TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 weave a dual-themed argument that identifies Rome with Edom and portrays a stark, apocalyptic conflict between Israel and the nations, particularly Christianity. They claim that the Romans identified with Edom are the evil kingdom in the Talmud and that Edom’s deviousness must end. They insist that “the Romans who are identified with Edom… whenever we see evil kingdom in the Talmud is always Rome,” and they repeatedly connect Edom to Amalek as “the grandson of Asav of Edom.” They state that Edom, Rome, and Amalek are essentially the same core force and that this force will be destroyed, with its memory removed from existence at the end of time. They argue that Israel holds a unique, exclusive position: “everything in creation from beginning to end is all about Israel. And it’s all for Israel. We have the Torah which was given to us from heaven and it will be in our hands for eternity.” They declare that “that’s only us” and that “the nations” are not in this plan. God, they assert, “put his name in us” and “revealed himself to the world through us,” calling Israel God’s firstborn son. They claim Christianity and Israel can never coexist, because they are opposites: “There can never be two on top. Only one.” They illustrate this with hand motions, describing one as up and one as down, and compare Catholic rhetoric as a mirror opposite to their own. Speaker 1 adds that the end-time plan involves the destruction of Edom and the false messiah, followed by the appearance of the true messiah, with Messiah ben David gathering the exiles and a third temple being built only after Edom’s fall and the false messiah’s exposure. They connect the end of Edom to the rise of Israel and to Jerusalem being built “properly.” They identify Satan as the archangel for Edom and describe Israel as rising “when Edom and the false messiah” are defeated. There is extensive apocalyptic projection: the world will turn against Israel via the Gog and Magog framework; all 70 nations will oppose Israel; Amalek and Ishmael are fused into broader conflicts between Ishmael, Edom, Christians, and Muslims. They describe Edom’s destruction as the destruction of Western civilization—Europe and the United States—as precursors to a messianic age. They claim that “the whole world’s destruction” will occur, with wars invoked by the “two-part plan” to remove idols and to force a convergence of Jewish law with end-time prophecy. Speaker 3 contributes historical-war context, noting that wars have historically led to the collapse of nations, and that World War II is cited in their framework as part of a longer arc toward a third world war that begins with Halta Deguila (redemption) and becomes the redemption when the Edomites are destroyed. They predict that major future wars will pit Ishmael against Edom and Muslims against Christians, and they recount how the Midrash portrays events culminating in Edom’s destruction before Mashiach’s arrival. Overall, the dialogue centers on a binary cosmic struggle: Israel’s divine exclusivity versus Edom’s (Rome’s) doom, with the end-times script predicting universal opposition to Israel, the downfall of Western powers, and the eventual assembling of a messianic order after the fall of the false messiah.

There is a distinction in the Bible between two groups of Jews: the synagogue of Satan and the remnant of God's people. The former is believed to be energized by supernatural power, while the latter represents the true Jewish people. The speaker believes in this biblical teaching and admires the intelligence of the synagogue of Satan. They also mention Hitler's failure to break their stranglehold on Germany. The speaker warns that if this stranglehold is not broken, the country will suffer.

The speaker states that Jews should be gotten rid of in every country. The other person immediately stops the speaker and states that they are Jewish.

In a heated exchange, Speaker 0 vents frustration at a man and his friends, saying: "I hope that one day you stand up from the bathroom mirror and shoo yourself in the face. In front of who? In front of your bathroom mirror. And then you're gonna go and stand with your God and have to answer for what you believe. And the damage that You wanna stand in front of? Your mirror will get your face and shoot yourself. You are gonna stand in front of God." He adds: "Okay. You and I both say you're a Christian. I am a believer in God. But not a Christian. I'm Jewish." Speaker 1 responds: "Everybody is Jewish. Oh, I did on the third." Speaker 0 retorts: "As soon as I said Jewish, there it is. Crappy Jewish."

