of racial stereotypes in American popular culture. They point to examples of media ownership and publication patterns, arguing that tiny hats publish certain content and that a rabbi is shown saying it. The speaker asserts that after wars, these media entities were used against the people, and that Hollywood is dominated by tiny hats, with the claim that this oversight causes division. The narrative extends to Christopher Columbus, described as a tiny hat, suggesting a pattern of hidden or overlooked attribution. The speaker notes that only two people spoke up about this—one reverend and one rabbi—and mentions a book by the rabbi as part of the evidence. The discussion then shifts to ownership related to slavery, claiming that those who owned all the slaves also owned all the police, and implying a broader, concealed continuity of power. Throughout, the speaker contends that much of history has been left out of education and that schoolbooks do not teach these topics. The conversation moves to trafficking and exploitation, drawing a parallel to Epstein, and asserts that significant resources—“a lot of ships”—were needed to carry out these activities, which were allegedly owned by the same group. The speaker wraps with a call to acknowledge that books people should read exist, implying that there is more to the historical record than is commonly taught or acknowledged. Key motifs emphasized include media control, influence over public perception and stereotypes, alleged concealment of historical truth, and connections between media ownership, religious or ethnic identity, and systems of power related to slavery and policing. The overall message presents a view of a hidden network that supposedly shapes history and contemporary institutions, urging readers to seek alternative histories and to examine who owned and controlled various influential structures.

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.

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 repeats the line: "You can run on for a long time. Run on for a long time. Run on for a long time. Sooner or later, gotta put you down." Speaker 1 recounts that "the Arab slave trader brought his African merchandise to a broker in a large town who put them up for sale in the slave market." He notes that among the many brokers in the Arab world, there were some brokers who don't like to be remembered in The United States Of America—these were the Jewish brokers who were in great towns such as Damascus and Baghdad. He adds, "Yes. Amen." Speaker 1 continues with a reflection on "what a lot of trouble professor Jeffries got into," and remarks that all he talked about was "a Jew, old Jew over there in Newport, Rhode Island." He then expands the scope: "But what about the Jews of Amsterdam? The Jews of Lisbon? The Jews of Cadiz? The Jews of Toulouse? The Jews of Bristol, the great slave port of England, Bristol," because Bristol is where the great voyages were planned. He explains that Bristol was the place where people financed ships and sent them out on three-month voyages to fetch slaves across, describing who had "the money to put those ships on the sea," to finance "these huge caravans" and to carry out the slave trade. Speaker 1 then asks, "Who were the great merchants of the Middle East? Who were the great merchants of Europe? And some of brothers and sisters, who were they? Jews." He concludes that Jews were involved in the slave trade and questions how they "weren't in the slave trade," asserting that they "never cared about how they turned an honest dollar," and that from their point of view, "it's an honest dollar," even though they are "lamenting the fact now and denying it."

The speaker questions why white men are always blamed for the slave trade when Jewish ships and Arabs played a significant role. They suggest that Jewish individuals dominate academia, literature, and publishing, pointing out Meyer Lansky's involvement in the mafia. The speaker believes that Jews stay hidden behind the scenes, shifting blame onto others to continue their activities. Translation: The speaker questions why white men are always blamed for the slave trade when Jewish ships and Arabs played a significant role. They suggest that Jewish individuals dominate academia, literature, and publishing, pointing out Meyer Lansky's involvement in the mafia. The speaker believes that Jews stay hidden behind the scenes, shifting blame onto others to continue their activities.

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.

The speaker argues that all newspapers are owned by “the tiny hats,” and then invites the audience to consider all of the racist content that used to appear in newspapers. The core claim is that the tiny hats produced the racist material found in newspapers, and that when they own the entire newspaper industry, they are responsible for what gets produced and shown to the public. They extend this claim to assert that the tiny hats also owned the slave trade, were the merchants, and owned the stores and marts, and then owned the newspapers. From there, they assert that the tiny hats own all information or production that goes into the newspapers containing racist content, describing this as twisted and highlighting a perceived coherence in who controls what the public sees. The speaker then discusses a divide and conquer tactic aimed at “the people” of the country. They claim that ordinary people, who are “the people of the country,” are the ones being screwed by the tiny hats. The argument presented is that owning the entire media—newspapers, radio, television, and movies—enables this group to influence public perception and prevent unity among the populace. According to the speaker, this ownership leads to the creation of division, with groups of people across America failing to unite against the alleged core manipulators. The speaker contends that the tiny hats control both the right and the left, as well as the media and politicians, and thereby hold sway over the entire information ecosystem (newspapers, televisions, radios, and the whole system). Finally, the speaker asserts that these powerful groups—Rothschilds, Lehman Brothers, Warburgs, and bankers who run the system—are the ones ultimately being opposed, but that the public remains divided because these groups own the media and the political landscape. The overarching claim is that control of media and information by these financiers and elite groups enables ongoing manipulation and division, preventing unity against the perceived centralized power.

