reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Herman Rosenblatt told an extraordinary story of survival in Nazi concentration camps, including a renowned tale of being a hungry boy who was fed apples daily by a girl beyond the fence, and later meeting and proposing to her in New York. This narrative, which brought Herman and his wife Roma Rosenblatt wide attention—Oprah appearances, international headlines, a book deal, and a movie deal—turned out not to be true. Herman insisted during the interview that it was not a lie but imagination: “in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it… I believed it that she was there, and she threw the apple to me.” He maintained that the story was important to give people hope and to promote understanding about the Holocaust. Herman’s son disputed the motivation, claiming money was a factor and that his father lied for years. He said, “My father is a man who I don’t know,” and that his father knew he was lying. Herman rejected the charge of financial motive, saying he was not motivated by money, though the interview indicated his family’s skepticism about his intentions. The couple publicly promoted the story for more than a decade until Holocaust scholars recently proved it was physically impossible for prisoners to approach the fence at the camp where Herman was kept, and Roma’s family was actually more than 200 miles away at the time. When asked why Roma agreed to participate, Herman replied that she loves him and that if she thinks something is good for him, she’ll go along with it; she has not appeared on the show because “she’s too much going on.” Roma’s participation was difficult for her as well; she acknowledged it was challenging for her to tell a story she knew wasn’t true, but she did it out of love for Herman. Herman remained unapologetic about the years of deception, saying, “I pronounce my love for you forever,” and that he would tell the same story again if given the chance. He expressed that he is sorry people took the story the wrong way, although he did not retract the core claim that it was a fantasy world he lived in. The controversy affected a nonfiction memoir deal, which fell through, while a fictionalized book and a movie adaptation—produced or planned by Harris Solomon—were in progress, with shooting anticipated in Eastern Europe. Critics and Holocaust-denier websites were using the case to argue against the credibility of survivors, though Herman asserted the work was done with good intentions and that the public should know what he did in his imagination.

Speaker 0 expresses a view that the government is full of liars, accusing both sides of the political spectrum of dishonesty. The conversation then shifts to a provocative claim: "They insisted Hitler was bad and he was not. You don't think Hitler was bad? No. Not at all. There was no holocaust." This remark represents a stark reversal of widely accepted historical consensus, asserting that there was no Holocaust. The speaker describes a surprising personal justification for this belief, saying, "I've I've seen evidence. I my aunt Georgie was in a prison camp and she told me about it and there was no torture, there was no killing." The claim places emphasis on the anecdote of the speaker’s aunt, Georgie, who allegedly was "in a prison camp" and told the speaker about it, specifically asserting that "there was no torture" and "there was no murder." The speaker then elaborates that the aunt was "a Jew in in Germany," which adds a personal and ethnic dimension to the claim, suggesting that a Jewish person in Germany would have firsthand experience of the camp. In continuing, the speaker reiterates the assertion: "There was no torture. There was no murder." The description of the alleged camp life offered by the aunt includes contrasting details such as "films," "an orchestra," "movies," and "a soccer team," painting a picture of a benign environment within the context of a Nazi-prison setting. A further provocative assertion is included: "A Jew started the SS." This statement is presented as part of the aunt’s account or the speaker’s interpretation of the camp’s history, introducing a controversial claim about the origins of the Schutzstaffel. Overall, the speaker challenges the widely accepted historical record by claiming that Hitler was not bad, that there was no Holocaust, and that the aunt’s testimony describes a benign camp life with cultural and recreational elements, culminating in the assertion that a Jew started the SS. The dialogue thus presents a sequence of controversial statements grounded in the speaker’s belief based on an account from their aunt Georgie.

The speaker, a well-known author, questions the authenticity of historical events like the Holocaust and Hitler's diaries. He presents evidence from British archives suggesting that the gas chamber story was a propaganda campaign by the Allies during World War II. Documents reveal a deliberate effort by the British Psychological Warfare Executive to spread false information. Despite initial doubts, the speaker now firmly believes that the events at Auschwitz and other camps were fabricated. The manipulation of historical facts continues to impact public perception even decades later.

