reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I thought women's liberation was about equal rights and work, but I was told by someone that the Rockefellers funded it to increase taxes and influence children's thinking by breaking up families.

In the late 1970s, federal programs were established that provide states with billions of dollars to separate families. Texas, for example, receives $0.66 for every dollar of child support, which incentivizes the state to issue maximum child support. This led to a rise in divorces and one parent losing custody, maximizing reimbursements to the states. In Texas alone, this amounts to $500 million for the state budget. Additionally, separating families benefits the government by increasing taxes as women enter the workforce, weakening the bond between spouses and making families easier to control and manipulate. The government dislikes the idea of a strong, close-knit family that resists their influence and makes less money for them.

John D. Rockefeller, from the oil industry, funded the General Education Board in 1903, stating he wanted a nation of workers, not thinkers. The board aimed to create schools focused on obedience, memorization, and preparing students for 9-to-5 jobs. Rockefeller also funded Big Pharma and medical schools to shift people from natural healing to pharmaceutical-based care. This created a system where schools create workers who become sick and require pharmaceutical drugs, generating endless profit for Rockefeller. The education system is a monopoly breeding workers for the elites' financial gain.

People can learn things they enjoy, like improving a golf swing, because they pay attention. Different personalities are suited for different fields like math, philosophy, or engineering. It's about finding what aligns with your thinking style, but traditional education, designed by the Rockefeller family, aims to create factory workers and soldiers. Starting education at age five allows for early indoctrination, separating children from their parents and having them taught by people they may not respect. The speaker recalls feeling this disconnect as a child, questioning why people they didn't respect controlled their education.

The speaker believes authoritarian regimes attack the family to weaken institutions that could combat the state. They see history as a war between the family and the state, referencing Plato's Republic. A concerted attack on the family has occurred in the last 50 years through legal, educational, and medical systems, evidenced by declining birth rates. Two events in 1973, Nixon ending the draft and Roe v Wade, altered Americans' views of themselves. Ending the draft implied men's purpose wasn't to defend their country, while Roe v Wade implied women's purpose wasn't to have children. This created a nihilistic culture lacking purpose, leading to inward focus and individualism. The speaker argues the "war on suffering" has been won, with legal and medical systems reinforcing this belief. Examples include the opioid epidemic and ADHD medication. This opposition to suffering removes human nature and resilience, leading to a confused generation. The speaker suggests people are confused about finding purpose outside societal expectations like marriage, family, or community involvement, leading to them getting lost.

Speaker 0 describes birth control as something created by Margaret Sanger and connects her to the “tiny hats.” He claims Sanger was attempting population control and that her project aimed to “get rid of one group of people and then get rid of everybody else,” calling the birth control movement “poison.” He asserts that birth control involves taking synthetic estrogen and a synthetic steroid, “poisoning your body,” and reiterates that Sanger was a demonic figure who “can expect to” receive retribution from the tiny hats. He asserts that the tiny hats funded Planned Parenthood and the birth control movement, with funding from the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, and labels the entire matter a “deep rabbit hole.” He argues that birth control and clinics were part of a broader scheme leading to depopulation, and ties the issues to Marxism, feminism, and the involvement of the Rothschilds, describing a conspiratorial network behind these movements. Speaker 1 counters that birth control could help keep the population more or less static until resources can be increased, suggesting that preventing starvation depends on either birth control or resource acquisition, and framing the question as choosing between the two: “birth control or picking up the resources.” He concedes there is a limit to increasing resources, implying that there is a trade-off between controlling population growth and expanding resources, but he does not take a firm stance beyond recognizing a resource limitation. Overall, the transcript presents two perspectives: Speaker 0 advances a conspiratorial critique linking birth control to Sanger, “tiny hats,” and powerful financiers, portraying it as poison and part of a depopulation agenda connected to Marxism and feminism. Speaker 1 raises a pragmatic ambiguity, suggesting that birth control could stabilize population while resources are improved, but notes that resource limitations impose a constraint.

