reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Curious Showell visits a Hasidic village in Upstate New York described as having about 44,000 residents who primarily speak Yiddish and average seven kids per family. Showell claims the community relies heavily on state assistance and welfare programs such as Medicare, SNAP, housing assistance, and tax credits because of the large families. When asked how many kids people have here, Showell is told “Seventeen, eighteen,” and that they are “proud to do what the Torah says, that you need be multiple and fruitful.” He asks how they can afford many children, and the response is that wealthy community members give charity and the community is based on this. Showell questions whether people are on welfare. One person references taxes and property payments, saying, “The Jewish people, Justin Kirsch, Joel, their taxes covers everything that we take back. They pay a lot of property …” The interviewee refuses to comment about welfare use, and when pressed further about someone being on welfare, declines to answer. In terms of employment, individuals describe themselves as having jobs in sales and home care, with one mentioning selling chocolate. There is uncertainty about who uses welfare: Showell notes that “Most people on Medicaid, SNAP, EBT” while the interviewee claims not to know “for other people” but says “I’m not gonna tell about myself.” When asked about EBT usage, one person initially states “100%” would use EBT for groceries, then corrects to “35%,” indicating a lack of consensus. Showell also asks what most men do for work; the response includes “I have a job” and “I’m in sales,” with the product being food, specifically chocolate. Showell and the interviewee visit a synagogue where many are praying, with a note that the schedule is “09:00 sharp.” The dialogue touches on welfare use within the community, with one line indicating that “BT percent, like all of the communities, you have eight kids, you can also get benefits,” followed by a statement that “These are all teenagers” and the age of Showell’s interviewer as 21. In closing, Showell characterizes the situation as an example of a theocratic ethnic enclave, suggesting that Curious Joel is an example of only Jews living there and that many are tapping into welfare benefits.

Jews in Harlem run the whiskey and rundown stores, and control Harlem's economy. Someone should be warned before violence erupts, but this is not antisemitism, just observation. The speaker claims that Jews control about 80% of the economy in most Black communities across the country. After he made this statement on Channel 13, Jews organized to prevent the interview from being re-aired. Morgan, another person involved in the program, disclaimed responsibility for the speaker's statements. The speaker believes that Jews exploit Black communities in Harlem and across the country, and that Jews believe in censorship more than anyone else.

Speaker 0 discusses being accused in DMs of turning their space into an Israeli Jew space, noting a poll they put up where listeners guess the Jewish proportion, with guesses around 50-99% Jewish. They acknowledge that Truth and they themselves are not Jewish, yet point out that a group making up 2% of America and 0.2% of the planet is “a lot of them up here at the moment.” They attempt a divided calculation on how many Jews are in the space today, suggesting 38.2% of Jews while only 2% Jews overall, calling the resulting discrepancy a 9.2 difference and labeling these patterns as antisemitic. They urge others not to listen to a particular person in their space who they allege is antisemitic. The speaker then accuses others of trying to “figure out who the Jews are,” and says “Nazis are,” claiming to be someone who researches how many Jews are in things. They reference Sarah, saying she dislikes when the speaker brings up facts, data, or discussions about JFK, questioning why it matters who killed JFK and arguing it doesn’t matter who did 9/11 or the USS attacks, and stating “What if it was a Jews? What does that change? Nothing.” There’s a call to mute others, and an accusation that the audience will mute the speaker. The speaker mentions posting their DNA and receiving death threats “literally from Jews almost daily,” remarking on its repetitiveness and rarity for a reel. They reference “the third reel you’re not allowed to talk about” and question why the media or politicians won’t discuss it. The speaker introduces themselves as Isaac and someone named Shane, and asks whether the reaction might be connected to “the narcissism, schizophrenia, paranoia that runs rampant amongst the Jewish community.” They claim they can only talk on spaces and are frustrated that they’re not allowed to discuss Jews, asserting that the audience doesn’t realize they’re effectively arguing their own point. They conclude with a push to let them talk about how many Jews there are.

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.

