TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims there is black and white evidence that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election and then sought to destroy the Trump administration after their candidate, Hillary Clinton, wasn't elected. They allege the CIA interfered in the 2020 election with the 51 former intel agents who dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. The speaker asserts that US intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice interfered in past elections and will interfere in the 2024 election to protect themselves. They believe the Durham investigation and congressional investigations provide hard evidence of this interference. The speaker suggests individuals involved are terrified of a Republican president and attorney general investigating and charging them with crimes committed over the last eight years. They claim these individuals were aware of their wrongdoing and avoided putting anything in writing.

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.

Speaker 0 raises the question of CIA involvement in drug trafficking, referencing a past discussion with former Tel Aviv CIA chief of station Susan Miller and noting a reminder about Iran-Contra. They ask why the CIA would be intimately involved with drug trafficking, and mention Candace Owens discussing it in relation to the Charlie Kirk assassination. Speaker 1 answers that trafficking in drugs allows the CIA to get closer to the targets they want to reach. They point to a popular Netflix series, Narcos, which follows the hunt for Pablo Escobar, the Cali cartel, and other major cartels. They claim that, in the show, and in real life, every time the Drug Enforcement Administration gets close to its primary target, the CIA station chief steps in and ruins the investigation. They state that this happens because the CIA doesn’t care about drugs. Speaker 1 continues that the CIA cares about terrorism and communism, implying there are always some other bigger ideological concerns. Therefore, the CIA is “perfectly happy” to allow cocaine to flood into the United States in the 1980s during the Iran-Contra period, just as it was “perfectly happy” to allow Afghanistan to provide 93% of the world’s heroin once the United States began its occupation of Afghanistan.

The speaker claims the Obama campaign spied on their campaign and was caught red-handed, possibly committing treason. They allege this has never happened before, or at least no one has been caught. The speaker believes spying occurred and that President Obama, Joe Biden, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and Lisa Page all knew about it. They claim to have documented evidence in texts and other forms. The speaker describes this as a terrible act that should never happen again to a president and calls it a setup and a political crime of the century. They await the consequences for those involved.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

The speaker, a former LAPD narcotics detective, accuses the CIA of drug trafficking and presents evidence of CIA involvement in drug operations. Another individual mentions past CIA activities, including assassination attempts and espionage. They question the credibility of the CIA director's denial of such activities in Los Angeles.

Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers: - Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened. - After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision? - The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching. - Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored? - Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden? - Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed? - The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action. - Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar. - The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling. - The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift. - The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA. Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

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.

They suspect another assassination attempt on a leader before November. A Secret Service agent claims the agency's leadership is corrupt and unable to protect. The agent plans to blow the whistle and expects another attempt due to incompetence. The email was removed from servers, hinting at a cover-up.

We spoke to someone with access to hidden CIA documents about their involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The response was clear: yes, the CIA was involved. This revelation suggests that there are powerful forces within the U.S. government that operate beyond democratic control, capable of influencing elections and concealing their actions, including the murder of a president. This undermines the very concept of democracy. Trust in the government has declined since Kennedy's assassination, and those in the know, including every CIA director since 1963, have been aware of this troubling reality.

Kennedy was seen as a privileged president planning to disarm nuclear warheads. The speaker, with inside knowledge from Jesuit headquarters, discusses details of the assassination team and Watergate. Deep Throat, revealed as Mark Felt, guided Woodward to follow the money to Nixon's involvement in Watergate. The CIA head, McCone, was kept in the dark.

Speaker 0 is being accused of spreading a Russian plan, but this claim is dismissed by both parties and former heads of the CIA. The accusation is considered garbage and not believed by anyone, including Speaker 0's friend Bernie.

