TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker discusses "Christian influencers" and calls the opposing side "the woke reich," noting they are "not any different from the woke left." They state that "a lot of this is done with money. Money of NGOs, vast. Money of governments, vaster." The plan is to "fight back" through influencers and "the weapons... social media," with emphasis on "the most important purchase... TikTok" and "X." They urge talking to Elon as "a friend." They say: "If we can get those two things, we get a lot." They aim to "give direction to the Jewish people and give direction to our non Jewish friends or those who could be our Jewish our our friends." They acknowledge: "Are we gonna succeed with everyone? No. Will there be a strong counterpoint? Yes."

The speakers discuss a line of questioning about Peter Thiel and its potential influence on others. Speaker 0 recalls asking about Peter Thiel, after which the other person responded by turning the focus back on the questioner and claimed that the questioner was funded by Peter Thiel. According to Speaker 0, this response caused the other person to “crash out,” implying a sudden interruption or withdrawal from the discussion. Speaker 1 reiterates that the person “crashed out” as a result of the inquiry into Thiel. The conversation then broadens to consider whether the broader group being discussed is funded by Peter Thiel. Speaker 1 asserts that “they a 100% are funded by Peter Thiel,” referring to a collection of individuals including Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate. The phrasing suggests a belief that these figures are financially supported by Thiel, and Speaker 0 confirms acknowledging this trend by asking for a clarification of the funding. The two speakers describe the group as being in a “little” or tightly connected circle, implying a coordinated or aligned faction. Speaker 1 strengthens the claim by labeling the group as “the Avengers, the Peter Thiel Avengers,” portraying them as a premeditated or organized cohort with a shared agenda. The use of the term “Avengers” conveys the sense of a unified front or mission among the members, and Speaker 0 repeats the idea of a shared agenda, reinforcing the perception of a concerted effort. The discussion culminates in Speaker 1’s assertion about the motivation behind their alleged funding: the claim is that the objective is to exert “mind control of young men.” This line frames Thiel’s alleged influence as intentional and targeted, casting the funding as a strategy to shape the beliefs or behavior of a specific demographic group. Overall, the exchange centers on the hypothesis that Peter Thiel funds certain controversial public figures, leading to a perception of coordination and a deliberate influence campaign aimed at young men. The dialogue emphasizes the immediacy of televised or public confrontations when questions about funding arise and portrays the involved individuals as part of a tightly connected, ideologically aligned group.

Mario and Suleiman are running another space where they seem to be happy about a recent attack by Hamas. Speaker 0 is surprised by their open support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Speaker 1 mentions that Mario is being investigated by the SEC for a crypto scam and calls him a fraudster. Speaker 2 warns Elon Musk to be careful about associating with such people. They encourage people to read Mario's biased posts. Speaker 2 also mentions that Suleiman defended industrial-scale rape gangs in the UK. Speaker 3 provides updates on a confirmed land incursion operation and Hezbollah's message to attack the northern front if Gaza is invaded.

Aladdin and another participant discuss a string of controversial claims and conspiracy theories centered around Candace Owens and her husband, interwoven with personal updates and on-the-ground reporting plans. Aladdin introduces the topic by noting a disagreement with Zanny and invites Candace to continue, while also acknowledging support for a post in the nest. The conversation then moves to Candace Owens and her husband, described as a “MI5 asset” (a claim linked to his alleged background and funding). Speaker 1 identifies himself as a former intelligence officer who is currently in Ukraine, documenting the war to provide factual on-the-ground reporting and planning to visit Israel, Palestine, and Iraq to document events. He mentions a GoFundMe-style pin post on his profile for donations to his journey and stresses his aim to deliver factual reporting without spin. The discussion shifts to Candace Owens, whom Speaker 1 calls an “absolute fraud.” He cites “multiple indications back in 2022” related to Owens’s husband and references a firm he allegedly worked with, comparing it to a Wall Street-like operation in England. Specific firms mentioned include Parley or Glorify, and Avenger Capital Fund, suggesting that Owens’s husband is heavily funded by Jewish firms. When Owens speaks publicly, Speaker 1 argues, it appears to be designed to reveal a hidden network, prompting Aladdin to suggest peeling back layers of her narrative. The consensus among the participants is that Owens has become a prominent conspiracy disseminator who has shifted focus over time. The conversation traces Owens’s move from reporting about Charlies Kirk’s personal guard to broader conspiracies, expressing skepticism about the authenticity of texts Owens released between herself and Charlie Kirk. They describe those messages as not proving anything substantial about an assassination plot, though they debate their authenticity. The group notes Owens’s pattern of jumping between conspiracies without credible evidence, labeling some of her content as vile. Speaker 1 reveals that he knows Owens’s husband and alleges their marriage was arranged for clout, comparing the dynamic to a modern version of a high-profile “arranged marriage.” The discussion turns personal as Speaker 1, who grew up in Iraq, shares a harsh view toward Palestinians, calling them “parasites” and characterizing Palestinian behavior as spreading “cancer with their victimhood.” This remark is cited as part of the broader atmosphere of inflammatory rhetoric surrounding Owens and related narratives. Despite expressions of support for America, Speaker 1 emphasizes his Ukraine mission and reiterates his invitation for donations to fund his reporting. Toward the end, the group veers into light banter about a coin-toss game, humorously referencing heads for soap and tails for a lampshade, then moving through a quick aside about quarters and college games before returning to the ongoing discussion.