Speaker 0 discusses how Hitler and the Nazis were fueled by old antisemitism, describing it as "old goblin like antisemitism" and referencing the trope of the "hook nosed Jew controlling everything." Speaker 1 notes that this perspective appears in Hitler, mentioning confrontations over the phone and the expression "you Jew." Speaker 0 agrees, calling the "strong Aryan white and the sniveling weak Jew" a clear framing in Hitler’s messaging. Speaker 1 adds that there is definitely a throwback element to Hitler’s antisemitism, and Speaker 0 asks if that is just a throwback. They acknowledge another side: Hitler was angry at the leftiness of American Jewry and at progressiveness, including the LGBT movement, which they say Jews have led, and at Hollywood, which they claim has sown immorality. They state that Jews bring certain things, and then shift to a political self-description: "the truth is, the real truth is, you and I were red if we were states, we're red state guys," aligning with bible, family, nationalism, and defense as core values. Speaker 0 asserts that Jews have a strong blue streak in America, bluer than red, and that progressive organizations are led by Jews or have Jewish money, with Soros having a huge impact on the world and on the American agenda. They claim that denying these realities is an argument to be made, and they observe that Hitler made the same argument, being very concerned about communism and recognizing that Jews were the leaders of the communist movement and had taken over the Soviet Union. Overall, the discussion juxtaposes Hitler’s old antisemitic tropes with contemporary claims about Jewish influence in progressive politics, media (Hollywood), and philanthropy (Soros), while linking these ideas to broader political identities and concerns about communism.

The speaker questions the origin of the Star of David and explains that it is actually the seal of Solomon. They mention that Jews in the time of Jesus would not have recognized this symbol, and it only became associated with Judaism in the 1600s. In the Bible, it is mentioned as a symbol of a false god, not something prescribed by God. The other speaker asserts that the Star of David is a satanic symbol because they believe Judaism is a satanic religion.

Speaker 0 believes "they" don't share the same beliefs "as we believe in" and dislike things like "reader's diagette," preferring "pornographic stuff." Speaker 1 mentions being invited to lunch with Time magazine editors, a first since Henry Luce. Speaker 0 says "they" control the media, unrelated to antisemitism. Speaker 1 agrees "they're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff." Speaker 1 references the Bible's distinction between "the synagogue of Satan" and "the remnant of God's people," claiming the former are energized by supernatural power. Speaker 1 believes "they" possess a "strange brilliance" and recalls Hitler's time, stating "they" had a "stranglehold" on Germany's banking, media, and everything else. Speaker 1 asserts this "stranglehold" must be broken to save the country. Speaker 0 agrees but feels unable to say it. Speaker 1 suggests a second term could enable action.

The conversation centers on accusations about wrongdoing in the music industry and the role of Jewish people in media. Speaker 0 says that all the people who hurt you in the music industry are individuals and are not Jews, insisting they are human with opportunities who took them. Speaker 1 counters by saying that those individuals are Jewish, and notes that eight people who “would collude and talk without me” were in groups, implying organizational involvement. They discuss the idea of “Jewish control of the media.” Speaker 0 argues that it’s not correct to say there’s Jewish control of the media or that there is “Jewish media,” and pushes to call out individuals by name rather than labeling them by their Jewish identity. Speaker 1 maintains that there is a Jewish presence involved, stating, “I'm calling the industry out” and emphasizing that his lawyer, regulator, and others were Jewish, though he also acknowledges groups colluding without him. Speaker 0 challenges the framing, saying there is no Jewish media or Jewish control of the media, and questions the framing of “Jewish media” or “Jewish record label.” Speaker 1 presses on, insisting that there is a pattern of Jewish involvement in roles that facilitate wrongdoing, describing it as an engineering of the system by Jewish people, and saying, “If you're an engineer and you're not holding to the truth, that's not engineering.” The dialogue shifts to a call for naming individuals rather than Jews, suggesting, “Don’t call them Jews, call them by their name and start a war against those individuals.” Speaker 0 concedes frustration with those who “get fucked over in the music industry and in the media,” and asserts that Jewish people have suffered even in history, referencing the Soviet Union and the Holocaust, and implying that the suffering of Jews should be acknowledged. The exchange touches on the appropriateness of discussing Jewish identity in this context. Speaker 1 asks if it’s permissible to say “Jewish” aloud, while Speaker 0 questions whether saying “Jewish media” equates to anti-Semitism. The conversation ends with a concern about whether it is acceptable to say “Jewish” or “Jewish media” or “Jewish controlled media,” and they reference the term “JM” as a shorthand for their discussion. Key themes: disagreement over whether Jewish people control media, insistence on naming individuals rather than labeling groups by ethnicity or religion, the impact of industry practices on artists, and a confrontation over the boundaries of discussing Jewish involvement without becoming antisemitic.