The speaker reveals that major tax exempt foundations have a hidden agenda, aiming to create a worldwide collective estate, including the Soviet Union. In 1908, the Carnegie trustees discuss the most effective means to alter the life of a people, concluding that war is the answer. In 1990, they ponder how to involve the United States in a war and decide to control the state department. During World War I, they caution President Wilson to prolong the war. After the war, their focus shifts to preventing a reversion to pre-1914 life in the United States by controlling education, which they label as un-American.

The video follows Tyler Oliveira, an independent journalist, visiting Kiriyos Joel (Curious Joel), a Hasidic Jewish traditional community in upstate New York described as a large, growing, tightly knit enclave dominated by Hasidic Jews who largely speak Yiddish. The dialogue paints a picture of a community with unusually large families, strict modesty and gender roles, private religious education, and a mix of work patterns that rely on both self-employment within the community and outside labor. Key facts and claims as presented: - Demographics and family size: The community is described as a village of about 40,000 Hasidic Jews in upstate New York, with families averaging seven children. When discussing typical family size, several participants mention numbers like seventeen to eighteen children, though others give more conservative figures. One interviewee says “Ten, twelve, fourteen, fifteen” is common in the larger families, with a repeated emphasis on seven to ten as a norm in some households. - Economic profile and poverty: The town is described as one of the poorest towns in America, with around 40% living beneath the federal poverty line. The transcript notes reliance on public assistance, Medicaid, housing vouchers, food stamps (EBT/SNAP), and cash aid to support large families. - Employment and Torah study: A recurring theme is that many men spend significant time studying the Torah full-time, with three hours of daily prayer/study mentioned by some interviewees. Yet other participants indicate that men work in industries like construction, driving or bus services, or run private businesses. Women are described as working in some cases (e.g., teaching, health care, retail, childcare) and in other cases primarily managing households, especially when children are very young. Some individuals report that women work after children are older or part-time in addition to domestic duties. - Education and institutions: The community uses private religious schools (Torah study is emphasized), with most schools described as privately run. A significant portion of the schooling and social life centers on maintaining the community’s religious practices and modest dress codes. The synagogues, private kosher markets, and a complex network of private buses and community services are prominent features. - Welfare and tax considerations: The dialogue repeatedly questions how families can afford many children on limited incomes, noting welfare programs (Medicaid, SNAP/EBT, housing assistance) that help, particularly for large families. Some participants acknowledge that welfare usage exists (including potential tax credits and other subsidies tied to children), while others push back against the idea that welfare dominates, arguing instead that benevolence within the community and private charity play major roles. There is discussion about how much welfare benefits are worth relative to the costs of raising many children, including taxes and tuition. - Community economics and charity: A common claim is that wealthier members of the community fund many services and subsidize others through charitable giving. The existence of kosher supermarkets run with the help of Mexican labor is described, along with private safety services, volunteer EMS, and community-owned buses and infrastructure. The interviewee notes that two groceries, Maitiv, offer substantial discounts, and that the community supports one another to afford large families. - Labor dynamics and assimilation: Several interviews contrast Hasidic work patterns with non-Jewish labor participation nearby (e.g., Hispanics in construction, retail, and labor). There is a sense that many Jewish residents own or run businesses, while a notable portion of practical labor appears performed by immigrant workers. A discussion arises about whether non-members can move into the community, with responses suggesting it is possible but may be uncomfortable for some residents, given the desire to preserve religious life. - Zionism and Israel: A notable viewpoint expressed by some community members is opposition to the state of Israel before the Messiah, with Zionism described as not Judaism and the state as secular. This stance frames a broader tension between religious life in Kiriyos Joel and external political narratives. - Public interactions and challenges: The video captures tensions around filming, interviews, and the community’s encounter with outside observers, including skepticism about welfare claims and how the community is portrayed. Observations highlighted by the video’s framing: - The community presents itself as a self-reinforcing, tightly knit unit with private institutions, mutual aid, and communal oversight aimed at preserving religious life. - The economic reality described mixes private enterprise, charitable support, and reliance on public programs, particularly given large family sizes. - The overall portrait emphasizes a life integrated around Torah study, prayer, family, education, and a network of community-run services, with welfare and tax considerations continuing to be debated among residents and visitors.

