reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The transcript argues that Alan Dulles is the man behind the CIA and is Swiss by descent, from the patrician Male Prevot family of Geneva, with ties to the Male family and the Geneva patrician circles. It insists the CIA and OSS were run by the Male Prevot family and that they let only Swisses in on all key positions, claiming that the Geneva headquarters were controlled by this Swiss network. It states that in 1921 Dulles was posted to Bern, Switzerland by his uncle Secretary Lansing, becoming chief of intelligence at the American legation, where he was met by cousins from the Male family. The transcript asserts that Petit Dahl (Dulles’s relative) had married Julia Male Prevot, linking the Privost and Mallet families as powerful in international politics and finance, holding hereditary seats in Geneva’s Council of Two Hundred. This group, along with British royals, allegedly formed a joint committee of spymasters for the aristocracy dating back to the eighteenth century. The Male Prevot are also claimed to have injected the Scottish Rite of Masonry into the United States. By the mid-1920s, Dulles is said to have become the first secretary of the American embassy in Berlin and to have been a director of Schroderbank, which allegedly handled Hitler’s personal funds. The narrative emphasizes that these Swiss connections span from Geneva to Basel and Tessin, arguing they are a distinct group that controlled key positions in the U.S. and Europe. The transcript also contends that during the war a British ambassador to Switzerland named Victor Male was from the same family as the CIA “Dolls.” It claims Alain (Alan) Dulles, a lawyer, worked at the US embassy in Bern in 1917 and befriended Vladimir Lenin, who spent years in Switzerland before the Red Terror. It asserts that during World War II Dulles lived at Herngasse 23 in Bern as the Swiss Director of the OSS, surrounding himself with Nazi officials and facilitating the transfer of Nazis to the United States through OSS connections and Operation Paperclip. It claims Dulles represented IG Farben in America and worked for Schroderbank, describing him as Swiss rather than American, and asserts that Swiss people financed the Nazis and became filthy rich through these operations. The piece alleges a million Swiss Americans in the U.S. and that Octagon (a supposed group) dominates the Pentagon. It contends that after the war Dulles became the first civilian director of the CIA (1953–1961) under Eisenhower, with Swiss sleeper agents in top posts, and that his brother John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State. The transcript concludes that Kennedy eventually fired Alan Dulles, who allegedly remained involved in cover-ups via the Warren Commission, and that “the Huns” took over the White House and key intelligence positions. Speaker 1 echoes the conspiracy framing by calling for down with Octagon and Swiss banks, accusing them of robbing the poor, financing Adolf Hitler, and waging wars, and demanding freedom for the world and opposition to Swiss influence.

George Soros had begun to make a name for himself as a conscience-free economic hitman as early as World War II, collaborating with Nazis, which he described as “the best time of my life.” A subsequent exchange recalls that he went out with a protector who swore he was his adopted godson, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews. When asked if it was difficult, the respondent says, “Not at all. No problem,” and adds that even if he weren’t there, somebody else would be taking it away anyway, suggesting a market-driven rationale for the actions. The narrative then traces a mentorship under the Fabian Society’s Karl Popper at the Langdon School of Economics, where Soros acquired his idea of open societies as a cover for world government control. It also notes an Edmund de Rothschild–connected influence: George Karlweiss, chairman of the Rothschild Swiss-based bank Privy, endowed Soros with the financial resources to launch a new type of organization called a hedge fund. From that moment, the young speculator began to amass a fortune as a financial mercenary, released during the new age of deregulation and deployed to destroy the economies of any nation resisting a banker’s dictatorship through currency speculation. Using his ill-begotten resources, Soros was said to set up a network of private organizations to advance democracy-building around the world. In 1979, Soros’s Open Society Foundations came online and began to interface closely with the National Endowment for Democracy, which soon set up two offices in China in the 1980s. David Ignatius, the former head of the NED, admitted in 1991 that the organization was little more than a front for the CIA, noting that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly twenty five years ago by the CIA.” Throughout the 1980s, a new world order was staged, described by some as the end of history. In Hungary, Soros’ Open Society Foundations infused restructuring, privatization, and other market-driven reforms in 1988, leading to the emergence of a new oligarchical class beholden to Wall Street and contributing to election manipulation that ousted Ferdinand Marcos’s national leadership and installed Corazon Aquino in an early color revolution called the People Power Revolution. Russia warmly embraced Soros and the NED under Mikhail Gorbachev, who ensured the stage would be set for Russia’s submission to a new age of destruction called Perestroika. In the 1990s, the program was titled Operation Hammer by the Trilateral Commission’s George Bush Sr., a program of looting of former state enterprises under the watch of the IMF, taking the name “shock therapy.”

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."