Speaker 0: He delivered a speech at Riverside Church on 04/04/1967, a year to the date before he was assassinated. And that was a powerful anti war speech that he delivered. Speaker 1: What would you say was the significance of that particular speech? Speaker 0: The real significance was that it put him, his footprints heavily into the anti war movement for the first time. And he termed The United States the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. And so he was rising as a severe principal critic of the government in that speech. Another negative significance is that he was attacked from all sides. He was called a traitor by mainstream media. Millions of dollars were withdrawn from his organization, Southern Christian Leadership Conference. So he lost a great deal by taking that position. All of that is significant. Speaker 1: What do think was the primary motivation behind the killing? Speaker 0: I think assassinations, political assassinations are a last resort, as a rule. But I think in terms of The United States from what I've observed and throughout its history, and there have been assassinations other than those in the sixties, remember, I think it's a last resort. I think if they can, if a person is troublesome to them and potentially can develop a following, I think they have to stop him. Now they can do that by rendering him unemployable, by having him set up in some kind of a scandal or sexual activity that destroys his credit or her credibility. They can buy him off by giving him a job or position. There are a variety of techniques by blacking them out in terms of the media. And so if they can't control any other way, and the person is that critical in terms of potentially mobilizing people, that's when political assassinations take place. Assassination is the last resort. Martin King was assassinated not only because he was bringing enormous thought to the whole Vietnam War effort opposing it and the corporate militarists of the society, the weapons providers, energy providers, all of that were going to lose huge fortunes of money if that war ended. So it was not only that but it was the fact that he was going to bring half a million people to Washington in the Poor People's March. And the military believed that they would see their mission as a failure because they would go to the congress, try to get them to change the the priorities for public funding from from the military, take some money from the military, and bring it into social services programs, and they wouldn't be successful. And that would that would radicalize the group to such a point where they might have a revolution on the streets of Washington with masses they couldn't control. They didn't have the troops. Westmoreland wanted 200,000 more in Vietnam. They didn't have those. They certainly didn't have the troops to put down that kind of revolution on the streets. So they had to kill King, make sure he didn't bring that kind of dynamic into Washington.

Speaker 0 introduces the topic of Israel allegedly having influence over the US government and mentions that Israel assassinated JFK, pointing to William Cooper as the source who was also assassinated by Israel. Speaker 0 references Cooper’s book Behold a Pale Horse and notes that Cooper was the first to obtain original footage from a CIA whistleblower showing who shot Kennedy and how they shot Kennedy. He says the media’s clips started at a cropped frame, and that Cooper’s release prompted further questions. Speaker 1 explains that the assassin was the driver in the car with Kennedy, visible in a film with public help. He brings the film, saying it shows the motorcade on Elm Street in front of the Book Depository Building, Kennedy having been shot in the throat, Jacqueline pulling Kennedy toward him in shock, and the driver turning around with a pistol in his left hand, firing over his right shoulder and shooting the president in the head. Speaker 2 asks for a repeat and then the duo watches the film. Speaker 1 identifies the driver as William Greer, noting he was a secret service agent. He describes the weapon as an electrically operated gas-powered assassination pistol built especially for the Central Intelligence Agency, asserting there is no puff of smoke. Speaker 2 questions whether the weapon is indeed a pistol in the lower right corner of the frame. Speaker 1 confirms it is an air-operated pistol (pneumatic) and claims it fired an exploding pellet that injected shellfish toxin into the president’s brain, so that if the pellet’s explosion did not kill him, the toxin would. He states that he read all of this in the documents. Speaker 0 asks what type of weapon was used to assassinate JFK and references the 1963 time frame, saying that intelligence agencies would have such weapons. He then questions whether intelligence agencies could have used such weapons to assassinate Charlie Kirk. He suggests listening to Jack Posobiec and others who are “carrying water for this administration,” implying time will tell.

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?”

The speaker believes the individual involved in a recent political attack did not act alone, citing a lack of requisite skill and the media's quick dismissal. They question if the individual was honey-trapped by a foreign entity and criticize the FBI's handling of the situation, including the rapid cremation of the body and the claim that the individual acted alone. Senator Ron Johnson also finds the situation suspicious, particularly the rush to dispose of evidence. He highlights the fact that the body was cremated before autopsy and toxicology reports were released. He notes the FBI immediately declared the individual acted alone without a thorough investigation. The speaker points out the FBI's history of spying and questions why, if the individual acted alone, the FBI doesn't release the data they likely possess. They cite a counter sniper's concern over the scrubbing of the roof and question the need for a high-powered attorney if the case is straightforward. Senator Johnson states that the Secret Service and FBI are stonewalling the senate investigation, providing heavily redacted documents and delaying transcribed interviews. The speaker concludes that the agencies are hiding something, as transparency would dispel conspiracy theories.

