TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

I don't trust his explanation for silencing the truth with fact-checking. He deflected blame, claiming he faced pressure from the Biden administration. Now we're expected to overlook that? I also question why there was no inquiry into his ties to DARPA and its LifeLog project, which aimed to create a comprehensive digital record of individuals for surveillance. Interestingly, LifeLog was discontinued just before Facebook emerged. Why isn't there more scrutiny on Facebook and its true nature? It's concerning that these figures may not have our best interests at heart and are merely manipulating the narrative.

Hundreds of intelligence community members work at social media companies. Mainstream news outlets confirmed my reporting on the laptop story. The censorship was due to the truth being a threat to power. The US government's influence on corporations undermines the first amendment. Our response will determine the future of a free press. Thank you. Translation: Many intelligence community members work at social media companies. News outlets confirmed my reporting on the laptop story. Censorship was due to the truth being a threat. The US government's influence on corporations undermines freedom of speech. Our response will determine the future of a free press. Thank you.

Speaker 0 opens by saying they take umbrage and will speak on behalf of their colleagues. They state they are "willing to work with anyone who's serious about doing the work of censoring the American people and advancing progress." They add, "That's right. But they are not serious."

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

I've spent my whole life in the media, but now I realize that the media is part of the control apparatus. I regret defending the Iraq war and not being more skeptical. When someone makes a claim, the important question is whether it's true or not. I participated in a culture that dismissed anyone who thought outside the prescribed lanes as crazy or a conspiracy theorist, and I'm ashamed of that. The media's purpose is not to inform, but to serve the small group of people who run the world. We should treat them with contempt because they have earned it.

A woman yelled at the speaker, accusing them of implanting things in her and tracking her. The speaker is surprised by the misinformation and the difficulty in trusting the government and collaborating with it. They advise the younger generation to pay attention to and reverse these trends, emphasizing their importance.

Speaker 0: Zuckerberg claims to be an old-fashioned liberal who dislikes censorship, but why doesn't Facebook take a similar stand on free speech? It seems rooted in American political tradition. Speaker 1: Zuckerberg reportedly spent $400 million in the last election, primarily supporting Democrats. This raises questions about his impartiality.

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.

Speaker 0: There were four drugs that were being tested for Ebola. Remdesivir killed more people than placebo, and the data safety monitoring board had actually stopped the study where literally fifty three percent of Speaker 1: the patients died in the failed Ebola trial and was repurposed. It was a failed Ebola drug because it caused more harm than good in Ebola trials. It was still unpatent. It was Tony Fauci's drug of choice. The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci because his NIH put out protocols that if the hospital systems adhered to, they got bonuses, big bonuses, lots of money, $3,000 per for putting an IV in of remdesivir. Boom. $3,000. But guess what? On top of the entire hospital stay, a 20% bonus, that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Speaker 0: The data was so overwhelming that remdesivir killed patients more so than placebo. The drug had to be stopped, and this was published in the New England Journal in the 2019. Speaker 2: What happened during COVID could not have happened without propaganda and censorship. And how do we overcome that propaganda and censorship? It's primarily through people not being willing to shut up.

Speaker 0: Apology tour due to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1: Bob Ives was interviewed today. Stop. Speaker 2: I don't want advertisers who try to blackmail me with money. Go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: I understand. Bob, if you're here, let me ask you. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. No advertising. Speaker 1: What are your thoughts?

Speaker 0 addresses Microsoft Azure, saying, “Like to condemn Microsoft Azure program for leaking sensitive classified information to the CCP.” The speaker then questions Bill Gates directly: “And then I think that Are you pro CCP, mister Gates? I understand your foundation owns a lot of Microsoft shares now, and your Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has heavily financed and is financially connected to the CCP.” The speaker asks, “So is that why you're not answering the questions about governments, Microsoft's Azure program, mister Gates?” Continuing, the speaker presses the issue: “Are you sure you don't wanna condemn them for leaking classified information from our US military?” The speaker reiterates the demand: “One more time, mister Gates. Would you like to condemn Microsoft's government Azure program for leaking classified information at the CCP?” The response implied by the transcript is “No? Okay.”

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

Speaker 0: Hello Mr. Trudeau, Alexandre from Rebel News. I want to quickly address what happened yesterday. You demonized one of the few media outlets that doesn't receive government funding. You expressed your opinion that we spread misinformation. If that were true, the Supreme Court wouldn't have allowed us to be here today. Will you kindly answer my question as the Prime Minister, or will you continue to demonize my profession? I shared my perspective on your organization last night, and I have nothing more to say. It makes one wonder who you really are. Thank you.

