ose, because it just sounds like an InfoWars episode. Just too on the nose. We keep hearing about the elite satanic pedophile rings. So the first thing against it is too on the nose. It would be a good way to sell a book. The next thing is the documentary effect. This one's important. I talk about this a lot. If you see a documentary that makes one claim and never shows you the other side or you don't even know if there is another side, it will be persuasive almost every time, because otherwise you wouldn't even see it. They're going to make the thing, and if it's not persuasive they won't put it out there. And if they do put it out there and it gets any attention, it's because it's persuasive. So yeah. And I always use the Michael Jackson documentaries as my example. There's a documentary that says, oh, Michael Jackson definitely did terrible things with children. Then there's another documentary that says this is obviously all made up and here's the reasons that it's all made up. They are both 100% convincing, and they can't both be true. It can't be true that it happened and true that it didn't happen, but they are 100% convincing. You have to go through this experiment or you won't understand the world. If you don't watch both of them, it should be easy to find them. You just Google the two Michael Jackson documentaries. That's the way documentaries work. I still love documentaries, but to imagine that you're hearing the truth, that's probably the rarest thing. Probably a documentary is always spun in one direction or another.

So you've got the too on the nose, and then you've got the documentary effect, which you shouldn't trust in general. And then there's one person talking, and I'm not hearing from anybody else. But she referenced a knowledge of a wide number of other victims that were victimized exactly the way she was, but we didn't hear from them. So again, that's another red flag. If even one other person had said, yes, here's the video. I made everything she says is true. I was there at the same time, etc. I don't know. Then there was the names that she mentioned. So she acted like it was not her intention to name names, but PBD got her to do it pretty easily. The first name she mentioned was—and again, so that I don't get sued, I'm not accepting that this is true. I'm not accepting that it's false. I'm saying I can't tell. So none of these are my claims, and I don't want to be responsible for them. But her claim is that when she was six years old she was basically sold to David Rockefeller, and from like the age of six to nine she was brainwashed and trained to be a sex slave at that age, actual sex slave at that age. And they were trying to make her—he was trying to make her a celebrity in France so that she would be sort of a manufactured singer celebrity, because apparently he thought he had the clout to do that. And that she would then therefore get into sexual trysts with famous people because she would be famous, and then politicians, etc. And then he and his pedophile network allegedly would be able to control the world by having the right kind of blackmail assets in place.

Now that's the sort of story that, you know, PBD did a great job, I thought, asking enough details. So if she couldn't give you any details, you'd say, hey, why aren't you giving me more details? One of the questions was she said that she didn't know that that was David Rockefeller until he died, which was well after she was a child. So her claim is that she spent years going from house to house in David Rockefeller's care. He basically was like a guardian or something for a while. And that she never heard the name Rockefeller. She only called him David, and it never occurred to her who he was. Now PBD showed some skepticism as in, really? I mean, nobody else mentioned the name at all? Like that doesn't sound credible. She somewhat angrily pushed back that she was a child and that of course she knew who the Rockefellers were when she became an adult, but it never connected to her that the guy named David was a Rockefeller until he died and she saw his picture. It was like, holy hell, that was a Rockefeller. Does that sound real? That one's hard to believe, right? That's hard to believe. But is it impossible to believe? It's not impossible. It's hard to believe. So I would say that's one little check in the box that says, hmm, it's too on the nose. I don't hear another witness. Now it's starting to be a little shaky, right?

And then PBD asked another great question. He said, how in the world could you at the age of nine or whatever be hanging around with this adult and nobody asked any questions and it wasn't obvious what your role was? And she said yes, there were two of the servants in one of the houses who were fully aware of what was going on, she assumed. And so PBD asks, like, why did you think they knew what was going on? And she looks at him and she says, they saw us in bed. And that just killed me. Apparently they were servants, the kind who would bring you something while you were still in bed. And her claim was that they would come in and do their work and they were very nice to her, but that she would be in with him and it would be obvious why she was in bed. And apparently they had been well vetted or well paid, and they just rolled with it. Do you believe that? Do you believe that two servants could be co-opted to keep their mouth shut about that, coming into his room and seeing him in bed with a nine-year-old? Does that sound true? It does, because you can get people to do anything. Yeah, unfortunately that's not much of a hit on the credibility at all, because if any of this exists, if any of it's real, it requires lots of people to do things that unfortunately people do.