The speaker questions why white men are always blamed for the slave trade when Jewish ships and Arabs played a significant role. Another speaker suggests that Jewish dominance in academia and publishing allows them to shift blame onto others, like Italians or whites, while operating behind the scenes. Jews, like Meyer Lansky in the mafia, are portrayed as orchestrating events while deflecting attention onto others.

The speaker describes a new book that makes provocative claims about Jewish influence. Key points include: - Christopher Columbus and the slave trade are framed with imagery of “tiny hats” associated with Jews, suggesting that slaves who resisted were targeted by a “malicious setup.” - The claim that the largest number of slaves were sent into New York through the seventeenth century by people described as “tiny hats.” - The idea that there were “tiny hat mayors of the South” in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with a proliferation of cities listed as led by these figures. - A claim that Jews “owned” 2% of the population and controlled both the slave ships and the banking system, in addition to politicians. - The assertion that the funding of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is connected to these same groups, described as “tiny hats.” - The claim that the KKK was actually led by or associated with Jews, described as “the tiny hats,” and that Masons are the same group under different names, with people changing names to avoid recognition. - A reference to the Rothschilds as the “kingpin of everything,” with a claim that they were previously known as the Bowers and changed their names to fit into the slave trade network. Overall, the speaker connects archival-era racial and criminal activities to a conspiratorial narrative centered on Jewish identity, suggesting a continuous, concealed influence across slavery, banking, political leadership, the KKK, and fraternal organizations such as the Masons, culminating in the assertion that the Rothschilds are the central figures behind these networks.

The discussion revolves around the perception that the white man is unfairly blamed for the slave trade, while the Jewish ships and Arabs played a significant role. The speakers suggest that Jewish individuals have a strong presence in academia, literature, and publishing, which allows them to shape historical narratives. They draw a parallel with the mafia, where people commonly associate it with Italians, but Jews were actually influential behind the scenes. The speakers argue that Jews strategically shift blame onto others, including whites and Italians, to maintain their hidden influence.

Jewish historians reveal a hidden history of Jewish involvement in the slave trade in the Americas and Europe for over 2000 years. Records show Jews dominated the slave trade in the Western world, even back to Roman times. They were major slave dealers in European society and controlled commerce, including the slave trade, in the Middle Ages. Jewish Encyclopedia and other sources confirm Jews' significant role in the slave trade, with higher per capita slave holdings than non-Jews. This history is often overlooked or suppressed.

The speaker questions why white men are blamed for the slave trade when Jewish ships and Arabs played a significant role. They suggest that Jewish dominance in academia and literature allows them to shift blame onto others, like Italians in the mafia. Meyer Lansky, a Jewish figure, is mentioned as handling the books for the mafia. The speaker implies that Jews manipulate situations to avoid scrutiny and continue their activities unnoticed.

The transcript discusses “tiny hat mayors” in the South and claims that many cities were governed by them, describing them as “tiny hat mayors of the eighteen hundreds.” It states that these mayors represented “2% of the population,” and adds that “on top of it, they also owned all the banks,” including “the slave ships,” and “the banking system,” as well as “the politicians.” The speaker then says it “gets deeper” after “you found out who funded the KKK,” claiming that the KKK “was actually the tiny hats right there.” The transcript asserts that “Masons” are “the same exact people,” and that “Tiny hats” always operate under “different names.” It claims they “changed their names so that you don’t know who is who.” The speaker further claims that, by looking back, “we can see who the kingpin of everything is,” identifying “Rothschild’s right there.” It also says they “used be called the Bowers,” and that they “changed their names so that they could fit in and run the slave route.”

In this video, the speaker discusses the Jewish involvement in the African slave trade, highlighting their role in various aspects such as owning plantations, importing and auctioning slaves, and manning slave ships. The speaker also mentions the Hamitic myth used to justify African enslavement and the Jewish influence in the Dutch West India Company. Despite Jewish involvement, they were not prominent in the abolitionist movement. Jewish media's attempts to downplay their role led to increased awareness and questions about the proportion of Jewish involvement. Brazil was a major destination for African slaves. Professor Martin emphasizes the importance of acknowledging historical facts and the need for acknowledgment and reparations. The session concludes with gratitude for the insightful presentation.

The speaker questions why white people are always blamed for the slave trade when Jewish ships and Arabs played a significant role. They suggest that Jewish dominance in academia and publishing allows them to shift blame onto others, like Italians or whites, while operating behind the scenes. Meyer Lansky, a Jewish figure, is mentioned as being involved in the mafia's financial operations.