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

The speaker discusses allegations about Jews, such as the myth of a world Jewish conspiracy or Jews controlling media, government, and other institutions. They mention that these claims are considered anti-Semitic. Speaker 1 asks if it's anti-Semitic to mention having Jewish connections, to which Speaker 0 responds with a list of companies and organizations, implying that many of them are Jewish-owned or influenced. Speaker 1 points out that the speaker has faced backlash and lost endorsements for their statements. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 listing more companies, some of which they believe are Jewish-owned.

- Speaker 0, John, announces: “A Muslim shooter out of Bondi Beach is apprehended by another Muslim. Could it be a false flag? Of course not. That would be crazy.” He hands off to Jessica. - Jessica reports: “The shooting took place at a Hanukkah celebration on Sunday, leaving 15 people dead. However, there was one lucky chosen person who survived not only October 7, but also a bullet grazing his head.” - Speaker 2 (unnamed in this excerpt) says: “I survived October 7. I lived in Israel the last thirteen years. We came here only two weeks ago to work with a Jewish community to fight anti Semitism, to fight this bloodthirsty, ravaging hatred. That’s why you’re here. That’s why I’m here.” - Speaker 3 quips: “Wow, who bandages a wound without cleaning it?” Speaker 4 replies: “Nobody, but it’s better theatrics that way after all. He is the chosen victim.” - Inside the hospital, Speaker 3 describes the chosen victim being treated for a bullet to the head, “turns out it’s just stage blood, corn syrup. You guys actually fell for that? Ridiculous. Oy, Ve, please don’t air this.” - Speaker 3 then identifies the “chosen victim” as “the president of the Australian Jewish Council and moved there two weeks ago.” Another speaker, Speaker 4, retorts: “Thanks, Ching Chong. I’m pretty sure Satan told him this would happen.” - The discussion continues with insinuations: “Right. Perfect way to take their guns too.” “I’m like 90% sure he was in the IDF.” “Every single time.” - Speaker 5 argues: “Your call for a Palestinian state pures full fuel on the antisemitic fire. It rewards Hamas terrorism. It emboldens those who menace Australian Jews and encourages the Jew hatred now stalking your streets. Antisemitism is a cancer.” - Speaker 3 responds: “Thanks, Satan. Blame the sand people. Am I right? Exactly. Let's all just forget about the fake weapons of mass destruction and genocide you committed.” - Speaker 5 adds: “This is the punishment that God gave us. We killed the Jews. We got instead of the Jews that were very good for us, we got these Muslim refugees from all over the world who destroying us, and the Christians cannot even celebrate Christmas now.” - Speaker 4 comments: “Holy victim. I don’t really trust people who only talk about what happened to them.” Speaker 3 counters: “But never what they did to anyone else. Right? That’s called accountability.” - Speaker 0 interjects: “Seriously, let's start with the 60,000,000 Christians in Russia they slaughtered.” Speaker 3: “Don’t get me started about the Rothschilds and nine eleven.” Speaker 4 supplies: “Let’s see what our investigation team thinks.” - Speaker 4 notes: “So official story says investigators found an ISIS flag in his car, which makes you think, why do they never attack Israel? Eric Warsaw, break it down for us. Israel actually admitted to funding and giving small arms to ISIS affiliated groups, and people still refused to see his controlled opposition.” - Speaker 3 asks: “What do you think of what happened today?” Speaker 4 responds: “Absolute tragedy, but I saw that Navid Akram was trending in Israel just days before.” - Speaker 2 signs off with thanks, and Speaker 3 introduces: “And this is the hero who risked everything, but the media refuses to talk about it. His name is Ahmed El Ahmed, which is obviously very sandy, so let's go ahead and change subjects.”

The speakers discuss the ethnic and religious backgrounds of individuals involved in technocracy, Palantir, and crypto, with a focus on Jewish people. One speaker accuses the other of deflecting from the "actual problem" by not acknowledging the role of Jewish individuals in these areas and in what they claim is the oppression of white and Black people. They claim that Jewish people control media, academia, and politics, fund anti-white policies, and benefit disproportionately from the current system. The speaker questions why Black people are unaware of these alleged facts. The other speaker denies downplaying the role of Jewish people, but is challenged for only having one post mentioning Jewish people. The first speaker accuses the second of lying or being subversive for not acknowledging a "common problem."