Now her take was that this is definitely satanic, that the whole thing has a satanic structure to it. But then not all the people involved were satanic believers. So some of them literally were doing performances to sell their soul to Satan. Others were just sort of going along with the Satan thing because they were just pedos. Now that part sounded real, because there's a nuance there. It's like, yeah, no, they weren't all Satanists, but they were willing to act like it if it helped them. So I thought, hmm, that does sound real. The story where she said that they saw her in bed, that sounded real to me because that was a detail. And if she were lying, it would have been smarter to say something like, oh, we made sure that nothing happened in front of anybody. That would be like a normal lie. But to say that no, they came in and saw us in bed, that's a detail and it doesn't sound like one you made up.

Now here's the big one. She also named a couple other people. Now, because it's already a public thing, I'll mention them. She accused Justin Trudeau's father, who was the boss in Canada at the time, of using her services as a pedo, but that his specific preference was actually murdering children. So that she couldn't satisfy him because she wasn't there to be murdered. That's a hell of a claim. So I'm not going to give you my opinion whether that's true or not. That's one person's claim. She claims that Rockefeller had to take her to meet with a Rothschild to ask permission for his plan to groom her into a super sex spy. And she said that the Rothschild guy, whoever it was, was not a pedo, but he was definitely somehow in charge of the world. So he was the one who had to tell Rockefeller that he could do his plan. But how did she know that that guy was not a pedo? Well, maybe he just didn't express it in her case. I don't know.

Then the part that bothers me the most in terms of the credibility is that she talked about recovered memories a lot. As in, I didn't remember this but then I remembered it. I didn't remember it, then it came back. That is the biggest tell for hypnosis and fake memory. Generally speaking, I would not take anybody serious who said they had a recovered memory, because recovered memories aren't real for the most part. So there's a fine line between, oh, suddenly I got a recovered memory that somebody did something bad to me. Those are usually not real. But if your regular memory captured most of it but maybe you suddenly remember some details, maybe. But the all the recovered memories, the ones that came to her later, that is a gigantic signal for not being true. It's not a signal that she's lying, because she did not put off a tell of lying. She looks like she believes what she's saying. But there could be two explanations. One is false memory, which is very common, by the way. And the other is that it's real and she just—some things were so terrible that she forgot them until it came back.

Now I'll tell you the scariest part. The scariest part, believe it or not, there's something worse. The scariest part is that she said she was given some German guy in Germany and stayed there to be brainwashed. And that the way she was brainwashed is that he would choke her to unconsciousness and say, look at this face, so that she would associate his face with being choked to death. And that was just one of the things he did. So apparently torturing her so they would give her a test of seeing if they could recognize somebody's sexual preference by looking at their face, which is of course something a human can't do with regularity. Maybe you can get some of it some of the time. So it looked like it was a test that was set up to make sure that she couldn't do well on it. And then the reason for that is that they could choke her or torture her and then associate themselves as the torturers. Now the reason for that was that she would be frightened to death of these people, because if you do it when she's young—this is what they call the Indian elephant training trick. Yeah, if you've ever seen an Indian elephant trainer, you'll see him sometimes with a big stick and he'll be whaling on the elephant, and the elephant will just be like, oh, sorry, I didn't mean that. Okay, okay. And you say to yourself, wait a minute, that elephant could just grab that little guy and just pound him into the dust if he wanted to. Why doesn't he? And the answer is that the little guy trained the elephant when it was a baby. So he beat the elephant when it was a baby, and then the elephant grew up and didn't realize that it had power over the little guy. It just thought the little guy still could beat it up. So they basically used the Indian elephant trick on a child to hurt her, she claimed, and associate that hurt with not getting things right for them. So it just became like programming.

Now here's the problem with that. If she were not an expert in persuasion, she would not be able to explain so well the most effective and dark form of persuasion you'll ever hear in your life. So everything she said about how that works tracks. It doesn't mean it happened. I can't say that happened or didn't happen. I don't know. But it all fit together, and that would have been really hard to do for somebody who hadn't been through it. They wouldn't even know how. If I had asked you, hey, just describe how to brainwash somebody to become a sex slave, and then I said, how do you do that? How many of you would come up with choking them to unconsciousness while giving them a test that you knew they were going to get a lot of wrong answers to? Who would have come up with that? Right, that'd be hard to come up with that if you were just using your common sense. She seems like she knew about something like having been there.

And so I'll reiterate, I couldn't tell if it was real. It's certainly in the category of things that could be completely made up because she's making money for a book. She had a mother that apparently had severe mental illness. Could be genetic, but it could have been something that just messed her up by the things that happened in her life. Probably she was sexually trafficked, probably. But maybe she