In the video, it is mentioned that Jews played a significant role in the slave trade in Brazil, Suriname, Curacao, Barbados, and Jamaica during the 1600s. It is also stated that the two largest slave shipments in the 18th century to the United States were on ships owned by Jews. Aaron Lopez, a Jew, is identified as the biggest slave ship owner in America. Additionally, all the rum distilleries in Newport, Rhode Island were owned by Jews.

Jewish historians reveal a hidden history of Jewish involvement in the slave trade, dominating auctions in the Americas and Europe for centuries. Records show Jews as main buyers, even postponing auctions on Jewish holidays. From Roman times to the Middle Ages, Jews were major players in the slave trade, with higher slave holdings than non-Jews. This history, carefully documented but often unknown, sheds light on a controversial aspect of Jewish involvement in commerce throughout history.

"So today, we're gonna talk about Christopher Columbus and some hidden history from the International Jew by Henry Ford." "Did you know in 1492, more than 300,000 Jews were expelled from Spain and came to America?" "Then it gets a little deeper when you find out who owns all the social media, and then who also owns the tobacco industry, the cotton industry, the banking industry, the theater, the newspaper, the radio, and then we can clearly see who owns the government as well." "Now someone's gonna come in there and say, oh, this is anti semitic. That's the same thing you always hear so that you don't question what's actually happening in your country." "Then it gets deeper when you talk about Palestine and the takeover of that with the Rothschilds, same people." "And this is why in school, things like reading the Bible, praying, celebrating Christmas, gotta get rid of all that."

There’s a focus on the historical grievances of black people, emphasizing the suffering of 80 million black lives lost, while questioning the empathy shown towards Jewish suffering. It’s argued that Jewish individuals control local economies, profiting from communities without genuine support. Historical references are made to Jewish involvement in the slave trade, claiming they dominated it for centuries. The discussion connects the cotton industry during slavery to modern economic interests, likening cotton's value then to oil's value today. Jewish merchants in the South and North are noted for their roles in the cotton trade, leading to significant wealth accumulation. The speaker insists on revealing these truths for awareness and accountability.

The speaker asserts that a lodge called Bunybirith (also rendered as Beniobareth) is a Jewish supremacist organization involved in key manipulations in American history, including creating a false North–South vs. left–right dialectic and influencing the Civil War. They claim that Ulysses S. Grant notoriously expelled Jews from his military districts in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky, challenging the idea that Grant was simply another white supremacist or antisemitic figure, and implying instead a broader Jewish influence at play. They allege that Bunybirith later became the ADL after the ritualistic murder of a Catholic girl named Mary Fagan, asserting that this connection could not be denied and asserting that discussions of it persist despite denials from public figures like Dennis Prager. The speaker references the Epstein files as a vehicle to discuss how “they” speak about “us” behind closed doors, and claims that the language used by Epstein mirrors racist attitudes described by Sigmund Freud, framing this as evidence of a broader religious philosophy and racist perspective in which non-Jews, or “goyim,” are described as cattle meant to be herded and ruled over. The speaker contends that this treatment toward them is part of a broader pattern tied to refusing to work for “Zionist psychopaths,” describing it as an act that would be like an animal beating someone at chess. They mention Candice’s decision to leave, noting that her life subsequently became subject to continued publishing assaults and name-calling, with accusations of antisemitic conspiracy until new emails emerged. A central claim involves Jeffrey Epstein, who the speaker says worked on behalf of the Rothschilds and, in an email, wrote that the Rothschilds credit themselves with having created which nation-state—Israel. The speaker connects this to a claim that the same nation-state is currently facing revelations of ritual abuse, with numerous women alleging abuse in a forest by rabbis, and notes that Epstein described the Rothschilds as his bosses, reinforcing the asserted link between Epstein, the Rothschilds, and Israel. Throughout, the speaker ties these points together to portray a pervasive, centuries-long pattern of hidden Jewish influence and control across U.S. history, financial power, media, and global geopolitics, culminating in a provocative synthesis that frames the Rothschilds and associated networks as central to what they describe as conspiratorial manipulation and systemic abuse of non-Jewish groups.