The speaker addresses rumors about the moon landing, stating "the moon landing was fake" and "the moon land moon landings all were fake," and claiming "I was the person" involved. "I'm serious. I'm dead serious." They declare "The conspiracy theorists were right on this on this occasion" and ask, "Why the hell if you're telling the truth, why would you do it? Why are you telling me?" They argue it is important "for people to know the truth," calling the event "a massive fraud, an unparalleled fraud perpetrated against them." They say "They should know" because people are "already suspicious of the government" and "they may as well have their suspicions confirmed." They add "Justified." Finally, they question "And this why now? I mean, we're almost at the thirty year anniversary. What what took so long?"

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 engage in a candid interview about why the interview is being conducted and a startling revelation connected to a long-term secret. Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 finally agreed to talk after multiple letters, and what motivates this interview. Speaker 1 explains that, at first, he was drawn to the opportunity and challenge of making the film, approaching it like any other production and not fully considering the long-term effects on society if it were ever discovered. He says he has always been conflicted about it, but did not realize that conflict until years later. The conversation moves to a provocative claim: the rumor about the fake moon landing. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 states plainly that the moon landings were fake, and that the rumors were true. This admission comes as a surprise to Speaker 0, who had only heard the rumor in general terms, not a definitive claim. Speaker 1 confirms the assertion and explains that this is the core of a fifteen-year secrecy. Speaker 0 questions how such a claim could be discussed or released, noting that they had planned to cover several of Speaker 1’s films, including Barry Lyndon, The Killing, Clockwork Orange, and what appears to be a reference to “mean,” and expressing curiosity about why this revelation would be disclosed to a relatively unknown interviewer rather than to a major outlet like CNN. Speaker 1 repeats that the rumors were true and clarifies the timing: the fifteen-year period is connected to the disclosure. Speaker 0 then connects the fifteen-year delay to a potential “time release” of a major secret, suggesting that Speaker 1 is using the interviewer to conceal and eventually reveal this information on a scheduled timeline. Speaker 1 closes with a mention of his upcoming film Eyes Wide Shut, implying a link between the secret and his forthcoming project. The dialogue centers on the tension between making films, the societal impact of their content, and the strategic management of a years-long, high-stakes revelation.

As a child, I questioned why the Germans committed atrocities during the Holocaust. The speaker believes the truth is hidden and suggests researching Benjamin Friedman's 1961 speech. They claim that Zionist Jews influenced World War I, leading to Germany's defeat and economic hardships. The speaker argues that Zionists prioritize establishing Israel over helping Jews during World War II. They draw parallels between historical events and current conflicts in Gaza, urging Jewish people to speak out against Zionism's actions. The speaker emphasizes the need for mass Jewish opposition to prevent further harm.

Speaker 0 argues that in Germany no one knows where the 6,000,000 Jews were killed, claiming that although people acknowledge it as “the most terrible crime that ever had happened in history,” the exact place of the killings is unknown and cannot be a real fact. He says he asked every possible source—institutes, the center of the Jews in Germany, judges and others—but received no answer within five years. After questioning all groups in the Bundesrepublik, he told the Minister for Justice that open discussion about where it happened should be arranged, but he received no response from the minister or from anyone else. Because there was no answer, he concludes that the Holocaust did not exist, and he states his intention to publish this on the Internet. He waited for about three or four weeks, then he wrote on the Internet that the Holocaust didn’t exist, providing all the examples of what he had done to find it out, but nothing happened. Two and a half months later, he says he is “quite convinced now” and tells everyone that “this biggest crime didn’t happen because there was no place where it took place.” He argues that “now everybody who has been charged or even put into prison because he had denied the Holocaust”—there are hundreds in Germany who suffered such punishment—“that now they all must be how is it?”

Two sources for Holocaust stories are claimed: coerced Nazi officials and Jewish survivors. The transcript enumerates sensational testimonies including gassings, torture, and bizarre acts—describing a “Tango of Death” and other gruesome scenes. It highlights Herman Rosenblatt’s apple-story, a widely publicized tale later shown to be false; he insists, “It wasn’t a lie… it was my imagination.” Other fabrications are cited: Mitig Grocer’s Sweden talks plagiarized from Mila 18; Josef Hurt fabricating Auschwitz escape; Misha DeFunsheca’s memoir found fabricated; Elie Wiesel accused by Miklos Gruner of being an impostor; Gruner disputes Wiesel’s tattoo claim and his Auschwitz identity. The text also references scientists disputing gas chambers, Auschwitz’s physical conditions, and critics arguing the Holocaust narrative is exaggerated or false, including Gerrard Menounin and Norman Fiegelsang.