The discussion centers on the way lawmakers reference religion in foreign policy and whether that approach is effective. Speaker 0 asks the audience how many think a respected lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, even if he doesn’t know the verse, and whether that is the best approach. Speaker 1 responds by referencing Ted Cruz’s Genesis twelve three, and notes that many find that off-putting when contrasted with the New Testament, specifically Paul’s writings about the new flesh not being the same as the people in the old covenant. Speaker 1 asks, “Yes. Romans nine?” and agrees with the sentiment. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 if they are Catholic, to which Speaker 1 replies that they are converting Catholic from Judaism, revealing that they are ethnically Jewish. The exchange confirms Speaker 1’s Jewish ethnicity. Speaker 0 brings up concerns about APAC, asking if Speaker 1 has concerns about APAC. Speaker 1 confirms that they do. Speaker 0 notes that some people tell them that criticizing APAC equates to being anti-Semitic, asking whether this is true. Speaker 1 calls that notion ridiculous and says it’s great to have concern for one’s country. The conversation shifts to APAC’s influence. Speaker 0 presents a characterization (as a possible summary of Speaker 1’s view) that APAC represents a form of prioritization that cuts in line, away from the American people. Speaker 0 asks whether this is a fair summary. Speaker 1 answers affirmatively, “100%.” Finally, they articulate the core idea: the public votes and are citizens, but a separate group is described as receiving higher priority for whatever reasons. Speaker 1’s agreement underscores a shared concern that APAC’s influence creates a prioritization that bypasses the ordinary American electorate.

Speaker 0 says they’re Jewish, having just discovered it; they knew their mom’s side was Jewish but she never stated it, and they verified it. It’s “crazy.” They wonder what it means and note being told “you’re Jewish.” They were raised Christian and ask if they can be both. Speaker 1 responds that you can be both, and confirms they are both. They mention their mom has ties to Judaism, and if so, “you’re Jewish.” Speaker 0 finds that dope, but notes they feel like they’re all of them: “I’m Jewish. I’m Christian. I’m Muslim. I’m Buddhist. I’m all of Jewish.” Speaker 1 comments, “He’s an African American Jew.” Speaker 0 asks, “What percent Jew are you?” and states they’re “apparently, 20%. We’ll take it.” Speaker 1 says they’re 50%, maybe a little 75% ish. They discuss practices: “Gotta do little”—do they do Shabbat? Speaker 1 says their mom does Shabbat every Friday, but they don’t, though they do the holidays. Speaker 0 asks if they wear a Yamaka (Yarmulke). Speaker 1 says yes, they even have a Mezuzah. The Mezuzah is described as the thing you put on the door when you walk in, and you kiss it when you walk in.

Who runs most financial institutions? There's a perception that Jews dominate banking and law, which has led to accusations of anti-Semitism. A Jewish banker friend, Mari, shared that members of his community can access zero-interest loans in the U.S., a benefit I find deeply unfair since I pay interest on my loans as a venture capitalist. This raises questions about religious doctrines favoring one group over others. To qualify for these loans, one must be Jewish, as lineage matters—only those with a Jewish mother can claim this benefit. Hebrew free loans are available to Jewish individuals, while Gentiles do not receive the same opportunity. This disparity is surprising and highlights a significant financial advantage for one community.

The speaker discusses allegations of fraud involving “immigrants” and says foreigners are “getting popped all over the place for committing fraud.” They claim people in comment sections became angry after they said “they’ve been committing fraud,” with others responding by calling them a MAGA or Trump supporter. The speaker rejects those labels and says they work in human services and were “clearing the … applications,” which they say is how they know fraud was occurring. The speaker argues that Black Americans “could have been out there” snitching like “Nick Shirley,” and claims Black Americans have known about fraud connected to multiple POC immigrant communities “since the fucking nineties.” They say Black Americans have been aware that “$2 in a dream” stories are a lie and that people were receiving government benefits while working “under the table,” including food stamps, housing, AFDC checks, and Medicaid. They also claim these communities use childcare assistance, and they say they know about sending “husbands” to work while the individuals allegedly stay at home. The speaker asserts that Black Americans “know everything about every group of fucking people” because “no one pays us any” attention and because others think Black Americans are “too stupid” or “too incompetent” to read or do math. They describe having worked in “health care administration” and claim familiarity with fraud involving home health businesses and psychosocial rehabilitation services for people with disabilities, including “behavioral” services. They contrast Black Americans not troubling others with “the problem” beginning when others “began to trouble us.” The speaker says they join comment sections to explain what they claim to know, stating that other groups use Black Americans’ name to deflect from their own crimes, including robbing “local government funding,” “state fund government funding,” and “federal government funding.” They reference “anchor babies” and say others should “shut the fuck up” and stop making claims about Black Americans lacking culture or not working hard. They conclude by stating “Black Americans don’t snitch,” but say once others “started drinking your own fucking piss” and “talk[ing] to us crazy,” they “finna tell it all.”