George Soros, a complex figure in finance and philanthropy, has made billions through aggressive trading while also donating significant amounts to various causes. He believes the global economy is fragile and calls for regulation to prevent crises. Soros has faced blame for financial collapses in Asia and Russia, arguing that these economies were mismanaged. He acknowledges the unintended consequences of his actions but insists he operates without guilt, focusing on profit rather than social impact. Despite his wealth, he is committed to philanthropy, funding projects in places like Haiti and Bosnia. Soros's early experiences during the Holocaust shaped his worldview, leading him to navigate markets strategically. His dual identity as a capitalist and philanthropist raises questions about morality in his business practices.

I have been blamed for financial collapses in several countries. I don't consider the social consequences of my actions. As a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust, I was shaped by those experiences. I was involved in confiscating property from Jews, but I don't feel guilty about it. I am not religious and do not believe in God. My work is amoral and separate from feelings of guilt.

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.

Soros makes huge bets on whole countries and economies. Last year, when he saw cracks in the Asia boom, he began selling the currency in Thailand. Traders in Hong Kong followed suit, triggering a financial crisis that plunged much of Asia into a depression. In the last two years, you've been blamed for financial collapse of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, and Russia. All of the all of the above. All of the above. The prime minister of of Malaysia Yes. Said that the region spent forty years trying to build up its economy, and along comes a moron like Soros, k, with a lot of money, and it's all over. He called you a criminal. The French finance minister talked about hanging speculators from lamppost. Soros says the Asian currencies would have collapsed even if he hadn't been in the market. They were over valued. He says people tend to follow his lead because he's been so successful. I have been blamed blamed for everything. I am basically there to to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of of what I do.

For 3300 years, our goal as Jewish people has been to control the world. We aim to alter Americans' perception of reality, using a slow, four-stage brainwashing process. Demoralization, the first stage, takes 15-20 years to erode values by exposing generations to enemy ideology. This is complete, even exceeding expectations due to declining moral standards. Compound interest, historically illegal and termed usury, led to Jews becoming moneylenders when Christians couldn't. Over generations, this led to economic control, resulting in expulsion. Compound interest enslaves people through debt. Jewish individuals are overrepresented in financial crimes. The Talmud permits cheating non-Jews. I'm telling the truth even if it sounds offensive to some. COVID responses were absurd. A small group controls information and money, but you can't name them without being called an anti-Semite.

During the Holocaust, George Soros, a Hungarian Jew, posed as a Christian to escape. He witnessed others being sent to death camps and helped confiscate property from Jews. Despite this, he felt no guilt or connection to the situation. Soros believed that someone else would have taken the property regardless of his presence. He is not religious and does not believe in God. Surprisingly, Soros described the year of German occupation as the happiest time of his life, as he felt a sense of invincibility and had faith in himself and his father.

George Soros, born in Budapest to wealthy Jewish parents, discussed his experiences during the German occupation. He mentioned being a spectator to property confiscation from Jews, feeling no guilt or religious beliefs. He described the occupation as a positive and exhilarating experience, despite witnessing suffering.

As a Hungarian Jew, I escaped the Holocaust by pretending to be Christian. I witnessed many people being sent to death camps, which shaped my character. It taught me to think ahead, anticipate events, and understand the threat of evil. I had a protector who claimed I was his adopted God son and together, we participated in confiscating property from Jews. Surprisingly, this experience didn't trouble me. I didn't feel guilt or think about the fact that I could easily be in their position. I saw myself as a mere spectator, knowing that someone else would have done it if I hadn't been there. Therefore, I didn't feel responsible or guilty for taking away their property.

Men of character build good societies, while those solely focused on money have taken control and harmed many. Some may see this as a conspiracy involving the CIA and Israel's intelligence agency.

I am a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust by pretending to be Christian. I witnessed people being sent to death camps at 14, shaping my character to think ahead and anticipate threats. I assisted in confiscating property from Jews without feeling guilt, as I saw myself as a mere spectator, not actively involved.

You've been blamed for the financial collapse of several countries in the last two years. Are you really that powerful? There's a misunderstanding. My goal is to make money, and I don't consider the social consequences of my actions. As a competitor, I must focus on winning, but I do care about the society I live in. Which version of you are we discussing—the amoral or the moral George Soros? It's the same person. At times, I engage in amoral activities, but I also strive to be moral. You are a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust.