The speaker believes Jewish people did something to the Germans, causing them to act a certain way, and that Jewish people don't want to take accountability. They claim Jewish people were "up to something," so the Germans wanted to "take them out." The speaker says Jewish people are selfish and started something that made everyone mad. They believe the Holocaust was the only way to eliminate a large Jewish population. The speaker alleges Jewish people are trying to take back and get repercussions, especially from America, and are taking over the government. The speaker asks how to take Jewish people down, suggesting they should be killed. They say Hitler had a plan to save the world, but it was too gruesome and didn't work out. The speaker claims Jewish people are the reason the healthcare system and the government are collapsing because they are stealing from the American people.

Speaker 0 claims that various texts refer to negative depictions of Jesus and non-Jews. Specifically, text "Four seven one three" refers to Jesus as a fornicator, Gittin 56 states Jesus is burning in hell, and Shabbat one zero four b says Mary was a baba nessiah. Additionally, Baba Messiah 24 a allegedly states a Jew doesn't have to return a lost object to a gentile, Yebimath 98 a claims all children of goyim are animals, Tuspoth, Geminiath 84 b equates eating with a goy to eating with a dog, and Baba Messiah one fourteen b asserts gentiles are not humans but beasts. Speaker 1 states that these are legitimate verses in Judaism. Speaker 1 believes that Paul said in the New Testament that we must bless the Jews.

Speaker 0 states that "they" don't believe in the same things and find certain values corny, preferring "pornographic stuff." Speaker 1 mentions an invitation from Time magazine for lunch with their editors. Speaker 0 says Mrs. Megger supports him because Democratic candidates will cater to the "domestic Jewish folk." Speaker 1 claims "they" are putting out pornographic material. He says the Bible distinguishes between two groups of Jews: the "synagogue of Satan" and the "remnant of God's people." He believes the "synagogue of Satan" is energized by supernatural power and possesses a strange brilliance. He asserts that "they" had a stranglehold on Germany's banking, media, and everything else, and that this stranglehold must be broken to save the country. Speaker 0 agrees but feels he cannot say it publicly. Speaker 1 suggests that Speaker 0 might be able to achieve a second term.

Speaker 0 presents the view that great academies of the rabbis were established, thousands of new laws formulated, and that the Pharisees who killed Jesus Christ remained the rulers of Judaism. He asserts that in Babylon the Pharisees codified oral traditions into the Babylonian Talmud, which he claims reveals Israel’s apostasy and supports Christ’s descriptions of the Pharisees as hypocritical and malignant. He cites a Talmud passage in Treatise Sanhedrin claiming a Pharisee may kill indirectly, giving an example where binding a neighbor leads to starvation and liability is avoided. He contends the Pharisees manipulated Romans to kill Christ, arguing Romans were the direct cause of Christ’s death but the Pharisees claimed Romans as the guilty party. He states Christ called Pharisees adulterers and that the Talmud provides “loopholes” for adultery, providing examples such as exceptions for sex with a minor or a heathen’s wife, and endorses seduction of unwed adolescent girls described as designated bond maids. He emphasizes death penalties differ for natural versus perverse sexual acts, alleging that rape in a perverted form falls outside legal jurisdiction, and claims sexual perversion was a long-standing practice in Babylon. Speaker 1 continues by noting three major Talmudic treatises contain passages endorsing the seduction and marriage of three-year-old girls, with Simeon Ben Yohai among prominent rabbis upholding this privilege. He states that in Israel today, many venerate Simeon Ben Yohai. He quotes Simeon Ben Yohai and the great Raba approving intercourse with a little girl under three years and a day, comparing virginity to tears returning to a little girl, and asserts the same section covers sexual activity with small boys. He adds that the Good Samaritan story portrays Pharisees as racial bigots, unwilling to respond to a non-Jew’s suffering. He notes that God’s command to the Canaanites was harsh and that by New Testament times, separation and the sword had become obsolete, with God no longer making racial distinctions. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss Gentile status in the Talmud and Jewish encyclopedias, claiming the Talmud’s critical attitudes toward Gentiles, including that Gentiles are not men but barbarians, lack legal rights, and that a Gentile’s suit in Jewish courts favors the defendant if the plaintiff is Jewish. They claim Christians are curses within the Talmudic framework, that Jesus is portrayed as a bastard, and that Gentiles face death for Sabbath observance or for providing testimony in a Jewish court. They assert that the Talmud equips Jews with an ethic fostering bigotry, isolation, and persecution, leading to the expulsion of Jews from Babylon to the West by the eleventh century. Speaker 2 reframes as a positive counterpoint: the tradition of Talmudic questioning, continuous inquiry, and a culture of learning that never ends, which exploded when the walls of the ghetto fell, and remains part of contemporary Jewish culture. Speaker 3 declares solidarity with Israel, insisting “Israel’s fight is our fight,” vowing unity and resistance to anti-Semitism, and asserting they will not be discouraged, defeated, or silent. Speaker 4 interjects with a hostile confrontation, expressing willingness to “kill Christ again,” accusing Jews of killing Jesus, and making violent threats toward a pastor and others; a rabbi’s circumcision practice is described graphically as supportive of Talmudic Judaism, followed by a denunciation aimed at Christian Zionists.