Charlie Kirk is accused of critiquing Israel’s actions in Gaza during this summit, with claims that he is supposed to be a Christian conservative. A number of participants argue that critiques of Israel are being framed as anti-Semitism, while others emphasize that disagreeing with the current Israeli government or questioning AIPAC does not automatically make someone anti-Semitic. One participant says the repeated “anti-Semitism” labeling is being used as an excuse to “spout anti-Semitism.” They argue that people treat Israel as sacred while demanding reduced involvement, referencing uncertainty about “Messiah” and “Reminds me of the CIA.” Another participant responds that an ally should treat an ally differently, and claims they are told that criticizing AIPAC is anti-Semitic. A participant states they have “concerns about AIPAC,” describing it as a prioritization problem: citizens vote and pay attention to American interests, but “a separate group gets higher priority.” Another participant says the entirety of the idea of a PAC is to represent a group, but criticizes allowing a group they claim “doesn’t even represent American interests” to influence representatives. They also claim that only about 20 members across the Senate and House are fully doing the work of the American people. The discussion includes examples of anti-Semitic accusations being dismissed. One participant says they do not hate Jews, and argues that defending a nation should not be treated as hatred. Another participant compares the dynamic to how “racism” is used—if people disagree, they are called names without proof, based on inability to “prove them wrong.” On Israel aid, a participant says the U.S. sends almost $4 billion to Israel “every year,” totaling $319 billion adjusted to inflation since 1948, and says this makes them upset. They argue the money could be better spent supporting an economy at home, including homes, rather than military strikes. They respond to a hypothetical five-year plan for Israel to decouple from USAID by saying Israel could be self-reliant, with balanced budgets and a sovereign wealth fund, and that such a transition would make people think higher of Israel and stop constant discussion. Religious references are raised, including Genesis 12.3 and Romans 9-6, and the conversation notes someone describing being ethnically Jewish and having concerns about AIPAC. A final exchange asks whether canceling Tucker would change anti-Semitism levels; one participant says it would increase because supporters would be treated as anti-Semites by association. The conversation ends with a claim that there is an “earthquake” coming on the issue that others do not believe, and urges hearing it “from people themselves.”

Speaker 0 describes their experience working in county social services and their political shift from Democrat to Republican. They explain how, for benefits programs, the presence of a social security number allows workers to determine if an applicant is working, has bank money, property, cars, tax income, and other sources, enabling assessment of eligibility and amount. They claim a loophole exists for undocumented individuals. If an undocumented person applies for benefits and qualifies, they can receive full Medicaid, housing, migrant head start, and fully paid childcare. They note that if the undocumented parent has US citizen children, those children qualify for all the benefits and services as well. The speaker emphasizes that for an undocumented parent applying for benefits for their children, workers cannot tell if the family has banking income, property, or tax payments, since the parent lacks a social security number. The speaker provides specific benefit amounts they observed: “$1,200 per kid plus $275 per person cash food stamps,” and adds that this does not include housing and “all the other benefits they get.” They state that in California, these benefits are not hidden. They recount anecdotes of people arriving with “nails did, hair done blonde, Gucci bags, Gucci glasses, driving up on escalades, chewing gum super loud,” asking for welfare checks. They describe a neighborhood where “70% of the people around me were undocumented” and who “lived the life,” including new cars and weekend parties. They mention an entitlement to “wake” (likely WIC) as well. The speaker contrasts the situation with US citizens, claiming US citizens do not qualify for nothing, and observes a common pattern where undocumented women or moms would not work, while US citizen moms must work to afford living. They state they have nothing against undocumented immigrants personally, acknowledging a human perspective, but indicate that if they were undocumented, they would also take advantage of the loophole. They criticize the government, particularly California, for not implementing regulations to limit fraud and waste. They argue that taxpayers pay for this waste and fraud, and that when the federal government enforces immigration laws, people become upset and confused about deportations after openly living and receiving benefits regardless of immigration status. They call for better practices, saying California and everyone must be on the same page.