Speaker 0 argues that antisemitic violence and persecution have occurred in multiple places—“to the Jews,” in Spain, Germany, and that it “is happening” now and “going to happen in America”—unless “these people” begin “behaving,” claiming “they may be they have a death wish” and asserting this has been a problem “for centuries.” Speaker 1 responds by saying that, through the Bible, Jews have functioned as “God’s timepiece,” judged across generations and also used while keeping their identity. He claims the Bible distinguishes between two groups: one associated with “the remnant of God’s people” (which he says will be Jewish people) and another described as “the synagogue of Satan.” He states that in “the latter days” (which he says is “a thousand years,” as others call it), those in “the synagogue of Satan” are “energized by a supernatural power called the devil.” Speaker 1 adds that he believes this group has “a strange brilliance” and are “smart,” and that, in his view, they are “not inspired.” He says Hitler “didn’t” and references that this group had “a stranglehold on Germany,” including on “the banking of Germany” and “the media,” and that “this stranglehold has got to be broken or this country is going to go down the drain.” Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 then discuss political labeling and ideological constraints. Speaker 1 says people view “you” as conservative and claims that if one “leans a little bit” toward “the sociological thing,” the result is that “the whole thing will be closed” off, while stating he does not care how conservative someone is. He says he is “more conservative than you are,” but that he must “lean a little bit.” He describes meeting friends connected to the New York Times and people like Mr. Rosenthal, saying he knows some Jews are friendly to him because they know he is friendly to Israel, but they do not know “how I really feel” about what he says they are doing to the country. He concludes that he has “no power” to handle them, but would “stand up” if “under proper circumstances.”

As a Hungarian Jew, I escaped the Holocaust by pretending to be Christian. I witnessed many people being sent to death camps, which shaped my character and taught me to anticipate and understand events. Despite being involved in the confiscation of Jewish property, I didn't feel guilty or connected to the victims. I saw myself as a mere spectator, believing that someone else would have done it if I hadn't been there. Therefore, I had no sense of guilt.

The speaker believes that the financial system is the main problem, as it enslaves people through debt. They argue that the system is fraudulent and benefits a small group of individuals who control finance. They also claim that the system rewards immoral behavior and punishes those who operate on a higher level. The second speaker discusses the origins of communism and its connection to Zionism. They argue that communism, socialism, Marxism, and Zionism share the same roots and have a common goal of world domination. They also mention the Rothschild family's involvement in the financial system and their control over resources. The third speaker talks about the atrocities committed by the Jewish Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution and the subsequent communist regime. They describe the mass killings, famines, and forced labor camps that resulted in the deaths of millions of people. They argue that communism was created by the bankers to enslave the masses.

In this video, Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are responsible for the financial collapses in several countries. Speaker 1 admits to being involved in all of them but clarifies that they are only focused on making money and don't consider the social consequences. Speaker 0 then questions which version of George Soros they are speaking to, the amoral or moral one. Speaker 1 explains that they are one person who sometimes engages in amoral activities but tries to be moral most of the time.

George Soros, a billionaire philanthropist and investor, discusses his controversial role in global finance. He acknowledges his involvement in the confiscation of property from Jews during World War II but claims he felt no guilt. Soros believes in the need for regulation in the financial industry, even though his own hedge fund operates offshore to avoid regulation. He acknowledges that his actions can have unintended negative consequences, such as the financial collapse in Russia. Despite accusations of being a criminal and having too much power, Soros is committed to using his wealth to make a positive impact, funding projects in areas like healthcare and education. He sees himself as both a capitalist and a philanthropist, striving to balance his personal success with societal concerns.

Speaker 1 asserts that Hitler was the aggressor of World War II, beginning the war by driving east with the intention of destroying communist Russia. He states that Britain intervened and declared war to prevent Hitler from achieving that objective, and as a result, Britain “today” has to maneuver back and forth between America and Russia. He claims that Britain has “lost the empire,” that 25,000,000 Europeans were killed, and that he is proud to have done his utmost to stop what he describes as a suicidal war that “has destroyed Great Britain.” Speaker 0 acknowledges this sequence and asks for the precise words spoken in 1939, requesting to know what Speaker 1 claimed at that time, specifically referencing the assertion that the conflict was “simply a Jewish financier's quarrel.”

In this video, a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust shares his experience. He explains that witnessing the deportation of his friends and neighbors had a profound impact on him. He also admits to assisting in the confiscation of property from Jews, but claims it didn't create any guilt or remorse. He rationalizes his actions by saying that if he wasn't involved, someone else would have done it. He compares it to being a spectator in a market where property is taken away. Overall, he reflects on the personal experience of evil during that time.