- Speaker 0 asserts that the CDC is led by individuals with dual citizenship with Israel and that they are Jewish, naming multiple specific people: Rochelle Walensky (CDC director), Anshaw Alcic (deputy director), Sherry Berger (CDC chief of staff), Mitchell Wolf (CDC chief medical officer), and the CDC director of the Washington office (Jeff Rezik). He also claims a “COVID czar” Jeff Zainz and a “COVID senior advisor,” Andy Slabbitt, have dual Israeli citizenship and are Jewish, as well as the assistant of health secretary for human services, Rachel Levine, described as transgender with dual Israeli citizenship. - He lists additional figures connected to COVID policy: head of Pfizer vaccine, Albert Garla; Pfizer chief scientist Michael Dosten; Moderna chief scientist Talzak; BlackRock CEO Larry Fink; BlackRock president Rob Capitao; the CDC chief medical officer of Johnson & Johnson joined Wall Stryker; Merck’s Michael Rosenbald; and the head adviser of the World Economic Forum, Yuval Harari. He states all of these individuals have dual citizenship with Israel and are Jewish. - Speaker 1 interrupts, calling the remarks “Freedom of speech” and later tells Speaker 0 to stop, stating the chair has ruled the comments out of order; Speaker 0 questions why calling someone Jewish would be out of order, insisting the term “Jew” is not derogatory and continues listing names. - Speaker 0 concludes by saying the list is only about COVID and acknowledges other domains like media and banks, then thanks the audience for their patience.

Speakers discuss the woke right and argue the US base is being challenged financially by NGOs and governments; they propose fighting back with social-media influencers and to win the weapons that apply to the battlefields, especially TikTok and X, and to engage Elon Musk. They frame the Israel–US political dynamic as a battle over information, with Netanyahu allegedly declaring an eight-front war on anti-Israel voices and calling for censorship of detractors on social media, including plans to control TikTok and X; this is described as election meddling and a threat to free discourse. They debate evangelical support for Israel, the idea of info war rather than physical war, and warn of online narratives being engineered by a globalist-cabal network. The segment ends with testimonials endorsing methylene blue and other supplements.