Nick Rockefeller revealed that the Rockefeller family funded Women's Liberation to increase taxes by getting women to work and to indoctrinate children in schools to view the state as their family. This sinister motive behind Women's Lib changed the speaker's perception of it from noble to evil.

The speaker reveals that major tax exempt foundations have a hidden agenda, aiming to create a worldwide collective estate, including the Soviet Union. In 1908, the Carnegie trustees discuss the most effective means to alter the life of a people, concluding that war is the answer. In 1990, they ponder how to involve the United States in a war and decide to control the state department. During World War I, they caution President Wilson to prolong the war. After the war, their focus shifts to preventing a reversion to pre-1914 life in the United States by controlling education, which they label as un-American.

The speaker reveals that major tax exempt foundations have a hidden agenda, aiming to create a worldwide collective estate, including the Soviet Union. In 1908, the Carnegie trustees discussed the most effective means to alter the life of an entire people, concluding that war was the answer. In 1990, they focused on involving the United States in a war and decided to control the state department to achieve this. During World War I, they sent a telegram to President Wilson, cautioning against ending the war too quickly. After the war, their interest shifted to preventing a reversion to pre-1914 life in the United States by controlling education, which they labeled as un-American.

There's a blatant effort, exemplified by Vance, Musk, and others, to send the message that women should have more children and return to their "born" purpose. This includes talk of cash benefits for more children or medals for having six children. This is happening while programs supporting child rearing, like Medicaid, paid family leave, quality child care funding, and Head Start, are being cut. The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 advocates a return to the nuclear family and a Christian nation, with an emphasis on producing more children. The speaker finds this odd, as immigrants, who have larger families, are targeted for deportation. The US economy has benefited from immigrant replenishment. This is viewed as an attempt to return to the lifestyles and economic arrangements of the past.

Speaker 0 argues that money controllers make all rules and that America has become a socialist communist country, not capitalistic, because of a central bank. He says a central bank prevents capitalism and that prosperity is created by printing dollars or injecting digits into the economy, which results in an infusion of credit rather than real manufacturing or prosperity. Speaker 1 summarizes as a money planned economy. Speaker 0 asserts that with the creation of the Federal Reserve System, the government became dependent on private banks for money, and began taxing people. He states Social Security started in 1935, issuing Social Security cards with numbers on them and deducting money from paychecks under the belief it would fund retirement. He says income tax followed, enabled by Social Security, and notes the government now takes money out automatically, implying distrust of public willingness to pay. Speaker 1 comments that the government now controls the tax payment itself and that people are effectively slaves because taxes are taken automatically. Speaker 0 contends that through the Federal Reserve System, the government has become vested in bankers who profit from taxation, and that the bankers have taken control of the government, making Republicans and Democrats essentially the same since neither party proposes shutting down the Fed or stopping taxes or addressing major American issues. Speaker 1 introduces a personal connection: Nick Rockefeller, of the Rockefeller family, who, through an attorney, discussed with Speaker 0 the banking industry’s ultimate plan. Speaker 0 claims they discussed a global banking network, asserting that central banks exist worldwide, including in Germany, England, and Italy, and that central banking is part of the Communist Manifesto. He argues that two major planks—central banking and a graduated income tax—have been adopted in the United States as part of the Communist Manifesto, integrated via the Federal Reserve System. Speaker 0 then outlines the ultimate goal: to create a one-world government run by bankers, implemented in sections via the European currency, the euro, and the European constitution. He claims there is an effort to establish a North American Union in the United States and to create a new currency called the AMERO, all contributing to a worldwide government. Speaker 0 describes a future where every person is chipped with RFID, and all money exists in those chips. He claims money could be deducted digitally from the chip by authorities, eliminating cash, effectively giving total control to the authorities. He says protesters could have their chips turned off, leaving them unable to buy food or do anything, equating this to total control over people. Speaker 1 adds that the chip would be connected to a database containing purchasing records and other personal data. Speaker 0 reiterates the goal of a one-world government controlled by the banking industry, with everyone chipped and all money stored in chips, allowing control over every financial transaction and making people slaves or serfs to the bankers.

