reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

Speaker 0 asks what group the others are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question it in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer yes. The speaker then asks why the others are there, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to someone's belief and a crude remark.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer affirmatively. The speaker then asks why the others are present, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to someone's belief and expressing admiration.

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?”

Speaker 0 asks what group the others are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question it in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer yes. The speaker then asks why the others are there and tells them to leave. They mention subscribing to someone's belief and express admiration.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and then expresses their belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer yes. The speaker mentions that they are out there for power and tells two boys to leave. They also mention subscribing to Sandy's Believe in Freak Chung and express their admiration.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer yes. The speaker then asks why they are there and tells them to leave. The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to Sandy's Believe in Freak Chung and a crude remark.

The speaker consults their 1968 Encyclopedia Britannica, intending to disprove Holocaust denial and the existence of Palestine. Looking up "Holocaust" in the "H" volume, they find entries for "Holy Roman Empire," "Holy Land," and others, but not "Holocaust." They then search for "Palestine," finding multiple pages of information. The speaker expresses outrage that Palestine is included while the Holocaust is not, claiming the encyclopedia is full of "hate." They plan to sue Encyclopedia Britannica for $33 billion and involve the ADL. They question why the Holocaust was not reported on twenty-three years after it happened, but is discussed frequently eighty years later.

"Anti defamation league gets a green light." "Only for some. Yes." "You may not cite them." "You can't you can't find the Jewish perspective on the war so easily anymore." "Not to my knowledge, except now there is a congressional investigation." "I don't know if my tweet had anything to do with the start of that." "I think it had more to do with the reporting of Ashley Rinsberg." "And well, of course, Israel and I would add, Hindus are very bothered with the way that their ethnic groups are treated in Wikipedia." "And both of both a whole bunch of Jews and Hindus have been after me in the last couple of years saying, you've got to speak out." "You've got to speak out." "People who are organized have a way to push back against the lying." "I think that if, like, Israeli intelligence, for example, got together and made a real concerted effort to to fight against the this group of 40 Muslim activists that Ashley Rinsberg identified." "They might be able to make some inroads." "It really depends It's possible."

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer yes. The speaker then asks why the others are there, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to Sandy's Believe in Freak Chung and a crude remark.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer affirmatively. The speaker mentions that they are out there for power and tells two boys to leave. They also mention subscribing to Sandy's Believe in Freak Chung and express admiration for the person.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer affirmatively. The speaker then asks why the others are present, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to Sandy's Believe in Freak Chung and a crude remark.

Speaker 0: 6,000,000 number used lot many times before World War two by, like, newspapers. Is that true? I've seen that mentioned quite a bit with that being used. Speaker 1: If you wanna read up all on this, it's volume six of the Holocaust Hangposts here. It's the first Holocaust. Talks about all the many times that, particularly, New York Times was good at it, as I call it, the New York Times because it's owned and run by Jews. They were propagating the 6,000,000 number, and they were using first, the term Holocaust already during the czarist time in Russia before the first world war. 6,000,000 Jews are threatened. 6,000,000 Jews are dying. They're threatened by a holocaust. It goes into the first world war after the first world war with the Bolshevik revolution, the New York Times, the Jewish community in The United States to a large degree supporting the Bolshevist revolution, which was mainly a a Jewish supported revolution. Speaker 0: And Speaker 1: then you if that revolution collapses, the Jews are facing countrywide pogroms that would potentially wipe them out. So they knew it's either the the Bolshevik, revolution succeeds or we're gonna have a holocaust. And they were talking about that, in this context. When you support the Jews, 6,000,000 are about to die and so forth. It goes on. There is a straight line going from the eighteen eighties into the second world war Killing final five. 6,000,000 Jews are dying or threatened or being killed. So it's nothing new. The area, Russia, Poland, Germany has changed. The the villain, the czar, the white anti Bolshevik civil war people, or then Hitler and his acronies. Speaker 0: So what you’re saying is that— Speaker 1: So the ingredients to the story have changed, but not the story in general.

Speaker 0 asks what group the others are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer affirmatively. The speaker then asks why the others are present, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to Sandy's "Believe in Freak Chung" and a crude remark.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer affirmatively. The speaker mentions being in a position of power and tells two people to leave. They also mention subscribing to someone's belief and express admiration.

During an eight-day remembrance of the Holocaust, Speaker 0 frames the period in the 1930s and 1940s when the Nazi government murdered, among others, a large number of Jews. He references a claim that a head of state said, “our job here is to kill everybody, including their children because the bloodline itself must be extinguished.” He adds that he is opposed to Hitler, but he questions whether Hitler ever made such a statement, saying, “I don't think Hitler ever said anything like that. I'm serious. I mean, he killed a ton of people, including a ton of Jews. Of course. But I don't think was Hitler ever on the record saying we need to exterminate every single member of a specific bloodline?” In response, Speaker 0 mentions that Netanyahu just said that last week and that he said it many other times. The conversation concludes with Speaker 0 calling the situation “bonkers.”

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer affirmatively. The speaker mentions being in a position of power and tells two individuals to leave. They also mention subscribing to someone's belief and express admiration.

Speaker 0 asks what group the others are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer affirmatively. The speaker then asks why the others are present, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to Sandy's Believe in Freak Chung and a crude remark.

"Goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world." "The house oversight committee demanded Wikipedia turnover identifying info for users who may be spreading anti Israel content based on a report from who else? Our friends at the ADL." "one recent report raised troubling questions about potentially systematic efforts to advance anti Semitic and anti Israel information in Wikipedia articles related to conflicts with the state of Israel." "the Israeli regime regime's propaganda complex has dedicated courses and entire teams focused on editing Wikipedia so that it reflects their genocidal worldview." "Go to Wikipedia right now. Look up October 7 and see if there is any mention of the literal thousands of Palestinians who have been held hostage."

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.

The speakers critique how Holocaust education operates in today’s media landscape and its unintended effects. They reference a remark by a woman (Hurwitz) who said that “the real problem with all this Holocaust education is that now people are pissed off when we try to do it,” highlighting shock at the idea that someone would voice such a sentiment aloud. They confirm the quote with “Yeah. Here it is right here. Yep.” They argue that in the 1990s a young person wouldn’t easily find Al Jazeera or Nick Fuentes, but today “those media outlets find them” on their phones. This has coincided with a shift to a post-literate media environment: “less and less text, more and more videos.” TikTok is described as “smashing our young people's brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza,” making it hard to have sane conversations with younger Jews because any message is filtered through a “wall of carnage.” Data, information, facts, and arguments are perceived as being drowned out by emotional imagery, and speakers acknowledge that people “are seeing in their minds carnage” and may call their rational arguments obscene. The dialogue emphasizes vivid images of dead children, noting that “these dead babies” have an emotional effect on people, and that facts alone seem insufficient against the visceral response. One speaker remarks that the emphasis on such imagery is powerful and difficult to counter with reason. A part of the discussion pauses to consider statistics and argues that Hurwitz’s argument lacks a clear statistical basis, instead presenting a visual argument through images of dead children. The speakers insist that the response is not a result of rational persuasion; one person insists, “It wasn't a choice I made with my brain. It was a choice I made with my heart, you idiot,” and asserts that genocide cannot be rationalized. The group reflects on how the “very smart bet” of Holocaust education serving as antisemitism education may be breaking down in the new media environment. They acknowledge that education about the Holocaust is “absolutely essential,” but contend it may confuse some young people about antisemitism, particularly when young viewers see “powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians” on TikTok. The implication is that the historical lesson (strong vs. weak oppression) could be misinterpreted as a justification to “fight Israel,” aligning antisemitism with the trope of anti-black racism in some perceptions. There is a stark contrast drawn between captives who “can’t leave” and those with the power to act, underscoring a perception of oppression and lack of mobility. The discussion uses strong metaphors, including comparisons to a “giant game of Saw,” to describe the perceived moral torture of the situation. Towards the end, the speakers acknowledge that the overarching topic across conversations—whether in Charlie Kirk’s letter to Netanyahu, CBS News, or related discussions—is “we're losing.” They acknowledge that “we get back to winning” is a recurring concern, indicating an awareness of a struggle to regain a strategic or communicative advantage in the discourse.

The speaker claims that no one in Germany knows where the alleged 6 million Jews were killed. After five years of questioning various German institutions, including Jewish centers and judges, about the location of the Holocaust and receiving no answers, the speaker wrote to the Minister of Justice requesting an open discussion. Receiving no response, the speaker concluded the Holocaust did not exist and published this conclusion online. The speaker believes that those imprisoned for Holocaust denial in Germany should be exonerated, as they were speaking the truth. The speaker highlights the large number of trials related to Holocaust denial in Germany, alleging that judges avoid engaging with evidence due to fear of Jewish reprisal, instead relying on the claim that the Holocaust is "obvious." The speaker equates their inquiries with the principle of press freedom.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and then expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer yes. The speaker mentions being in 3 seats and wanting power. They tell someone to leave and make a crude comment about subscribing to someone's beliefs.

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…

A speaker identifying themselves as Jewish with critical thinking skills questions where information comes from and asks to see sources. They reference opening the Torah and reading the story of how Jewish people ended up in Israel, then challenge the audience about Abraham’s origins and knowledge of his story. They state that Abraham comes from what is now present-day Iraq, and they question what the story with Abraham, the Jewish people, and God is. They assert that Jewish people are not indigenous to Israel and recount a version of the biblical narrative: God speaks to Abraham and offers a present of “free land” for the Jewish people, telling Abraham to take them to a land filled with milk and honey, and that Abraham leads the people there. They ask what happens when they get to Israel and note that there were already people there. They claim that God told Abraham to slaughter and expel those people from the land, identifying those people as the indigenous inhabitants. The speaker condemns what they describe as others on the app presenting this information as fact, expressing concern that Jewish people themselves may not know their own history or the history of their religion, culture, and land. They juxtapose this with broader historical tragedies, suggesting that if readers have wondered what they would have done during the Holocaust, civil rights movement, slavery, and Canada’s genocide of indigenous people, they should look at what people are doing in the present. They argue that worldwide tragedies and genocide continue because people are afraid to speak out due to social repercussions. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the following core claims: - Abraham originated from a region corresponding to present-day Iraq, not Israel. - The narrative involves God presenting “free land” to the Jewish people and Abraham leading them to this land. - Upon arrival, the land already had indigenous inhabitants. - The divine instruction attributed to God to Abraham was to slaughter and expel those indigenous people. - Many individuals on the app propagate incorrect historical claims as fact, and some Jewish people may lack awareness of their own historical and religious background. - The speaker connects current fear of speaking out to historical and ongoing acts of mass violence and genocide, urging people to speak out rather than stay silent. The speaker ends by linking contemporary social fear to historical injustices, calling for greater courage to speak out.