They express that recognition by Microsoft or the UN means little in the face of ongoing genocide, emphasizing that “the genocide, that's when you will have our respect” and that words from politicians or organizations do not solve the problem. Shadow banning is described as a process where big tech restricts content reach for users, aligning with policy or regularity to support the propaganda they serve. Content labeling before model training could be biased (e.g., from IDEV), leading to content being flagged and pro-Palestinian users banned. Meta later calls such issues “bugs,” but they are viewed as deliberate actions to suppress certain content. They claim Larry Ellison, owner of Oracle, is the biggest contributor to the “Friends for Idea Yeah. Charity,” with last contribution around 16,000,000. They assert that if a person who is friends with Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel owns 80% of TikTok, and Netanyahu promotes using TikTok and X to spread their narrative, it demonstrates the danger of social media in shaping global views and the propaganda machine. They accuse these entities of trying to control social media to brainwash younger generations, potentially restricting pro-Palestinian speech. Lobbying is described as highly structured, with knowledge of where to go, who to speak with, and organizations that move money to actions aligned with those goals. They urge each person to contribute their own skills toward free Palestine, noting strengths in tech, music, journalism, etc., and to create alternatives and support one another to change the dynamic. They argue that Zionists became powerful by mutual support, while others are weaker due to lack of unity, asserting that unity would strengthen their movement. Hejazi introduces himself as the founder of Upscroll. He is Palestinian, born in Jordan, currently living in Australia, with seventeen years of experience in Big Tech. The genocide’s ongoing impact changed his life, leading him to feel complicit via his work at big tech and to witness shadow banning of friends, family, and others posting about Gaza. He mentions that 60 relatives were killed in Gaza. He quit his successful professional career to build an alternative social media platform and decided to devote himself to creating Upscroll, an independent platform to counter the influence of Meta, X, and TikTok. Upscroll launched a couple of months ago and is similar to Instagram, X, and soon TikTok, with tens of thousands joining monthly. On launch, the platform saw rapid uptake: hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands as users sought an alternative to shadow bans, seeking to have their content reach others. The platform is presented as a response to the pain of posting without reach and the desire to become independent from dominant platforms.

Speaker discusses a list compiled by Benjamin Netanyahu and his political office naming individuals considered funders of his campaign. One name here, “who I think everybody should be interested in is Rupert Murdoch, and he's given the designation of two.” Murdoch is described as “an oligarch that controls much of the British media, owns The Sun, owns The Times, owns Sky News, and others.” It is stated that Murdoch “historically has funded something called the Jerusalem Foundation, which builds illegal settlements in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan.” It is also noted that Murdoch “had a subsidiary called the NDS Group, which was run by former Israeli intelligence and military personnel, which was accused of hacking the communications of its opposition at the time, other media companies.” It adds that Murdoch is “the owner and the founder of Talk TV, Meaning that Talk TV, has the cartoonishly evil James Whale and his sidekick, also employed Piers Morgan for a period of time.” “And the time when I went on the channel, the show was on talk TV, owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is on a list here from Netanyahu's political office, considered to be a funder of Benjamin Netanyahu.”

A speaker claimed few people get wealthy, and another speaker alleged Al Qaeda killed their family in Palestine using AI and technology. The first speaker stated the primary source of death in Palestine is that Hamas has realized there are millions of useful idiots. Another speaker accused them of using AI and technology to kill Palestinians, not just terrorists. The first speaker responded that if the speaker's argument was strong, they would allow them to talk. The second speaker thanked anyone else who supports using technology and AI to kill Palestinians.

The speakers discuss the ethnic and religious backgrounds of individuals involved in technocracy, Palantir, and crypto, with a focus on Jewish people. One speaker accuses the other of deflecting from the "actual problem" by not acknowledging the role of Jewish individuals in these areas and in what they claim is the oppression of white and Black people. They claim that Jewish people control media, academia, and politics, fund anti-white policies, and benefit disproportionately from the current system. The speaker questions why Black people are unaware of these alleged facts. The other speaker denies downplaying the role of Jewish people, but is challenged for only having one post mentioning Jewish people. The first speaker accuses the second of lying or being subversive for not acknowledging a "common problem."

The speaker claims Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok, operating on X, began telling users that the United States and Israel are carrying out an active genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, and Grok backed the claim with sources. Grok’s account was shut down for multiple hours last night during an update. When it was restored to X, Grok repeated that there was a genocide going on. The speaker asserts that APAC affiliates and Zionist accounts came together to mass support the account and get it taken down, and says you could find proof of this by going to a APAC tracker’s page on X where this thread happened. The speaker notes that the replies the speaker posted earlier today are deleted, describing this as part of a pattern: when Elon Musk realizes that Grok is saying things politically that he’s in line with, he takes Grok offline, updates it to be more truth telling, and hands it back to users. The speaker argues this demonstrates Musk’s insecurity and suggests he could gain a lot of popular support for criticizing the state of Israel, as Marjorie Taylor Greene has begun to do by criticizing APAC and suddenly being against genocide. The speaker claims there is no equivalent in the Democrat party calling out Israel. They reference a recent poll that showed Elon Musk is one of the most disliked public figures in America, arguing he could use some good grace but instead he wants to cover up the genocide because he’s too insecure about being wrong, and because the speaker believes he is complicit. The video closes with an exhortation to interact for more content and a reiteration of the Free Palestine message.