The discussion centers on stress, guilt, and conflict. "Is that why you look a little haggard right now? Because you look a little worn. No offense." "I've been drinking a lot, but Is that because of the stress of this?" "Of course, stress, guilt, just conflict of all kinds." "I do feel bad about it. I also feel proud of it." "It's a terrible conflict. Because you've pulled off one of the greatest hoaxes ever because of your And because I made a film, if you wanna call it a film, which I considered to be my masterpiece." "And you can't take credit or even talk about it as if as if Well, I'm here you are now. I'm hereby taking service. Right." "But you can't actually go out. You're doing when people see this"

I come from a prominent Jewish family, focused on truth and the piano. I've studied the Holocaust for years and believe it's a lie due to math. The number of Jews in Europe doesn't match the reported deaths. I reject propaganda and value truth over wealth.

Now let me make quite plain so there's no misunderstandings. I'm not challenging the holocaust. I'm not challenging any of the central core stories of the of the holocaust. There was a huge tragedy of some kind or other. I do challenge however the version which had been so glibly presented that Adolf Hitler himself ordered it.

The speaker, a well-known author, discusses his shift from believing in the Holocaust to considering it a hoax. He reveals uncovering evidence in British archives suggesting the gas chamber story was a propaganda campaign by the Allies. Documents show the British Psychological Warfare Executive initiated the gas chamber narrative to divert attention from Soviet war crimes. The chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee expressed concerns about the lie being exposed in 1944. The speaker questions the truth of Auschwitz and other atrocities, emphasizing the ongoing impact of wartime propaganda. Translation: The speaker, a famous author, talks about changing his beliefs from the Holocaust to a hoax. Evidence from British archives suggests the gas chamber story was Allied propaganda to cover up Soviet war crimes. The chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee expressed worries about the lie being exposed in 1944. The speaker doubts the truth of Auschwitz and other atrocities, highlighting the lasting effects of wartime propaganda.

I survived Auschwitz at 13, the sole survivor in my family. We were close to the gas chambers, smelling the burning bodies. The Holocaust is profitable, with Germany paying over $200 billion to Jews. Some receive $1,000 monthly. Few know Jewish ships brought slaves to America.

The speaker claims that lie is the Jewish method and that people are fooled because they cannot believe Jews could tell a big lie. He asserts this is one of the biggest lies and presents a document as proof. He says that before starting his movement, he did not want any part of a movement that would involve killing innocent women and children, and that he dislikes bullying by Nazis or anyone else. He describes a test he conducted about the 6,000,000 Jews figure often cited, alongside the claim of violin music and tears over the Jews, and notes that we never hear about 20,000,000 Christians. He recounts that before beginning the movement, he wrote an article for magazines that he believes contained the vilest lies about Nazis using women in human medical experiments, and he sent it to SIR magazine. He even provides the magazine and a check for $75, along with the article titled “When the Nazis Tried Human Vivisection” by Master Sergeant Lew Core, U.S. Marine Corps. He states that Lew Core is Rockwell spelled backwards. According to him, he wrote the most atrocious lies he could think of about how these women were tortured by Nazi criminals, and he claims that Jewish “great truth tellers” published photographs of tortured women and ovens as documentary photographs of his fabricated claims, though he says they did not know at the time. He asserts this is evidence that atrocity and lying propaganda are repeated. He asks the audience to consider Meyer Levin, who sued the family of Anne Frank in the state courts of New York, asserting that Levin collected a substantial sum (he mentions “I don’t know, was a 100,000 of dollars or something”) for writing the diary of Anne Frank. He says this is what he found out, time after time, and that he could continue with example after example of lies told to the public, if he had the rest of the night. He concludes by saying the audience believes these things because they have no reason to know that there is another side.

Speaker 0 admits being paid to say things in front of cameras, regrets supporting abortion, and reveals it was all an act. Speaker 1 acknowledges unethical behavior towards Speaker 0 and questions if Speaker 0 was playing them. The truth is revealed.

