TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I'm not sure if there was a CIA conspiracy to remove me from office, but it's possible. The CIA had a motive because I was critical of them and wanted to make changes. I can't say if there was a conspiracy, but it would be interesting for an investigative reporter to look into it. I don't think the CIA would go as far as to harm those who expose their operations nowadays.

With the support of the CIA, it's fortunate that you weren't accepted into the organization, as you had wanted to join. We should be grateful for that, considering the seriousness of the CIA.

The speaker states that the "Russian story" would be called a covert influence campaign if they were doing it. The speaker also claims they would be the last to say they've never tried a covert influence campaign.

Alex Jones is a classic example of someone who claims to expose a communist conspiracy, a tactic that's been used for the last 70 years. Jones got his education with the John Birch Society and claims to have intelligence connections and a Rosicrucian family that arrived in the US on the Mayflower. He says he's from the real Illuminati, not the false one. I recently had dinner with podcasters and former professors, people doing different things. There was a misunderstanding where someone thought I was back with the CIA, but that's not the case. Don't worry about it.

Speaker 0 and Ivan engage in a heated exchange centered on identity, politics, and authority. Speaker 0 challenges Ivan’s stance, contrasting actions with labels and insisting on a focus on actions: “Focus on actions. Okay?” He accuses Ivan of being politically correct and weak, urging him to admit pride in being white: “Say you're proud of being white. Let's go. You better be white.” Speaker 0 references a problematic past event, saying, “Just like on January 6,” and attributes a stance of political incorrectness to himself and a lack of it to Ivan: “You’re politically correct. No. You’re weak.” He questions Ivan’s employment status and suggests a concern about keeping a job: “I was crushed, dude.” He notes Ivan is close to his employer, asking, “Who's my employer? FBI Washington field office,” and asserts that Ivan never faced indictment for January 6, saying, “Yeah. Because I’m that good. I run feds.” The exchange continues with provocative claims about who controls federal agencies: “I run feds. I think that's what the CIA does.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 praising Ivan in a paradoxical way—“God bless Ivan. He’s a bulldog and freedom fighter.”—while accusing him of being debulled by the mainstream media, a remark about Ivan’s portrayal in media. The dialogue weaves bravado, insinuations about loyalty and employment, and references to FBI/CIA, all set against a backdrop of a charged confrontation over identity and political alignment.

Neymar: Yeah. Fortunately, it was very much because of Elon’s response to what was going on in Europe too that I realized that it was extremely dangerous when I did announce it to him before I even applied, just to see his reaction, whether he would agree, because sometimes I like to gas up myself and think, maybe it’s not that crazy. And he, yeah, basically gave me his approval instantly, thinking that it’s a good idea. I’m very, very grateful, not only for the exposure that he has given me and the AFD and my country as a whole, Patriots in my country, but also just for the yeah. Kind of, like, the encouragement to fight because that’s what he does. No matter what, like, he he gets so many death threats. He gets so many threats from all sides, but he still continues, and that has inspired me a lot. And then it was only after my application that Ana Polina Luna reached out to me. So, like I said, I didn’t ask anyone for a favor. I want to do this the legitimate way, and now exciting things are coming for sure. I I definitely want to take this further. This is only step one because I’m applying for asylum, not because I want to be in The United States so desperately. I mean, I love The United States. So, yeah, don’t get me wrong. 100%. But I could just apply for, I don’t know, journalism visa, for example, and I could stay here that way. I’m doing this to seek protection from the US government because I genuinely fear for my life over there in Germany. I fear that if I come back, I will be arrested. Fun fact, I just actually saw my sister sent me a letter that I got from the police that I’m now officially being charged with a hate crime, is it it’s what it’s called, for one of my tweets. I don’t know which one are currently requesting that from the police, so, yeah, we’ll see. Speaker 0: Funny funny thing you’re over. Anyone that’s saying that you’re maybe overreacting by doing all this, you’ve just received a letter from the police charging you with hate crime. Speaker 1: Yeah. That’s just a small detail of my entire history. I have the evidence from the German intelligence community. It was also funny. I was interviewed by The Telegraph, and they apparently reached out to German intelligence to get a comment, and they refused to comment.

My family found out when I got involved in a Nazi protest organized by the FBI. It made headlines, and people who knew me were shocked. I had to get permits for the protest in my name, which led to a lot of attention. It was a big deal for me, being in the news as a Nazi protester. I even hosted events at my home.

When I was young, a family member involved in government tech stuff was found dead in his bathtub, ruled a suicide, but my family always doubted it due to difficulties getting answers. Seeing this case now, I'm getting flashbacks because I had a similar experience with a family member in the early '90s who encouraged my family to invest in the internet. He started getting freaked out, then died mysteriously, ruled a suicide. This reminds me of my own situation. People constantly ask me how I'm still alive. It's because of my family member's fate that I even got into internet stuff.