The discussion opens with “Breaking news” claims that plans are underway to bomb Somalia again and invade Mexico, alongside frustration about airstrikes in Somalia and taxes spent fighting cartels while housing remains unaffordable. BlackRock is repeatedly referenced in connection with money, investment, and housing purchases, including talk that $12.5 trillion is enough to outright buy any nation except the United States and China. Mentions also include “Airbnb” helping transform the housing market and “two more warehouses” being built with “rentals” for poor people. Several speakers reference hot dogs and cheese pizza, with Hillary wanting hot dogs, and Obama called about food. A revolt is mentioned, but “they” are watching on camera, requiring silence. The conversation escalates into claims linking companies, defense contractors, the CIA, and banking dynasties to Jewish control, “Jewish supremacy,” and victimhood narratives, while also making claims that “sand people” should not be blamed and that Israelis are victims due to “pizza cost.” The group claims churches and schools have been taken, and argues that people are “chosen.” There is also commentary about the music industry and a “Jenny live” segment tied to explicit song titles and lyrics. Discussions turn to sexuality and hormones, including mentions of “hormone blockers,” being told to “slow down,” and questions about parents knowing if their kids are transitioning at school, alongside claims that trans issues account for “about 1% of the population” and that climate change impacts were not “brought up.” Lahaina is discussed as burned land that has been bought up by BlackRock and “Dwayne, the other rock,” followed by references to Gavin Newsom having a plan. A governor in Hawaii, Josh Green, is said to have ideas about land use concerns regarding speculators buying properties, with plans to present legal actions “in a matter of days.” References then shift to defense contractors and weather manipulation, including claims of “artificial clouds,” “HAARP,” and “Heavy metals incoming.” The segment ends with “the search for Jackie” beginning after she “hasn’t texted… all week,” with police swarming her residence. The only information described is footage of her last time in the studio, reporting live from JakeGTV News, while Jackie is repeatedly instructed to return. The final line urges followers to “follow JakeGTV,” with derogatory language tied to political alignment.

In the exchange, Speaker 0 foregrounds money while alluding to a much sharper, disturbing desire. He begins with a repetitive assertion of wealth: “Money. Money. Money.” Then he shifts the emphasis to a more sinister longing, stating that “more than anything else, what I really want, what my giant nose needs just to grow more warts is Christian blood.” He then attempts to identify or locate this blood, asking, “Let me see if I can find any.” The dialogue then pivots to a confrontation with the presence or identity of others. Speaker 0 asks, “You guys you're Jewish children?”, expressing a sense of frustration or misfortune by adding, “This is not my day. This sucks.” The tone conveys a reaction to the situation or to the people present. Following this, there is a provocative question about identity tied to blood: “You're wearing Israeli blood?” This question suggests an assertion or challenge about the affiliation or origin of the individuals’ blood, implying a connection to Jewish or Israeli heritage. Finally, the line of inquiry narrows to a direct address toward a person named Esther, asking, “Esther, are you wearing an Israeli blood?” This repeats and personalizes the provoking question, tying the earlier general inquiry to a specific individual. The overall interaction centers on money, a disturbing fixation on blood tied to religious or ethnic groups, and confrontations about Jewish and Israeli identity, all framed through Speaker 0’s provocative and inflammatory questions and statements.

The speaker questions the high representation of Jewish individuals in influential positions across various sectors like politics, education, entertainment, finance, and sports. They highlight examples such as Democratic party donors, Ivy League presidents, Hollywood talent agencies, NBA teams, the Federal Reserve, Black Rock, the Biden administration, and Donald Trump's connections. The speaker expresses confusion over the disproportionate presence of Jewish individuals in these areas.