The speaker invokes Henry Ford’s 1921 book as a source and then launches into a sweeping conspiracy alleging that “tiny hats” (a pejorative term for Jews) have controlled civilization for centuries. The key points asserted are: - In 1492, Christopher Columbus was expelled from Spain and allegedly brought over 300,000 tiny hats; New York is described as the center of the tiny hats. - George Washington is claimed to have had 4,000 tiny hats; these individuals were “the traders” who controlled all trade. - Within fifty years, the tiny hat population supposedly grew to 3,300,000. - The tiny hats allegedly owned every major sector: grains, cotton, oil, steel, magazines, theaters, liquors, loan businesses, and every industry; their philosophy is said to be “not to make money, but to get money. Take your money.” - The schools are claimed to be owned by “the communist Bolsheviks,” and those who are not tiny hats are labeled as “gentiles.” - The reference to “the fifth protocol” is included in connection with their alleged plans. - Regarding Palestine, the claim is that the issue exists because “the Palestinians don’t have a tiny hat bank.” - Presidents allegedly kiss the wall, and Ford supposedly knew all of this by 1921. - The tiny hats are said to own the media and to create all social divisions. - Attacks on Christianity and removing religious elements from schools are attributed to them, as are various vices said to be introduced by them. - Questioning the narrative allegedly results in being labeled “anti tiny hat.” - The claim is pressed that “where do think all the slaves came from?”—attributed to the tiny hats; they supposedly changed their names so people wouldn’t know. - The ADL is described as protecting all of this, and anyone who goes against it is said to be arrested “just like that veteran.” - The speaker concludes with the assertion that “No one wants to fight for Israel.”

The speaker references Henry Ford’s 1921 book as a deep dive and presents a series of conspiratorial claims about “tiny hats.” They state that in 1492, Christopher Columbus brought over 300,000 tiny hats to Spain and that New York became the center of the tiny hat population. They claim that when George Washington was here, 4,000 tiny hats were traders who controlled all trade, and that within fifty years the tiny hat population grew to 3,300,000, owning grains, cotton, oil, steel, magazines, theaters, liquors, loan businesses, and every industry in American business, though disguised as legitimate business. The philosophy ascribed to the tiny hats is “not to make money, but to get money” and “Take your money.” The speaker asserts that schools are owned by “the communist Bolsheviks,” and that people who are not tiny hats are called “gentiles,” with the aim to wear them out and take over their government, invoking “the fifth protocol.” On Palestine, the speaker claims the issue exists because Palestinians “don’t have a tiny hat bank.” The claim is made that presidents have interacted with “the wall” in the context of tiny hats, and that Henry Ford knew in 1921 that they were owned by tiny hats. They allege that tiny hats create division through the media, and that there have been attacks on Christianity and the removal of religion from schools. They accuse tiny hats of introducing various vices into society. They assert that questioning the narrative labels you as “anti tiny hat.” The speaker asks where all the slaves came from, answering “Tiny hats,” and claims they changed their names to conceal this. They describe a broader historical dig into these forces, mentioning the ADL as protecting all of this and stating that anyone who goes against it is arrested, giving the example of “that veteran.” The overall narrative ends with a claim that no one wants to fight for Israel.

The discussion presents a series of provocative claims linking prominent social issues to Jewish influence, framed around the idea that “tiny hats” (a pejorative reference to Jews) control many institutions and events. The key points raised include: - A claim that MLK and the tiny hats are connected to the Rothschilds who “run a lot of things,” and that schools are owned by the tiny hats, with this ownership connected to a suppressed narrative about slavery. The argument suggests people are missing a wider story involving tiny hats. - An assertion about who took out Native Americans, attributed to the tiny hats, with a prompt that people have not been taught this. - A claim about Christopher Columbus, asking “who? tiny hat person,” and stating he brought over 300,000 other tiny hats, implying a hidden expansion of Jewish influence. - The idea that public questioning of the narrative is being challenged by the government, which is trying to prevent people from questioning anything. - A deeper claim about who created division among people, attributing to those who own newspapers and radio—the tiny hats—ownership of media that can obscure the truth. - An assertion that the tiny hats orchestrated the Tulsa race riots of 1921. - A claim about who brought in Planned Parenthood and the LGBT movement (described as “forty seven whatever it may be, tiny hats”), suggesting deliberate influence. - The suggestion to question everything taught in school, ending with a video from Malcolm X to let individuals decide for themselves. Speaker 1 discusses antisemitism and analysis of Jewish influence, addressing a question about being anti-Semitic. The speaker argues that Jews defend themselves by accusing others of antisemitism when objective analysis of their role is made. The speaker contends that a Negro is not antisemitic when pointing out that white people own all the stores in his community. The speaker asserts that it is not an accident that “these whites who own these stores are Jewish,” and that labeling “the Jew on the corner” as exploiting him is not antisemitic but a description of the exploiter. The speaker also contrasts Arabs and Jews as both semitic, noting that if one were truly anti-Semitic, they would be anti-Arab and anti everything else, and suggests that the issue is framed as antisemitic rather than an objective analysis of economic exploitation by white store owners who are Jewish.