I'm not with the CIA now, nor was I when I started out 25 years ago. I was with good people in the CIA when Donald Trump was elected to take the country back from globalists. Communist Chinese, the EU, Hollywood, and big banks run this country and broke its back. Forget the CIA. It's huge. Don't treat the CIA like it's mysterious or cool. Think of it like the post office. The CIA gets its talking points from me and other patriots, not the other way around. I run the CIA.

Speaker 0: I began my journey into chronicling the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 1: Some of the most terrifying conversations I've had with some of my dear friends who work inside CIA, and their jobs is to go to other countries, get involved in elections, protests that will help overthrow a regime. It's no secret at this point. The CIA has been doing that for years, for decades. But the most terrifying conversations I've had are the ones where they would look to me and say, my god. Like, the twenty twenty election? We're doing to our people what we do to others. Speaker 2: CIA, the other intelligence agencies were exposed with projects like Operation Mockingbird. Speaker 0: The State Department, USAID, the Central Intelligence Agency went from free speech diplomacy to promoting censorship. Speaker 2: They created, purchased, controlled assets at the New York Times, the Washington Post, all of these top down media structures that used to control the information that Americans got. Speaker 3: I pulled into the driveway, opened up my garage door, these two gentlemen come out of a blue sedan with government license plates. And they came up to me and said, you're mister Solomon? And I said, yes. And they said, you're at the tip of a very large and dangerous iceberg. Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. The the FBI sent agents over to my home to serve a subpoena. They're questioning me about my tweets. How is that not chilling? Speaker 2: Our whole page on Facebook for the world Seventh day Adventist World Church was removed. Speaker 5: The level of censorship that we experienced from publishing this documentary was beyond anything I could have imagined, and we really didn't even understand why. Speaker 3: We are going to win back the White House. The Russian collusion started broken '16. That's where the big lie first erupted. Speaker 6: Russian operatives used social media to rile up the American electorate and boost the candidacy of Donald Trump. Speaker 0: That's why they went after Trump with the Russia gate and with the FBI probes and with the CIA impeachments and things like that. Speaker 3: My FBI sources told me there's nothing there. And I kept wondering to myself, how could it be that something that's not true be taken so seriously and be portrayed as true? Speaker 7: How do you expand sort of top down control in this society? How do we flip? How do we invert America? Speaker 6: The evidence that the Supreme Court recounts is bone chilling. The federal government would call a private media company and say, cancel this speaker or take down this post. Speaker 3: I mean, just think about this. A sitting president of The United States had his Twitter and Facebook accounts frozen. Our founding fathers could not possibly have imagined that. Is there a chance that this documentary will be censored? Speaker 1: I think there's a huge chance this documentary gets censored. Speaker 2: Yeah. So it's interesting when you look at so many of the big censorship cases in The United States involving COVID, Hunter Biden's laptop. They all go back to a common thread. What is that thread? National security. Speaker 0: Google Jigsaw produced world's first AI censorship product. Things the model were trained on, support for Donald Trump, Brexit referendum that the State Department tried very desperately to stop. These are all these sort Speaker 5: of component pieces of what you called the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 3: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Speaker 2: Industrial Complex. Speaker 7: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Industrial Complex. Speaker 1: I've long felt that it was a bubbling god complex.

I talk about my uncle's assassination and my belief that intelligence agencies were involved. Despite being aware of the danger, I don't live in fear but take precautions to protect myself.

Someone sent the speaker a video of a young, talented person from Chicago attacking him, claiming his father was in the CIA. The speaker initially dismissed this as untrue. However, after his father's death in March, he learned his father was indeed involved in that world, which shocked him. The speaker questions how this person knew about his father's involvement in intelligence, given his father's age. The person in the video claimed the speaker was a CIA operative. The speaker vehemently denies this, expressing strong animosity towards the CIA. He also says the person has since claimed he is funded by Russia. The speaker finds the CIA accusation personally offensive.

Taking on the intelligence community is incredibly risky. They have numerous ways to retaliate. Even a shrewd businessman would be foolish to antagonize them. I've heard they're extremely angry about how they've been treated and spoken about. I don't know exactly what they might do if provoked, but it's a dangerous game to play.

Speaker 1 discusses the possibility of a CIA conspiracy to remove them from office, citing CIA's advanced knowledge of the break-in and their dissatisfaction with the agency. They express a belief that the CIA feared them due to plans to reform the organization. While unsure about a conspiracy, they suggest it would be an intriguing topic for investigative reporting. They doubt the CIA would resort to eliminating those who expose their operations in the present day.

When I was a cadet at West Point, we had a motto: "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do." However, as the former CIA director, I must admit that we did engage in lying, cheating, and stealing. It was a part of our training and it made me reflect on the essence of the American experiment.