The session centers on an interview conducted by Steve (Barnet Police) with Alyssa, a nine-year-old girl whose full name is Alyssa Grace Gareva Dearman. Cleo is present as the controller, and a later portion involves Carl monitoring the session via a computer. The conversation oscillates between eliciting Alyssa’s memories about alleged abuse and the ongoing process of verifying what is true, what was suggested or coached, and what may have been invented or misremembered under pressure. Key participants and roles - Steve: police interviewer, explaining rules and guiding the interview. - Cleo: the facilitator of the session, taking notes and asking questions. - Alyssa (Grace): the child providing the account of alleged abuse and related details. - Abraham: a central adult figure in Alyssa’s narrative who allegedly manipulated, coerced, and abused her and her brother. - Mister Hollings, Miss Martin (headmistress), Mister Morris (the caretaker), and other school/church staff appear as part of a purported network in Alyssa’s accounts. - Papa Hemp: a man Alyssa says is a figure who sometimes presents himself as a paternal relation but whom Alyssa later criticizes. Structure and rules of the interview - The interview begins with introductions and setting: Alyssa’s full name, age, and preferred name. The purpose is to gather detailed recollections of events Alyssa remembers from a period when she wasn’t present (described as events around a Barnet/Barnett area, with a hospital/clinic context in some parts). - Rules emphasized: tell the truth, don’t guess, if you don’t know say so, and if you don’t understand a question ask for it to be rephrased. The interviewer explains that even the interviewer may seek clarification and that there will be an emphasis on exact language, including the use of rude words if necessary to convey what happened. - Alyssa is encouraged to be precise, to speak in detail about what she recalls, and to distinguish truth from lies, with a simple example about who drew a picture to illustrate truth vs. lie. Summary of Alyssa’s detailed accounts (with notable shifts and clarifications) - Family and living situation: - Alyssa lives with her mother (Ella Draper) on 5 Patterson Road, near Christchurch Primary School. Her older brother Gabriel is her sibling, and James is a half-brother who visits but does not live with them. Alyssa also mentions a “Papa Hemp” (Abraham) who lives with them at times, and a nanny, Galina (Galia), who helps with care. - Alyssa states that her father is Ricky, who she sees daily in some contexts while at school; she describes him as frequently present, particularly “at the school” and during other times. She indicates that her father sometimes lies to her mother about visitation; she reports that Ricky visits them daily at times and sometimes claims different visitation schedules. - School and routine: - Alyssa describes Christchurch Primary School and a campus layout that includes infant and junior sections, a staff room, a front office, and a kitchen/canteen area. She mentions a cafeteria/canteen kitchen and describes a door to a staff room where “they do sex” (her phrasing) as part of alleged abuse. - She recounts a specific alleged ritual where a secret room and a hidden wardrobe in a dining room lead to a concealed staircase to an underground area with cupboards. She asserts that in this secret basement, staff and Abraham perform abuse and murder. She mentions that the headmistress (Miss Martin) and another administrator ( Mister Hollings) are involved. - The church and “secret rooms” narrative: - The church adjacent to their school is portrayed as a facility where skulls are danced with during ceremonies. Alyssa describes two nurseries within the church complex, one of which contains a kitchen and a “big white bowl” and a “silver goblet” for collecting blood. She claims skulls are kept in a cupboard in the church, and that staff and parents are involved in ritual activities. - She describes a hidden passage in the church that leads to a secret underground room with cupboards, including weapons (cleavers and knives) and tools used in ritual activities. She indicates that the headmistress, the priest, and Abraham have access to these areas, and that staff have keys to the secret rooms. - Alyssa explains a hierarchy in which secrets are kept; staff have access via keys, and the headmistress exercises control over access to the cupboards and the skulls. - The alleged murder/abuse rituals: - Alyssa details alleged acts including tying a baby by the legs, head removal, blood collection into a bowl and goblet, and the use of bones to create statues or other items. She asserts that some bones are