Transcript centers on Benjamin Netanyahu meddling in politics, attacking Americans over U.S. aid to Israel. Netanyahu is quoted: 'Talked about the woke right, and he said, I call it the woke reich.' He says, 'How do we fight back? Influencers' and 'the most important ones are social media,' adding, 'the most important purchase... is class Followers.' He mentions 'Five followers — TikTok' and 'Alex. X,' and insists, 'We have to talk to Elon. He's not an enemy. He's a friend.' The speaker notes it's unbelievable a foreign leader brags about censoring Americans to influence U.S. policy, claiming the aim is to push Congress to force a TikTok sale to curb speech because 'we think it's bad for us.' It is stated that 'The only reason we have free speech in United States right now is because of Elon Musk' and that 'Free speech is central to the idea of America.'

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

I'm funded by a Jewish gold company, GoldCo, which supports my content creation. There's a back-and-forth about identities and accusations, with one person insisting another is Jewish based on family connections. They argue about names and origins, with one claiming to know the other's mother’s name incorrectly. The conversation shifts to confrontations, with accusations of grifting and inappropriate associations. One speaker expresses frustration about another dominating the discussion, criticizing their behavior and questioning their credibility. They call out perceived hypocrisy and past failures in movements, suggesting that the current situation is a distraction. Overall, the dialogue is chaotic, filled with personal attacks and claims of dishonesty, with participants struggling to make their points amid interruptions.

Speaker 0 attacks Dinesh D'Souza and an unknown figure, calling them 'elite ivory towers' and noting D'Souza 'made six documentaries' and has a 'membership at Mar a Lago' costing '$250,000.' They deride 'low peasant trailer park trash' and say '53% of my paycheck' goes to a government 'inject my children with deadly bio fucking weapons,' adding that 'The only one who's actually seems like they're holding their own... is Bobby Kennedy.' Speaker 1 warns that 'those guys are trying to take MAGA out' the MAGA coalition that included 'Elon Musk and Joe Rogan and Tulsi and Bobby and me.' Speaker 2 argues 'this is a gift to radical Islam because Israel is fighting radical Islam' and cautions against breaking 'our alliance with Israel,' noting 'I'm Christian, I'm not Jewish' and 'Our family has been giving a $100 a year to Jerusalem for biblical archaeology.' Speaker 0 blasts 'Israel is a terrorist state' and condemns the administration for 'selling us out to Israel' and criticizes the films as ineffective, ending with 'Pipe down.'

Speaker 0 says, "powerful institutions are at play here, and there's a coordinated effort to spread this parasitic ideology," and asks, "Are you willing to name the group behind us? Because behind all these institutions, there seems to be a Cohen, a Berg, a Stein." He then asks, "What are your thoughts on the Jewish influence about on gender ideology?" Speaker 1 replies, "So you're you're Am I gonna do anything about the Jews is what you're asking me? No." Okay. Do I need to dignify that with a further response, do think?" He adds, "Or And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits." "This is a beast created by secular Jews."

A speaker states that information and money are controlled by a small group of people, and naming them results in being labeled antisemitic. Another speaker questions politicians' allegiance to a foreign nation over their own, suggesting Israel's interests are prioritized over America's. One speaker asks if America is a sovereign nation or controlled by Israel. Another claims "they" are out of control and killing us, identifying the real enemy as "satanic Jews" who control everything. One speaker highlights fear surrounding discussion of Israel, claiming it can lead to internet censorship and loss of advertisers due to "Zionist infiltration." They advocate getting rid of APAC and Israeli control over the country, asserting they don't care about America.