The speaker states they applied to the CIA and have received criticism, including from Putin, for being from a "CIA family." The speaker acknowledges their father worked in conjunction with the CIA and that they attempted to join the agency. The speaker says Putin is attacking their father as being connected to the CIA, which the speaker says is not untrue. After their father's death, the speaker learned their father was involved in that world, which they say shocked them. The speaker concludes by saying that this is a fact, whether or not people believe it.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

I'm not with the CIA now, and I wasn't 25 years ago when I started out. I was with good people in the CIA when Donald Trump was elected, working to take the country back from globalist control. We're under the control of the communist Chinese, the EU, Hollywood, and the big banks, who are running and breaking this country. Forget the CIA, it's too big to understand. Think of it like the post office. The CIA gets its talking points from me and other patriots, not the other way around. I run the CIA.

I'm not with the CIA now, nor was I when I started out 25 years ago. When Donald Trump was elected, I aligned myself with the good elements of the CIA to reclaim the country from globalist control. Communist China, the EU, Hollywood, and big banks are running and ruining this country. Forget any preconceived notions about the CIA. The CIA gets its talking points from patriots like me, not the other way around. I run the CIA.

I believe the CIA was definitely involved in the murder of my uncle and the subsequent cover-up for six years. They have not released the necessary papers, despite legal obligations. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, confessions, and books like Jim Douglas' The Unspeakable that support this claim. These revelations are often released gradually, so they don't receive much attention.

The speaker recalls whether he considered joining the CIA before journalism; "No. Yeah." He notes growing up in Georgetown and says, "And this was obviously, it was ten years before 09/11. It was eleven years, 1990." There were "a ton of former CIA officers in our neighborhood." His father "worked for the government," and CIA officers, from his perspective as a child, were like kind of dashing, physically brave intellectuals, including "some guy who'd studied classics at Yale who wound up in Beirut as station chief." He says he wanted "an interesting life"—"That's the that's the main thing that I wanted out of life." He adds, "I never was interested in money" and, "I had the privilege of not being interested in money because I I didn't grow up in a family where we were worried about money, so I just never really thought about money."

If I were president, Putin would never have gone into Ukraine. I had a good relationship with him, which is a good thing. When asked who I trusted more, my intelligence people or Putin, it was a tough question. I didn't trust the intelligence people because they were bad people. They caused a fake Russia scam that harmed our country. But I was right, Putin would never have gone into Ukraine.

Speaker 0 argues that conspiracy theories have been made to look like lunacy, noting that the Kennedy assassination popularized the term “conspiracy theorist.” He says it wasn’t widely used before Kennedy, but afterward it became a label for “kooks,” and he’s repeatedly been called that. Speaker 1 acknowledges this dynamic. He and Speaker 0 discuss what a conspiracy is—“more people working together to do something nefarious?”—and Speaker 0 asserts that conspiracies have always happened. He disputes the view that most conspiracies are due to ineptitude, insisting that when there is profit, power, control, and resources involved, most conspiracies, in fact, turn out to be true. He adds that the deeper you dig, the more you realize there’s a concerted effort to make conspiracies seem ridiculous so people won’t be seen as fools. Speaker 1 remarks on the ridicule as well, and Speaker 0 reiterates his own self-description: “I am a conspiracy theorist,” a “foolish person,” and “a professional clown.” He mocks the idea that being labeled foolish is a barrier, and reflects on how others perceive him. Speaker 0 then provides specific, provocative examples of conspiracies he believes are real: Gulf of Tonkin was faked to justify U.S. entry into Vietnam; production of heroin ramped up to 94% of the world’s supply once the U.S. occupied Afghanistan; and the CIA, in the United States, allegedly sold heroin or cocaine in Los Angeles ghettos to fund the Contras versus the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He states clearly that these claims are real and asserts that there are conspiracy theorists who are “fucking real.” Speaker 1 pushes back on reputation and judgment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms his self-identification as a conspiracy theorist who faces mockery. Speaker 1 suggests that this stance might give him a “superpower.”

Forget the CIA. It's huge, like the post office, not some cool, mysterious entity. The CIA gets its talking points from me and other patriots. I'm not saying you're with the CIA, and when I started 25 years ago, I was with the good elements of the CIA when Donald Trump was elected to take the country back from the globalists. We're under globalist control: the communist Chinese, the EU, Hollywood, the big banks—they run this country and broke its back. I run the CIA.

The speaker explains that they were determined to do the interview with Vladimir Putin because they were prevented from doing so by their own government. They express shock and anger at the US government's spying and interference. The speaker clarifies that their views are constantly evolving based on evidence and that their main view is to tell the truth. They deny being pro-Trump or anti-Biden and state that their goal was to gather information about Putin and the current state of affairs. They also discuss the state of media bias and the importance of free speech.