Speaker 0 argues that individuals, not Jewish people, are responsible for wrongdoing in the music industry and media. Speaker 1 disagrees, asserting that Jewish people control the media and that it is not antisemitic to say so. Speaker 0 insists on addressing individuals by name rather than generalizing about Jewish people, referencing Nazi Germany and the suffering of Jewish people. Speaker 1 asks if using the term "JM" is acceptable or antisemitic.

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 speakers discuss media influence, with one claiming the media is controlled by a "solid block of people." They differentiate between Israeli Jews, whom they consider the "best," and other Jews. One speaker asserts that a Democrat paid the communists and Russians. One speaker references a distinction in the Bible between the "synagogue of Satan" and the "remnant of God's people," attributing religious deceptions to the former, who they believe are energized by supernatural power. They claim this group had a "stranglehold" on Germany's banking and everything else and that this stranglehold must be broken in the U.S. or the country will go down the drain.

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."

Speaker 0 opens with a provocative claim: “Fucked up the world is. That's a form of insanity.” The remark sets a mood of frustration and chaos. Speaker 1 then shares a personal moment: after coming home, they wrote a poem about Robbie which they intend to give him. They describe a reaction where someone took away Robbie’s property and Robbie began to blame it on the Jews, adding antisemitic rhetoric as a result. This accusation is presented as a reaction to a loss of property, with antisemitism framed as a consequence. Speaker 2 counters by specifying: “Not someone. The government. US government.” They elaborate that “the government and the Jews are one and the same,” asserting an equivalence between the government and Jewish people. Speaker 1 questions this claim, acknowledging it as “True true” and “Absolutely true. That’s never been—,” but the sentence trails as Speaker 2 presses the point: “Ask the Palestinians. The good Jews. Right? Why aren't the good Jews talking against the bad Jews? The so called good Jews out there.” Speaker 1 concedes that “There are. Very good people.” and “Wonderful people.” Yet Speaker 2 pushes back: “Why they talking” and then demands: “Why aren't the good Jews screaming against the bad Jews?” Speaker 1 suggests the reason is disagreement with the premise that there are “bad Jews,” implying that those who disagree are not such good Jews. Speaker 3 interjects with a stark comparison: “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.” They reference the New Testament story where the devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and offers them if Jesus bows down and worships, implying this is symbolic of control and obedience for worldly wealth. Speaker 3 continues: “This is basically saying you can have all the money in the world. Do what you want. If you just do what I tell you to.” They interpret this as symbolic of the Jew. They claim: “This is symbolic of the Jew,” and even assert that “the devil is based on the Jew” and that “old pictures of the devil” resemble a Jew. Across the exchange, the conversation cycles between attributing political and financial power to Jewish groups, questioning the morality of “good Jews” versus “bad Jews,” and then offering a provocative theological claim linking the devil to Jews as a source of cunning or worldly power.

The speaker believes Jewish people did something to the Germans, causing them to act a certain way, and that Jewish people don't want to take accountability. They claim Jewish people were "up to something," so the Germans wanted to "take them out" because they are selfish and started something. The speaker states the Holocaust was the only way to eliminate a large Jewish population at once. They believe Jewish people are trying to take back and get repercussions, especially from Americans, and are taking over the government. The speaker asks how to take them down, suggesting violence. They claim Hitler had a plan to save the world that was too gruesome, but he had to do what he had to do. The speaker concludes that Jewish people are the reason the healthcare system and government are collapsing because they are stealing from Americans.