The speaker claims to have evidence that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election and then tried to destroy the Trump administration when Hillary Clinton lost. They also accuse the CIA of interfering in the 2020 election by dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. The speaker believes that there will be election interference in 2024, as there have been no consequences for previous interference. They suggest that if a Republican president and attorney general are elected, they will investigate and charge those responsible for election interference. The speaker believes that the intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice are scared of this possibility.

Speaker 0 admits to never believing that the CIA killed Kennedy. Speaker 1 claims to have read the entire JFK file, including the secret information and the 7 pages of the 911 report. Speaker 0 warns against sharing what they have seen, as they could be bribed. Speaker 1 mentions being bribed in Texas. Speaker 0 introduces themselves as Cash and mentions JFK and UFOs.

Speaker 0 asserts: I’m not suicidal. Any creator, politician, or celebrity who tries to make a film or documentary on CPS has wound up dead, including a senator. The November film will be their hardest hitting, and they will “rip the veil off” to the point where CPS shows up at your door. Our government is running the world’s largest child trafficking network. They emphasize they would never kill themselves, do drugs, or put themselves in dangerous environments; if anything happens to them, it is the United States government. They watched the first take of the film and say, “they’re gonna kill me.” They urge a trip down memory lane to discuss Pizzagate, stating this is where it all starts. Speaker 1 begins by saying the Pizzagate story has outrageous connections and promising brand-new whistleblower information that will blow minds. They provide an overview: back to Bill and Hillary Clinton, whom many believe to be child pedophiles. They say there’s never been direct evidence, but in 02/2016 WikiLeaks published Hillary Clinton emails with John Podesta showing coded language about a child trafficking ring centered in a Washington, DC pizza restaurant basement at Comet Ping Pong. Edgar Maddison Welch went to the restaurant with firearms to “liberate the children,” but no one was hurt; it was later said there wasn’t a basement, so the scandal was dismissed, though there’s more to the story. The transcript then ties Hillary Clinton to Laura Silsbee, who was involved in trafficking, and outlines a chain: Hillary Clinton and Laura Silsbee exchanged documents detailing logistics of trafficking children from Haiti to Boise, Idaho. Laura Silsbee had previously kidnapped several dozen children from Haiti and attempted to cross into the Dominican Republic; she was caught and the children were returned to their families. Shawnee M. King is cited for reporting on Silsbee’s case. Jorge Puello, an attorney for Silsbee’s group, was suspected of leading an international trafficking ring; Puello was arrested in investigations by ICE and Homeland Security; his wife faced charges of sexual exploitation of minors and women. The narrative claims Hillary Clinton and Laura Silsbee were connected; Bill and Hillary Clinton allegedly helped negotiate the release of Laura Silsbee and her accomplices after their imprisonment in Haiti. Speaker 1 then ties the connections to CPS: the number-one source of child trafficking is the U.S. CPS system, and the number-one gateway to sex trafficking in America is the foster care system. The foster care system allegedly lost over 100,000 children in the last twenty years, raised questions about where they went, and claims millions of children are abused in foster care by financially compensated foster parents and social workers. The Adoptive Safe Families Act (ASFA), championed by Hillary Clinton and signed by Bill Clinton in 1997, supposedly created and financed CPS/foster care by diverting Social Security funds to 50 states, giving a financial incentive to “kidnap” children. It is claimed that CPS targets poor and minority children and single-parent families, and that the system now functions as a government-subsidized child-trafficking ring. Speaker 1 lists correlations: CPS is a tool used to target conservatives; CPS offices get paid per child kidnapped; 83% of removals lack proof of abuse. The claim is that Hillary Clinton created the system and that Laura Silsbee, a friend of Clinton, is involved in Idaho’s CPS network. Laura Silsbee allegedly works with Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) and is a registered foster care parent in Idaho, receiving monthly payments for children in her custody, as shown by whistleblower-provided screenshots. Idaho’s Attorney General Raul Labrador opened an investigation into IDHW financial misappropriations, but Idaho’s Department director Dave Jepison resigned and disappeared, and Judge Lynn Norton allegedly issued an order halting the AG’s investigation. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare allegedly dominates Idaho’s budget, and Laura Silsbee’s role with IDHW is framed as proof of a nationwide system. The narrative concludes by warning Idahoans to beware of Laura Silsbee (aka Laura Gaylor), Judge Norton, and supporters of IDHW, asserting that the system extends to all 50 states, including Arizona, Texas, and Florida, which are described as among the worst offenders in CPS corruption.