Speaker 0 opens by saying, “Don’t see how fucked up the world is. That’s a form of insanity.” Speaker 1 recounts coming home and writing a poem about Robbie to give him, then claims someone took away Robbie’s property and that Robbie began to blame it on the Jews. He adds that the US government and the Jews are “one of the same,” insisting, “That’s not true. True. No. Absolutely true. That’s never been…” and trails off. Speaker 2 asks about the Palestinian, and about “the good Jews,” questioning why the “good Jews” are not speaking against the alleged bad Jews. Speaker 1 responds with the idea that there are “very good people. Wonderful people,” but again asks why they aren’t talking against “the bad Jews,” implying they do not agree with the premise that those Jews are necessarily bad. Speaker 2 then asserts, “I equate the Jew and the devil together. To me, they’re practically interchangeable. And I think the Catholic church did also. I think the entire concept of the devil is based on the Jews.” Speaker 1 elaborates with a biblical analogy: in the New Testament, the devil took Jesus to a high mountain and offered him all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would bow down and worship. He interprets this as symbolic of Jews offering wealth and power in exchange for obedience, stating that this is “symbolic of the Jew” and that one can have all the money in the world if one bows down and obeys. Speaker 2 adds that the devil is based on the Jew and notes that old pictures of the devil even look like a Jew.

Speaker 0 believes the Jewish lobby in the United States is too powerful, even for Israel's interests, because they pressure too many people. This pressure, exerted through various means, ultimately doesn't help Israel. The president of the United States pays attention to this lobby because they are strong and control many things. When asked to elaborate on what they control, Speaker 0 lists newspapers, media, banks, and finances. Speaker 1 expresses surprise and asks if Speaker 0 really believes the Jewish community in the United States is that powerful.

Speaker 0: Future of Israel. I mean, something will happen in Iran. Maybe we'll succeed. Maybe we won't, but and that'll make it worse. But the demography seems terrible. Nobody sane seems to be procreating, and everybody getting sane in their own way seems to have five children. Whether it's Arabs or Orthodox, they have five children. If you're a regular Israeli, you have 1.5 children or two. Speaker 0: The Haredim are more productive than the Arabs. If we cancel some of the we had exponential support function for productivity. It's something bizarre. Rather to be an esker, we became exponential. And always when I meet a friend with three children, telling another two and you are deep into the social security trap, that's your job, you can sit idle. Speaker 0: No, I don't the future of Israel is waking up at the right moment before it's too late, putting your wedge on this drift along the slippery slope toward one state nation. First of all, because with one state nation, would be even faster. Yeah. It would be by nation at first, and then within the generation with an Arab majority. In fact, the minority with a sense of being kind of hybrid form, they excel in medicine therapy. Speaker 0: Then we have, I believe, we have to break the monopoly of the orthodox rabbinate on marriage and the funerals and whatever and the definition which and accept, open in a sophisticated subtle manner, open the gates from massive conversion into Judaism. It's a successful country. Many will apply at the beginning without making it, cannot make it a precondition, but under the social pressure, the need, especially of the second generation, to adapt, will happen. And we can control the quality, much more effective than our ancestors or the founding fathers of Israel could deal with the way that it was a kind of salvation way from Africa and Arabs or from whatever. They took whatever came to save people. Speaker 0: Now we can be selective. And

Speaker 0 says, "powerful institutions are at play here, and there's a coordinated effort to spread this parasitic ideology," and asks, "Are you willing to name the group behind us? Because behind all these institutions, there seems to be a Cohen, a Berg, a Stein." He then asks, "What are your thoughts on the Jewish influence about on gender ideology?" Speaker 1 replies, "So you're you're Am I gonna do anything about the Jews is what you're asking me? No." Okay. Do I need to dignify that with a further response, do think?" He adds, "Or And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits." "This is a beast created by secular Jews."

The first speaker contends that Congress is trying to give $5,000,000,000 of your money for refugee resettlement programs, and that money ends up in places like this. The second speaker identifies the International Rescue Committee as the largest refugee NGO in the country, noting that they get government funds and subcontract the work out to places like this. The first speaker describes the Somali American Community Center as a location that receives grants from the IRC in order to help refugees resettle in America. The second speaker reports that when they went in, they found this: an almost completely abandoned retail space that hasn’t filed taxes in almost ten years. The first speaker states that almost every business in the area is focused on getting refugees on taxpayer funded welfare programs. The second speaker asserts that this is how the largest refugee city in the country is funded. The first speaker adds that this is how over 87% of Somali immigrants end up on taxpayer funded public assistance. The second speaker notes that they spent three days in Little Somalia in Atlanta, Georgia. The first speaker concludes by saying that in the largest refugee center in the entire country, this is what they found.