Feminism is a scam and a war on true masculinity. Feminists once believed in male privilege and the wage gap, but now understand the movement's true motives. Before women's suffrage, most women were untaxed stay-at-home wives. Rockefeller funded feminist campaigns in media, leading women to enter the workforce, disrupting the family unit, and sending children to state-funded schools for indoctrination. Modern feminists promote hook-up culture, hormonal birth control, and not shaving as liberation. They claim toxic masculinity is prevalent and the patriarchy must be dismantled. Media teaches that corporate work and paying taxes are more empowering than raising children. Women have lost touch with natural instincts, and birth rates are plummeting. Feminists protest for equality of outcome rather than opportunity, demonizing and emasculating men.

Speaker discusses the new book, 'the deliberate dumbing down of America,' describing it as 'This is a great one on the public education system and anything that you pay for with education.' They add, 'Guess who owns that? John d Rockefeller right here in 1913.' They say, 'Then we go all the way back over here, and we go right to here.' They continue, 'The general education board was incorporated by the state congress in nineteen o two, John d Rockefeller.' Finally, they conclude, 'So anybody you're learning from, whether it's a doctor, whether it's a school, whether it's a college, anything you go to, John d Rockefeller.'

The speaker argues that sending children to a government-run school system at age five resembles an institution that trains obedience rather than independent thinking. They describe schools as places with eight-hour days under flickering lights, processed cafeteria food, purportedly fake history, and a focus on memorization over critical thought, urging students to raise their hands, stand in line, and not question rules. The speaker draws a parallel between schools and prisons, suggesting both restrict questioning and enforce authority. They claim the Rockefeller family, historically associated with shaping the medical system, also funded and shaped the modern education system. The assertion is that this influence was intended not to empower children but to create obedient workers who serve the system without question. The speaker cites John D. Rockefeller, saying, "I don't want a nation of free thinkers. I want a nation of workers," and asks whether the school system was created for the benefit of children or for the power and control of its creators. The overall message is a cautionary view of education as a tool for conditioning conformity and maintaining systemic control, rather than fostering independent thinking. The speaker concludes with the disclaimer, "I'm just a conspiracy theorist."

In 1992, the speaker attended a Communist Party USA meeting at UC Berkeley and was surprised to find older attendees discussing plans to undermine America from within, focusing on the environmental movement to dismantle the free enterprise system. This strategy aims for global solutions necessitating a global government. The speaker referenced the book "The Naked Communist," which outlined communist goals from the 1950s, including controlling schools to promote socialism. Communists aim to transition countries to socialism before communism by gaining control and disarming the population. The speaker claims that many countries fell to communism in the 20th century not through military invasion, but through internal disruption. Agitators stir up unrest, install a puppet leader, and then exert totalitarian control. They target traditional families by undermining the father's role and pushing mothers into the workforce to control the children, as well as brainwashing people against toxic masculinity.

The speaker claims they were a paid protester at a liberal protest on April 5th. To get paid, they had to find a woman with blue hair and a nose ring, avoid wearing MAGA gear or the color red, and participate in the march. Bringing a sign earned an extra $10, but it also had to align with the liberal agenda. The speaker's sign read, "Everyone deserves a good education." After the march, protesters had to complete a questionnaire with "right and wrong answers" to get paid. One question asked why Republicans want women to stay home. The speaker says they answered that it gives men more control due to women's financial dependence. Another question asked about critical race theory and why it should be taught. The speaker asked the organizer for help and was told it's about understanding the lasting effects of segregation and discrimination, like the inability of Black families to accumulate generational wealth through homeownership. The speaker was paid $100 for protesting and $10 for the sign.