Person 1: I asked to get clarity on the white supremacy concept. I'm half German, half Irish. We’ve talked where nobody believes the holo hoax stuff anymore. The more people read into it with masturbation machines, lampshades, piles of shoes, an honest assessment shows it’s lunacy. But who benefited most from the Holocaust? Jews and world Jewry. But who was the target of Holocaust? Hoaxers. Germany. Germany. White Europeans. No. Germany. So why have Americans been paying so much for Holocaust museums and restitution and memorial councils and support for Israel and for world Jewry? Why are there 700 NGOs for supporting Jews and giving money to Jews, and basically zero to support founding stock white European Americans. Literally zero Jews signed the Declaration of Independence or the constitution, and the constitution and declaration were both overwhelmingly signed by white Europeans. If you want to extend it, like the founding fathers that were Freemasons that were Kabbalist kind of Jews, then that’s not accurate. They weren’t Kabbalists. Freemasonry was created literally in 1843 funded by the Rothschilds for the purposes of subverting Freemasonry and rewriting the narrative around our Freemasonry founding fathers. George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Van Buren—absolutely correct. Absolutely wrong. If you’re talking about the free Masonic founding fathers, by extension, they’re Kabbalistic Jews anyway. Person 2: Ben Franklin in 1787 … there’s a hierarchy. Crypto Jews, John Kerry Cohen, for instance. He’s a free Masonic Jew as well. Kabbalistic believer and all that stuff. Trump likely is too. He’s a convert. And then you’ve got Freemasons that are secondary because it’s their pathway to be able to become official Shabbos scorer that get to enjoy the perks of all the Jewish crimes that they commit. B’nai B’rith actually did infiltrate the Free Masonic Lodges back in 1843, done by a bunch of German Jews in New York that started the first lodge, then gradually infiltrated the other lodges they didn’t control at that time. B’nai B’rith is actually one of the biggest global movements now; they’ve got over 5,000 of these Masonic houses and schools, etc., that they use for human trafficking. Charlotte, South Carolina is their headquarters. They’re everywhere; you don’t even know where all the homes are because they have so many of them. They’re rival with Khobod Lubovich, another massive movement with many pieces of real estate. They can be probably more powerful than the Vatican combined. I guess they run the Vatican. Person 3: But you understand I’m an anti-supremacist, right? You wanna tell me that you know, the white race, why can’t we have a white country, a white state? No one’s stopping you. Have your white ethnoidentarian state. Nobody cares. When you say they were persecuting the Germans, even after World War II, they killed over 11,000,000. If you believe Theodore Kaufman’s book, Germany must perish. They had Germany on the target list from the early medieval times. Do you recall how many Goy were killed in World War II? It’s like over 80,000,000 or so. They’re mostly whites, British or French, Russians. It’s mainly whites that were killed—Slavs, mainly Slavs. Slavs, but then Brits, French, others, whites were killed too. The point: they want whites fighting amongst each other, brother wars like World War I to wipe each other out and to restrict birth rates by pushing things like LGBTQ, hijacking kids to go through sex changes becoming infertile. It’s the same with the COVID vaccine, leading to sterility and reduced birth rates. So they are looking to kill, gradually reduce the white population. Person 1: Their biggest servants and slaves are white Christians. John Hagee, they’re a problem. I condemn them as well; they’re part of the problem. Since 1909, with the Schofield Bible, they’ve subverted Christians who would have viewed the Bible differently. The facts are the facts. We’re just slaves, manipulated. Take care of your own, don’t tell me you want a white utopia when you’re slaves, soldiers and slaves of Jewry. Albert, with what how the Jews have taken over with their institutions, their control of…

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 states that Jewish individuals own much of the media, fund politicians who demand reparations for the black community, and take the intellectual lead in combating initiatives proposed by the first group. Speaker 0 claims this results in black and white workers fighting each other while Jewish individuals profit and assume leadership. Speaker 1 agrees with Speaker 0, except for the claim that Jewish individuals profit. Speaker 1 believes Jewish leaders are doing what they think is correct. Speaker 1 states that Jewish individuals tend to take the intellectual lead in most movements. Speaker 0 claims that Jewish individuals create issues, and that the issue of reparations didn't exist until created by Jewish individuals. Speaker 1 is inclined to agree, and says Jewish individuals take the lead in civil rights generally. Speaker 0 claims they take the lead in opposing them, creating issues and dividing people.