The transcript captures a short, informal discussion about Donald Trump’s handling of the Epstein files and the broader question of whether presidents protect rich and powerful people at the expense of victims in sex-crime cases. The dialogue unfolds between Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, with a recent history/politics flavor and an on-the-record moment later in the exchange. Speaker 0 begins by asking Speaker 1 how Trump fought to avoid releasing the Epstein files, noting that Trump initially indicated a release but then reversed course. Speaker 1 responds noncommittally, suggesting that Trump “probably” had friends who were involved and that Trump “saved them” from trouble. The question is framed as whether this constitutes presidential conduct—protecting powerful people rather than victims. Speaker 0 presses further, asking if protecting rich and powerful people over sex-crime victims is appropriate for a president, and whether such behavior is common in presidential history. Speaker 1 counters by pointing to historical examples, stating that many presidents have favored their friends and families, adding that while JFK’s affairs were noted, he claims Kennedy “got caught,” implying possible crimes. Speaker 0 acknowledges Kennedy’s infidelity but questions whether there were crimes, while Speaker 1 reiterates the point that Kennedy “got caught,” and asserts that such behavior is not becoming of a United States president. The conversation shifts toward evaluating current leadership: Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 agrees with Trump’s protection of powerful individuals at the expense of crime victims. Speaker 1 answers, “All depends on who the powerful people are,” suggesting a conditional view rather than a blanket condemnation or approval. The discussion then veers to the expectation that a president should serve all Americans, not just the wealthy, and Speaker 0 reiterates the moral question. Speaker 1, initially evasive about personal details, asserts that they are a state representative and holds a badge, claiming to work for their country. The exchange ends with a sense of irony in the narrator’s commentary: the “moral of the story” being that it’s acceptable for Donald Trump to protect rich and powerful men because he himself is rich and powerful, effectively equating protection of the powerful with personal parity. Overall, the transcript presents a back-and-forth debate about why presidents might shield powerful individuals, how historical precedents factor into current judgments, and whether leadership should be equally accountable to all segments of society, ending with a skeptical, wrap-up sentiment about the perceived fairness of such protections.

In this video, Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are responsible for the financial collapses in various countries. Speaker 1 admits to being blamed for those collapses but denies having that much power. Speaker 0 mentions that the prime minister of Malaysia accused Speaker 1 of hindering the region's economic progress. Speaker 1 acknowledges being blamed for everything but clarifies that their main goal is to make money, without considering the social consequences. Lastly, Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they believe in God, to which Speaker 1 responds with a simple "No."

The speaker asserts that the Jewish mob is the most dangerous and evil criminal outfit on Earth, claiming there is extensive Hollywood representation of evil Italian mobsters and Catholic Church figures who welcome and shield them, and stating that the Jewish mob is responsible for the worst human rights crime in the world: the white slavery trafficking of millions of young women. The speaker says this trafficking is dominated completely by Jews, not Italians, and that tens of millions of women have suffered degradation, drug addiction, physical abuse, or loss of life. A hypothetical scenario is used to illustrate the harm, imagining a daughter or sister subjected to such defilement. An article dated 01/11/1998 is cited from “our foundation” in Israel, recounting the experience of a 21-year-old woman from Ukraine who moved to Israel and was led to a brothel, where her passport was burned and she was told she would be worked until she earned her way out, with threats of arrest and the claim that she had no papers and didn’t speak Hebrew. A quoted Israeli white slave master named Jacob Golan is cited: “the women who work there, like nearly all prostitutes in Israel, are Russian. Their boss is not. Israelis love Russian girls,” and comments about blond Russian girls and a past relationship. The speaker imagines a headline such as “Jewish Slave Traders Lure European Women” and contrasts it with “Mafia Slave Traders Lure Women,” arguing Mafia would be Italian-centered. The speaker then shifts to political and financial crime, mentioning in America that the biggest thieves in history included Madoff, Michael Milken, Ervin Boskey, and Wall Street swindlers, who allegedly received punishments equal to stealing a pack of gum. Mark Rich is named for theft of hundreds of millions and a pardon while a fugitive. The speaker contends that Jewish influence in politics led to favorable outcomes for these figures, including pardons. In the twenty-first century, the speaker claims Bernie Madoff stole from the world and faced criticism mainly for stealing from fellow Jews, citing Forbes Magazine’s list of top Russian oligarchs as involved in murder, extortion, and embezzlement, who have been prosecuted but sheltered abroad by influential media and men. The speaker references Goldman Sachs, Mr. Blankfein and Mr. Kahn, and larger robberies of the Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen. The Fed allegedly stole over 20 trillion dollars from the public and bailouts of international banks are described as crimes. The speaker attributes the promotion of drug abuse to Hollywood’s influence and accuses the Hollywood industry of enabling drug and alcohol abuse among “our people.” The speaker proclaims exposing media lies and promises deeper analysis, suggesting a small 5% effort can affect 90% of people. The audience is told why they may not have heard of “Wiki Meets cable” and why the same media censors information about alleged criminal leadership, while also accusing the ADL of criticizing the speaker. The speaker pledges to continue speaking and asks for financial support to fight for the future of listeners and their children.

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.