carved into church statues and that skulls are worn by adults in a ritual setting. - She describes a sequence in which babies are allegedly killed, with the head removed while hanging from a wall, and blood collected in a bowl. She claims that the blood is used in the canteen to “put baby meat” into meals, and bones are repurposed into statues by carvers such as Felix and Max. - She also alleges that children at the school are coerced to participate in violent acts and that some are sold to others for sex. She describes babies being injected by a nurse in the school, then decapitated, with body parts processed and used in rituals or for sale. - Trafficking and exploitation: - Alyssa claims that babies are sold to people who want to engage in sexual acts with children, and that she and Gabriel are kept in the school/police described environment and used for abuse for a price (she mentions £50). She says they are held and used in this system during school hours as well as during holidays, and that authorities from social services are involved in a network of trafficking through the church and school. - The Morocco context and the role of Abraham: - A large portion of the detailed accounts about abuse, including specific acts and the ritual environment, is linked to Morocco, where Abraham is described as pressuring, beating, and coercing Alyssa and Gabriel. She notes that Abraham’s actions included physical violence (spooning licks), threats of more severe harm, and attempts to force confessions. - Alyssa indicates that some of her most elaborate stories began after watching a film (Zorro) and receiving cues from Abraham about what to say to authorities. She acknowledges that some of the more fantastical elements (e.g., skulls, cannibalism, elaborate ritual chambers) were suggested by Abraham as part of deception to frighten her or to manipulate the truth. - Truth-telling and memory of lies: - Throughout, Alyssa differentiates between what she believes happened and what Abraham insisted she tell investigators. She admits she lied or embellished elements after Abraham pressed her to say certain things, especially about babies and skulls. She emphasizes that she is worried about getting in trouble for lying and notes that she was afraid of Abraham’s reactions. - She confirms that some parts she previously described (especially the church-based murder/ritual narratives) were not true, as confessed during the interview or later in the conversation. She recognizes that Abraham coached or coerced her to say things that were not accurate, though she also maintains that the Ace/secret-rooms narrative and the general structure of a dangerous environment around the church and school have elements that correspond to true experiences (e.g., the staff’s control, walk-throughs, and the presence of confidential areas). - Current status and next steps: - The interview concludes with an acknowledgment that Alyssa has told many stories, some of which were false as coached by Abraham. The investigators plan to separate the discussion from her mother to avoid pressure and to assess which parts of the story are true, which are embellished, and which are untruthful. - There is an explicit plan to verify elements of the story with other sources (e.g., the alleged houses, the church, and the school, and whether particular staff members exist or hold the described roles). There is mention of bringing Alyssa to medical evaluation to check for injuries, and there is attention to ensuring Alyssa’s safety and wellbeing moving forward. - Emotional and social context: - Alyssa describes a complex and distressing environment shaped by alleged abuse, coercion, fear, and dysfunction at home and at school. She mentions feelings of fear toward Abraham, fear of barriers to telling the truth, and fear of potential retaliation. She also discusses the involvement of her mother, who she says believes Abraham and often agrees with him, which complicates her ability to disclose fully. Overall, the transcript presents Alyssa recounting an alleged and extensive abuse scenario that encompasses home life, a school/church complex, and a network of adults including Abraham, Miss Martin, Mister Hollings, and others. The narrative includes explicit descriptions of sexual and violent abuse, trafficking of children, and ritualized acts, much of which Alyssa later indicates may have been influenced or orchestrated by Abraham, particularly during the Moroccan period of her life. The interview emphasizes truth-telling, acknowledges the potential for misinformation under duress, and lays out a plan for further verification, medical assessment, and protective steps for Alyssa and her brother.