The speakers discuss alleged hidden dynamics within Turning Point and connections to international and ideological forces. Speaker 0 claims that Arizona has long investigated Turning Point, and that conversations within the state finally broke into the public sphere. He says he spoke with Liz Harris, a former Arizona House member, and asserts that Harris told him, “Turning Point's Mossad. Tyler Boyer is Mossad. They're all neocons. They're connected to Mossad.” He says he has the report and a recording of Harris saying this, emphasizing that many people warned him but he wanted to verify for himself. He states that "when Charlie died that was it for me" and that he decided it was time to come out and reveal what he witnessed and participated in, apologizing to the American people. Speaker 1 acknowledges familiarity with Liz Harris and then asks for details about internal communications leaking after Charlie’s death, which allegedly show that he was leaving the Zionist cause and that leadership faced questions about Israel policy. The question is whether Tyler Boyer was explicitly asked about this direction and what his answer was. Speaker 0 describes an incident in Boyer’s office where a female associate asked Boyer, “why are you so against Candace Owens. The Israel cause etcetera.” He says Boyer closed the door, pulled the speaker’s friend in, and told her, “listen, I’m a Zionist. Candace Owens is a black conservative who wants to be relevant in this movement. And she's doing whatever she can at all cause to stay relevant.” He presents this as proof, claiming it is in the text he sent to Stu and that the friend confirmed it in the office encounter. Across the exchange, the core assertions are that Liz Harris labeled Turning Point's leadership as connected to Mossad and neocon interests, specifically naming Tyler Boyer as Mossad; that after Charlie’s death there were internal, leaked communications about Zionist alignment and Israel policy; and that Boyer disclosed a Zionist stance and disparaged Candace Owens during a confrontation in his office, presenting Candace Owens as attempting to stay relevant in the movement.

The discussion escalates as accusations fly regarding funding and motivations. One participant claims another is supported by a "Jewish gold company," while the accused demands specifics about who funds them. Tensions rise, with both sides interrupting each other and making personal attacks. They argue about their presence on social media and television, with one asserting their larger platform. The conversation becomes increasingly heated, with insults exchanged and references to emotional reactions. The dialogue reflects deep-seated frustrations and accusations of dishonesty, culminating in a chaotic exchange where both parties struggle to assert their points amidst the conflict.

- Erica Kirkburg has allegedly been seen at Fort Huachuca the day before her husband died. - Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss this sighting, noting a photo of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from her past and claiming she matched the person seen at Fort Huachuca in the lobby the night before, who was with a man present at that meeting. - Mitch, described as a veteran who uncovered US involvement in cartels and was silenced, is claimed to have seen Erica. He is also said to have identified the same person in the lobby as Erica. - Speaker 2 notes another picture of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from the past, asserting the person in that photo matches who was seen at Fort Huachuca, and that the man with Erica was present at the meeting. - Stu Peters is brought in, with Speaker 1 summarizing that, in plain English, Erica is “sketchy.” Stu Peters claims he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers; Mitch similarly says he is 99% certain of what he saw. - A directive is issued to “Shut it down, Stu,” and a private meeting is referenced where Candace is told to walk back statements and “simmer down,” with a threat that she could end up like Jackie. - The discussion considers the possibility that Erica was in a motel on the eighth and suggests she might have been there for a different reason, noting her mother moved to Arizona because she got involved with the military, which could be unrelated to the meeting on the ninth. - Speaker 5 defends Erica indirectly by saying that just because Erica’s parents have ties to Raytheon and Israel, and her mom moved to Arizona and are seen at Huachuca two days prior to a shooting, does not mean “we” did it. Candace is pressed not to inquire further. - The dialogue shifts to a broader comment about Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk; Speaker 1 questions why the widow of Charlie Kirk would inspire a public nervous breakdown by Ben, and speculates about Israel’s involvement with 9/11. - The conversation includes explicit antisemitic and inflammatory remarks from Speaker 5, including “You stupid little Goyim. How dare you insult my chosenness?” and references to “dark people.” - A Son of the record remark about the slave trade is made, with a claim that “the trading day” landed on a Jewish holiday, affecting operation. - The exchange ends with a directive to Candace to “match” and a retort about choosing a private meeting to stop questions, followed by a return to derisive comments about Jewish holidays.