Our politicians in Ireland are no different than England and everywhere else. They report up to the network through the European Commission, which is like the Politburo in Soviet times, unelected. And then you've got the European Parliament, which is like the Soviet Parliament in Soviet times. It's a talk shop with no real power. So EU is modeled on purpose on the Soviet system of totalitarian collectivization with unelected bureaucrats. Then you've got the UN, which sprang from Rockefeller's loins. Rockefeller brothers formed the Rockefellers along with the Rothschilds and the Warburgs. All of these structures we've got have been funded and grown, Trilateral Commission, Council Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, W. F. They've all been grown to manage the ant farm of us humans. That's where all our problems come from, and it all goes up essentially to the big banking kind of globalist oligarchs, and they all work together. So we get all this crap that comes down like totally totalitarian dystopian madness. So the key thing for people is to understand your politicians, challenge them on who they're reporting to. That's a key thing, I think. Not don't challenge them about what they're bringing in because that's a waste of time. If everyone is saying we see you and we know you're reporting to a non sovereign, non Irish authority, bringing in things that are against the people's interests. So who are you reporting to? And everyone keeps asking, keeps telling them, we know where you're at. We see you. I think that's important because a lot of people now, even young people are beginning to realize when we were told it was a conspiracy theory that higher powers are basically running our lives in a totalitarian fashion, that was part of the scam. We were indoctrinated to believe that higher up ultra wealthy people running our lives and influencing our governments was a conspiracy theory. But increasingly, people are realizing now, actually, that was a trick to tell us that Uh-huh. Because they are running our lives, and our children's and grandchildren's futures are going to be destroyed by these ultra rich oligarchs if we don't start making a ruckus. Now, wef is a filthy household name. Whereas they worked in the shadows for, like, a century, and no one ever talked about them because they own the media. No. It's 20 social media, you got COVID backlash Yeah. Vaccine backlash, and now you got all these people talking about them. And that's why they're desperately trying to get in hate speech, digital millennium act, censorship, ID for people to get on the Internet. They're really worried about the young people talking. Really scared about that. And, I think it's all on the razor's edge, all to play for for the bad guys and the good guys. Uh-huh. I couldn't call it. I think it's all to play for. So let's double down, more awakening.

According to the speaker, he once discussed women's liberation with someone who said, "We, the Rockefellers, funded that." The speaker was told the Rockefellers funded women's liberation for two primary reasons: first, because they couldn't tax half the population before women's liberation; and second, because getting kids in school at an early age allows for their indoctrination. This breaks up the family, and kids start looking at the state as their family. The speaker had previously thought of women's liberation as a noble thing but, after learning the alleged intentions behind it, saw the evil behind what he thought was a noble adventure.

The speaker reveals that major tax exempt foundations have a hidden agenda, aiming to create a worldwide collective estate, including the Soviet Union. In 1908, the Carnegie trustees discuss the most effective means to alter the life of a whole nation, concluding that war is the answer. In 1990, they ponder how to involve the United States in a war and decide to control the state department. During World War I, they caution President Wilson to prolong the war. After the war, their focus shifts to preventing a return to pre-1914 life in the United States by controlling education, labeling anything un-American.

Feminism, the pill, the sexual revolution, and platforms like OnlyFans are the culmination of a cultural shift. While some may feel empowered by participating, corporations are pushing this narrative to destroy Western civilization. Historically, ideologies like socialism, communism, and Marxism have targeted the family unit, and these activities are detrimental to it.

There's a blatant effort exemplified by Vance, Musk, and others to send a message to women that they should have more children and return to their "born" purpose. This includes discussions of cash benefits for more children or medals for having six children. These proposals are being contemplated while programs like Medicaid, paid family leave, quality child care funding, and Head Start are being cut, despite these programs supporting child rearing and providing a safety net for women in the workforce. This is framed as a performance about concerns for family life, echoing the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, which advocates a return to the nuclear family and a Christian nation with many children. The speaker notes the irony of wanting more children while also wanting to deport immigrants, who often have larger families. The speaker suggests this is an effort to return to the lifestyles and economic arrangements of the past. One reason the economy did better than other advanced economies is because of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, who had larger families.

I support women's choices, including working outside the home. However, I oppose elitist liberals who belittle homemakers. Women face challenges in the workforce and at home. Pushing women into full-time work may lead to exhaustion and unhappiness, discouraging motherhood. Gloria Steinem is seen as a role model, but some view her as miserable and pathetic. There is an attempt to create discontent among happily married women to join a sisterhood of frustration due to their inability to find a partner.