Speaker 0 marched in the civil rights movement to change attitudes. They were involved in desegregating movie theaters and organizing voter registration drives. Speaker 0 sat in black churches with Jewish rabbis, preparing to desegregate movie theaters. They have been involved in causes since they were 18, including desegregating restaurants. However, according to the New York Times, Speaker 2 claims that Speaker 0 lied about marching in the civil rights movement. Despite being reminded of this, Speaker 0 continued to tell the story. Speaker 2 finds this behavior strange.

Speaker 0 accuses the man of lying, noting he claims he only ever met him once while they had lived next to him for twenty-some years. Speaker 1 explains that, with his wife present, they apologized, left, and decided they will never be in the room with that disgusting person again—social, business, or philanthropy—because that guy was there. Speaker 0 adds that it’s a disgrace how this guy has a job today, calling him a proven liar advising the president of the United States every day, and says they’re done with these people.

Speaker 0 states that there is not the slightest evidence Adolf Hitler knew what was happening to the Jews, to the Holocaust, or to Auschwitz. He says he has offered £1,000 English money, 2,000 Canadian dollars, since 1977 and over the last nine years in television programs and worldwide media, to anyone who can find one wartime document showing that Hitler even knew about Auschwitz or about what was going on in the Eastern Front. He asserts that nobody can find such a document, and that historians hesitate, look at each other, and ask if someone else has the proof. He recounts that Jekyll says no, Hilgeruber says no, Jakobson says perhaps Bouchard has it, and Bouchard says he thought Jekyll had it, so they go around in circles. Because they cannot prove they have the evidence, they turn on he (Irving), accusing him of fascism and discrediting him, claiming nobody should believe him. He then says he has come up in the archives with a whole string of documents that meet his criteria—genuine documents written by people in positions to know, created not for any exterior or ulterior motive. He describes these as a narrow file of documents showing Hitler deliberately, explicitly linked to the Holocaust as we can say, or linked to the fate of the Jews, that great tragedy. He asserts that all these documents show Hitler intervening to stop anything nasty happening to the Jews. The core claims are: (1) there is no wartime document proving Hitler knew about Auschwitz or the Holocaust; (2) his ongoing public challenge and financial offer to discover such a document; (3) the existence of a verified set of documents written by insiders, allegedly showing Hitler intervening to prevent harm to the Jews, and explicitly linking Hitler to the Holocaust in his actions.

The speaker argues that the claim of six million Jews is unfounded and inconsistent with historical numbers. He notes that the “6,000,000 Jews” claim would require crediting Jews for having nine lives, since “these Jewish gas Jews show up again and again and again all over the world,” not only in the speaker’s country. He states that the Jewish Encyclopedia lists, in 1932 and ’33, only two and a half million Jews in the entire area where Hitler could have been, including Russia, and he asks how Hitler could be accused of gassing six million Jews in a region with only about two and a half million Jews. He contends he would be grateful if the Jews would explain this discrepancy, and he asserts they have never done so. The speaker declares that the “6,000,000 Jews” claim is “the biggest of all the big lies that has ever been told.” Turning to Mein Kampf, he notes that the book describes Jews as “the great masters of the lie” and says that their “big lie technique” is their biggest technique, describing it as “a selfie technique by which the Jews tell an enormous lie,” and stating that Hitler does not embed or advocate this, but condemns it as vile. He asserts that this big lie technique is exactly what is happening in “our country today.”

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about his Jewish identity and references a "virulent anti-Semite" acquaintance who is supposedly friends with Holocaust denier David Irving. Speaker 0 brings up the Holocaust, referencing "smokestacks of Birkenau" and questioning the validity of the Holocaust. Speaker 0 claims this acquaintance denies the Holocaust by pointing to shadows in aerial photos of Dachau. Speaker 0 says this person questions how 6 million people could disappear. Speaker 1 denies being a Holocaust denier, stating he had a Bar Mitzvah. Speaker 0 says the acquaintance seemingly admitted people died, but questioned the number. Speaker 0 says everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that the number of deaths is somewhere between 600 and 6 million.

A man gained fame for claiming that as a child in a concentration camp, a girl on the other side of the fence threw him apples every day. He later met her on a blind date and proposed. However, it turns out the story was not true. When asked why he lied, he insisted it wasn't a lie but rather his imagination. He still believes that the girl was there and threw apples to him.

Speaker 0: In hindsight, is there anything you would have done differently? Speaker 1: I wish I'd spent more time with my wife and with my children when they were little. I was kind of obsessed with work. Speaker 1: The first one died of ovarian cancer, the second one died of pancreatic cancer. Speaker 0: And you wish you'd spent more time with the second wife? Speaker 1: yeah, who was a wonderful person. Speaker 1: Oh, just because she's gone, I can't spend more time with her now. Speaker 0: Mhmm. But you didn't know that at the time? Speaker 1: At the time, you think I mean, it was likely I would die before her just because she was a woman and I was a man. I didn't I just didn't spend enough time when I could.

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.