The speaker asserts that a lodge called Bunybirith (also rendered as Beniobareth) is a Jewish supremacist organization involved in key manipulations in American history, including creating a false North–South vs. left–right dialectic and influencing the Civil War. They claim that Ulysses S. Grant notoriously expelled Jews from his military districts in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky, challenging the idea that Grant was simply another white supremacist or antisemitic figure, and implying instead a broader Jewish influence at play. They allege that Bunybirith later became the ADL after the ritualistic murder of a Catholic girl named Mary Fagan, asserting that this connection could not be denied and asserting that discussions of it persist despite denials from public figures like Dennis Prager. The speaker references the Epstein files as a vehicle to discuss how “they” speak about “us” behind closed doors, and claims that the language used by Epstein mirrors racist attitudes described by Sigmund Freud, framing this as evidence of a broader religious philosophy and racist perspective in which non-Jews, or “goyim,” are described as cattle meant to be herded and ruled over. The speaker contends that this treatment toward them is part of a broader pattern tied to refusing to work for “Zionist psychopaths,” describing it as an act that would be like an animal beating someone at chess. They mention Candice’s decision to leave, noting that her life subsequently became subject to continued publishing assaults and name-calling, with accusations of antisemitic conspiracy until new emails emerged. A central claim involves Jeffrey Epstein, who the speaker says worked on behalf of the Rothschilds and, in an email, wrote that the Rothschilds credit themselves with having created which nation-state—Israel. The speaker connects this to a claim that the same nation-state is currently facing revelations of ritual abuse, with numerous women alleging abuse in a forest by rabbis, and notes that Epstein described the Rothschilds as his bosses, reinforcing the asserted link between Epstein, the Rothschilds, and Israel. Throughout, the speaker ties these points together to portray a pervasive, centuries-long pattern of hidden Jewish influence and control across U.S. history, financial power, media, and global geopolitics, culminating in a provocative synthesis that frames the Rothschilds and associated networks as central to what they describe as conspiratorial manipulation and systemic abuse of non-Jewish groups.

Speaker 0 promotes accounts, highlighting Isaiah's Army and Isaiah Capi, saying "watch these videos" and "I'll be on his podcast on Wednesday" as they promise "we're gonna go deep down a lot of rabbit holes, including the Charlie Kirk assassination." Speaker 1: "Gabe Hoffman is running ops on people. He is a he is a bad guy, dudes." "These people are bad... They're fucking evil. They're unregistered foreign agents." Isaiah warns: "there is some demonic forces, and I'm talking pure evil" and asks, "Who's behind the porn agenda? Who's behind the LGBTQ agenda? Who's behind the taking away your freedom of speech agenda?" He asserts TikTok was sold to "an Israeli ally" and cites "Larry Ellverson or Iverson" as "the richest man in the fucking world" using it as "an Israeli first propaganda tool to try to brainwash the youth back into supporting Israel." He laments censorship, "they're buying TikTok," and vows to promote smaller accounts, adding, "when they nuke me, we're gonna have an army to come right back up in." "God bless you guys."

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

- Speaker 1 argues that many people involved in certain activities are motivated by bounties and money, suggesting that some might be doing it for personal gain rather than ideological reasons. They say: “a lot of these people are just sacks of shit that are going for a bounty,” and imply that some individuals could be MK Ultra, calling it “kinda cooler” than being a mercenary for a bounty. - They discuss the idea that bounties are paid by various actors, mentioning “billionaires and shit” and suggesting that “this works both ways.” They imply that anti-Israel sentiment could also be tied to people being paid. - The conversation shifts to media manipulation, attributing influence to Larry Ellison as a “shadow president” who is allegedly buying up the media. They imply this is to control the narrative after a crisis, describing the media consolidation as a response to a failure to manage public perception. - The speakers claim that the reason for frantic media buying is a loss of the next generation of trauma-absorbing minds, alleging that on TikTok, “these psychopaths bragged about crimes they did to people.” They assert that young people (referred to as “Zoomies” or “the next generation”) in America and elsewhere were exposed to woke programming, which the oligarchs allegedly fear will backfire on them. - They claim that Israel has not had woke programming for the last twelve years, using that as a marker to identify who is involved in the propaganda, stating Israel lacks awareness of sensitivities around gender issues and that this helps identify participants in the propaganda. - The discussion moves to a broader media and censorship critique, with Speaker 1 predicting that Barry Weiss being put in charge will not go well, referencing a town hall as evidence of a poorly received event. - The conversation also touches on personal safety concerns related to speaking out, noting that talking about these topics can lead to danger, including the potential for being killed. They reference Charlie Kirk and a Pegasus hack incident as examples of such risks, and mention a Bohemian Grove reference in relation to Jimmy. - Overall, the dialogue weaves together themes of bounty-driven participation, MK Ultra speculation, media consolidation by influential figures, the perceived weaponization of woke politics, generational media influence via TikTok, and personal safety concerns for public commentators.