Jews in Harlem run the whiskey and rundown stores, and control Harlem's economy. Someone should be warned before violence erupts, but this is not antisemitism. The speaker claims to have stated on Channel 13 that Jews control about 80% of the economy in most Black communities. Jews organized to prevent the interview from re-airing. The speaker did two interviews, one short and one thirty minutes long. After the interview, Morgan Price stated he was not responsible for anything the speaker said. The speaker believes that Jews prevented the showing of the interview because he stated that Jews are robbing and exploiting Black people in Harlem and across the country. Jews believe in censorship more than anyone else.

Question: 'Do you believe that the Gentiles, the Goyim, will one day become the slaves of the Jews?' 'So I believe it's it's gonna it's part of the Torah.' The speakers discuss politics, then answer: 'No.' 'No.' and 'No.' 'No.' I'd love to hear your thoughts on the current conflict. Everything's happening? It's all an illusion?' 'Yes. Yeah. Wow. That guy is the is one of the greatest optimists I've ever seen.' 'Can I ask you a couple questions?' 'Yeah. Yeah. So somebody just threw a water balloon at us. And now there's a crowd gathering because they're gonna they're saying that they're gonna chase us away, and they're gathering numbers now.' 'So there's a big flock of people who's gonna chase us.' 'Yeah. I'm not Santa Monica. It's not Yolanda. So I'm not allowed to talk to anybody in the'

Speaker 0 asks if everyone thinks the family is a nice Jewish family. Speaker 1 responds: From the outside, you appear to be a nice Jewish girl. Definitely. And you all are worshiping the devil inside the home? There are other Jewish families across the country. It’s not just my own family. Speaker 0 prompts for non-gory details about what kinds of things went on in the family. Speaker 1 describes rituals in which babies would be sacrificed, noting that there were people who bred babies in their family. She says no one would know about it, and that a lot of people were overweight, so you couldn't tell if they were pregnant or not, or they would supposedly go away for a while and then come back. Speaker 0 notes that she witnessed the sacrifice. Speaker 1 confirms she witnessed it when she was very young, and she was forced to participate in sacrificing an infant. Speaker 0 asks what the purpose of the sacrifice is. Speaker 1 answers the sacrifice is to bring you what? For power. Speaker 0: Power.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the basis for Jewish connection to the land and who has a legitimate claim to it. Speaker 0 begins by stating that there are about 16,000,000 Jews in total worldwide, with 8,000,000 living in the area being discussed, and the remainder living mainly in New York, South Florida, and a few other places. He notes that this is a small population with historical and biblical connections to the land, and asks if such a connection exists. Speaker 1 responds that Bibi’s family lived in Eastern Europe and that there is no evidence they ever lived in the land, and that he isn’t religious. He questions whether there is a true ancestral link. Speaker 0 asks whether there is evidence of any genuine ancestral connection. Speaker 1 asks if there is a family tree for Bibi, and if not, whether anyone has one. Speaker 0 asks how they know, and Speaker 1 elaborates that the point is to establish an ancestral connection to the land. He notes that there has been a practice of Judaism and a connection to the language, suggesting that Bibi has fought for the land, and that his family has fought for it. He raises an obvious, meaningful question: where does this right come from? He explains that many people in the territory Israel controls, particularly in the West Bank, have genetic evidence of having been there for thousands of years, with many identified as Christians for two thousand years, and even if some did not practice Judaism or were Samaritan or pre-Islam, the question remains: how do they compare in terms of rights to someone whose ancestors lived in Latvia or Poland and were Jewish? He questions the basis of being “Jewish” by faith, language, or Torah. Speaker 0 challenges the question, asking how we know if Bibi’s ancestors ever lived there, and expresses confusion about what Speaker 1 is trying to determine. Speaker 1 emphasizes that a claim of rights based on ancestral presence is significant because many claims hinge on whether ancestors lived there, whether money flowed, and whether displacement occurred. He reiterates that it is not a theoretical issue like a grandparent’s distant past, but a real question of who has the right to be there. Speaker 0 remains unable to fully process Speaker 1’s point.