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 claims to have video footage from January 6th of two federal agents attacking the Capitol. Speaker 0 states they have been trying to get the FBI to investigate for over a year, providing them with twenty-nine minutes of high-definition footage. Speaker 0 says the FBI has not arrested the agents, nor have their images appeared online. Speaker 0 claims the FBI refuses to accept a statement or view video from January 5th, 6th, and 7th. Speaker 1 says the FBI raided them twice, came to their home, and took their phones. Speaker 1 advises Speaker 0 to avoid the FBI if possible.

The transcript covers a broad set of interwoven claims about global health security, intelligence operations, political conspiracies, and alleged CIA influence on U.S. leadership. Key points include: - Pandemic preparedness and global infrastructure: There is discussion that an airborne, deadly disease could emerge, and to deal with it effectively we must put in place infrastructure globally and domestically to see, isolate, and respond quickly. The investment is framed as a smart, long-term insurance against future flu strains like the Spanish flu, especially in a globalized world. - CIA and presidency dynamics: The day after an election, the CIA director allegedly authorizes a president-elect to begin receiving a President’s Daily Brief (PDB) and uses the briefing to “suck him in,” presenting impressive can-dos that shape the new president’s perceptions and questions. This is described as psychological profiling and manipulation, with the CIA using long-standing methods to influence a president and government direction. - Allegations of a covert cabal influencing U.S. institutions: The conversation suggests a cabal has aimed to destroy U.S. institutions from within, including defunding the military and ordering actions that undermine allies while aiding enemies. This cabal allegedly includes control over the FBI, DOJ, and the presidency, culminated in the appointment of James Comey to head the FBI, portrayed as a “cardinal” with ties to the Clinton Foundation and as part of broader cabal activity. - 2008–2011 FBI and political corruption narrative: An asset described as a high-level foreign agent allegedly influenced U.S. politics and was connected to multiple intelligence services, with claims about his role in internal U.S. political manipulation. The rise of a president referred to as “Renegade,” identified as Barry Sartaro (Barry Soetoro), is described as part of the cabal’s plan to destabilize the United States from within, including military demoralization and misdirection. - Barack Obama conspiracy theories: The dialogue asserts that Barack Obama’s origins and identity have been manipulated for political purposes, including claims about a forged birth certificate, ongoing questions about birth location, and various individuals connected to Hawaii’s health department and local authorities providing or denying birth certificate verification. References include Loretta Fuddy and investigations into Obama’s birth details, with assertions that Obama’s name and identity were manipulated in Indonesia (Barry Soetoro) and that his family connections tie to CIA-backed operations in Asia. - Indonesia coup and CIA involvement: The conversation links Obama’s family to CIA-backed activities in Indonesia, including the overthrow of Sukarno and the rise of Suharto, with relatives described as having roles in money channels and death squads. The narrative asserts that Lolo Soetoro acted in intelligence-adjacent roles and that Obama’s grandmother helped channel CIA funds in the region. - Claims about CIA media manipulation and “MK Ultra” style operations: The speakers reference Operation Mockingbird, MK Ultra, and other CIA operations as public knowledge used to undermine the American people. They suggest continued silencing and manipulation by those operations. - Kill lists and drone warfare under the Obama administration: The transcript alleges that John Brennan led “Tuesday morning kill list” meetings starting in 2009, with drones and targeted killings used to eliminate designated individuals, and asserts confidence that Obama’s administration excelled at deploying missile strikes and other covert actions, contrasted with the possibility of ongoing use by subsequent administrations. - Recurrent thread of distrust in institutions: Across pandemic planning, birth certificate controversy, foreign influence, CIA cabal theories, and drone warfare, the overarching theme is distrust of established institutions and assertion of deep, planned manipulation by covert actors.

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.”