Our politicians in Ireland are no different than England and everywhere else. They report up to the network through the European Commission, which is like the Politburo in Soviet times, unelected. And then you've got the European Parliament, which is like the Soviet Parliament in Soviet times. It's a talk shop with no real power. So EU is modeled on purpose on the Soviet system of totalitarian collectivization with unelected bureaucrats. Then you've got the UN, which sprang from Rockefeller's loins. Rockefeller brothers formed the Rockefellers along with the Rothschilds and the Warburgs. All of these structures we've got have been funded and grown, Trilateral Commission, Council Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, W. F. They've all been grown to manage the ant farm of us humans. That's where all our problems come from, and it all goes up essentially to the big banking kind of globalist oligarchs, and they all work together. So we get all this crap that comes down like totally totalitarian dystopian madness. So the key thing for people is to understand your politicians, challenge them on who they're reporting to. That's a key thing, I think. Not don't challenge them about what they're bringing in because that's a waste of time. If everyone is saying we see you and we know you're reporting to a non sovereign, non Irish authority, bringing in things that are against the people's interests. So who are you reporting to? And everyone keeps asking, keeps telling them, we know where you're at. We see you. I think that's important because a lot of people now, even young people are beginning to realize when we were told it was a conspiracy theory that higher powers are basically running our lives in a totalitarian fashion, that was part of the scam. We were indoctrinated to believe that higher up ultra wealthy people running our lives and influencing our governments was a conspiracy theory. But increasingly, people are realizing now, actually, that was a trick to tell us that Uh-huh. Because they are running our lives, and our children's and grandchildren's futures are going to be destroyed by these ultra rich oligarchs if we don't start making a ruckus. Now, wef is a filthy household name. Whereas they worked in the shadows for, like, a century, and no one ever talked about them because they own the media. No. It's 20 social media, you got COVID backlash Yeah. Vaccine backlash, and now you got all these people talking about them. And that's why they're desperately trying to get in hate speech, digital millennium act, censorship, ID for people to get on the Internet. They're really worried about the young people talking. Really scared about that. And, I think it's all on the razor's edge, all to play for for the bad guys and the good guys. Uh-huh. I couldn't call it. I think it's all to play for. So let's double down, more awakening.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their statement in a book regarding anger and whether they contribute to it. Speaker 1 defends their use of charged language in politics but clarifies that they have an issue with assuming people with different political views are of bad character. Speaker 0 brings up Speaker 1's description of President Obama's State of the Union address as fascist, to which Speaker 1 admits it was a poor choice of words. Speaker 0 points out that being bad or wrong doesn't necessarily make something fascist. Speaker 1 offers to critique the column if it is read aloud.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about past tweets and NPR content. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 believes America is addicted to white supremacy, if America believes in black plunder and white democracy, and if white people inherently feel superior. Speaker 1 says their thinking has evolved and denies holding those beliefs now, also stating they don't recall some tweets. Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 with their past tweets about reparations, asking if white people should pay them. Speaker 1 claims the tweet wasn't about fiscal reparations. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 believes looting is morally wrong, and Speaker 1 confirms that it is. Speaker 0 then questions Speaker 1 about NPR content, including a book called In Defense of Looting, an article about gender queer dinosaur enthusiasts, and an editorial stating that fear of fatness is more harmful than actual fat. Speaker 1 says they are unfamiliar with some of the content. Speaker 0 accuses NPR of editorializing and promoting garbage, vowing to defund them.

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 0: Apology tour, if you will. There was criticism and advertisers leaving. We talked to Bob Ives today. Stop. Speaker 2: Don't advertise. If someone tries to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: It is clear. Hey, Bob. If you're in the audience. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. Don't advertise. Speaker 1: How do you think then?

Speaker 0: At some point, many people will hate you for what you've done. Despite preaching inclusivity, they won't include you. The majority still holds power, and we allow it because we take sides in arguments. No one will understand our perspective.

A speaker questioned why a congressperson believes President Trump is above the law and why they haven't spoken out against the dismantling of the federal government by President Trump and Elon Musk. The speaker urged the congressperson to stand up for what's right and do their job. The congressperson responded that journalists constantly ask questions, but their answers are not published. To address this, the congressperson publishes statements and speeches on their website, "the scoop," because they cannot rely on news outlets to report what they say.

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.

Many people are afraid to come forward about important issues because they fear the consequences, like what happened to Snowden. The speaker has been speaking out for three years and wonders why others are so afraid. They believe that those who are willing to die for their country should also be willing to speak up. The speaker addresses the audience and those watching online, urging them to come forward and help expose the truth. They mention disinformation sites like Metabunk and Contrail Science, run by someone named Mick West, who tries to discredit those who question persistent contrails. The speaker warns against sharing articles without verifying their credibility, as there are people paid to spread disinformation and make others look noncredible.

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.”

Two years ago, we were labeled as bought-off journalists for questioning digital censorship. I was shocked to see my party seemingly endorse censorship. John Kerry even lamented that the First Amendment hinders the government's ability to control information and build consensus, essentially complaining that people choose their own news sources. Building consensus isn't the media's job; it's our job to make governing hard, and many of our allies have already embraced draconian speech laws. The EU's Digital Services Act is the most comprehensive censorship law in a Western democracy. USAID is funding organizations that promote unified messaging and discourage diverse opinions, spending millions of dollars to transform the free press into a consensus machine. You've taken taxpayer money to tell people they're wrong about what they can see, you sold us out.