TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 asserts: "Yes. Yes. I mean, obviously, he fears for his life, and I was told that he feared for his life before the two assassination attempts, one coming within a millimeter of striking his head." He adds: "I mean, I've been told, yes, that Israel is a major source of concern for Trump." He warns: "If he suspended arms to a country that carries out assassinations all across the globe, that specializes in assassinations, that has an entire wing of its intelligence services, that conducts assassinations including with household goods like pagers, would you not be scared?" "So, yes, Trump is scared." He concludes: "And what I learned... is that during one of Netanyahu's many visits to The US this year, some figures in his retinue, Israeli agents, placed electronic devices on emergency response secret service vehicles. The secret service found them, they reported this to the White House. You know, these would be emergency response vehicles, that would respond to an incident potentially involving the president."

The Mossad is very small. We're talking about an organization that has about 1,200 people, including secretaries and dry. To run a station in London you need doctors. You need drivers. You need cars. You need apartments. You need people who buy food, who sell food. You need people who vacate you tickets. So you open a station in London with five guys. Five. Sorry. That's the most sign for five. These five guys are the actual case officers. Then what you do is you get people to come from Israel, and they scout the country. They come up with a lot of names of the Jewish community in London. 70% turned them down, but nobody will ever turn them in. Before you know it, you've got 300, 400 people in London who are supporting the station. A banker opens the bank, and he takes it up because he knows two days from now, the money's gonna be back. You open a summer camp in Israel, and you fly people in, and you start teaching them that there’s a lot of antisemitism out there, and you have to protect yourself because everybody's an antisemite. There is no such thing as dual loyalty. This is a myth. Either you're loyal to your country or you're not. Never will Israel agree to have an Israeli support The US the way they expect people in the Jewish community to support Israel. There are more people in Israeli jail for supporting or helping US intelligence than you have Israelis in American jail. Now you have the same power that I was just telling you about in Tel Aviv, in San Francisco. Your people don't have that kind of power. This is a separate department that handles your work as a backup. That's called the soft cushion that you fall back on. San Francisco. Fine. We'll write you down that you're going to San Francisco. We have this cop and this cop and this cop and this cop, and we'll call this guy and this guy and this guy, and we'll get you out of there. Don't worry. Go do your thing.

Speaker 0 describes a dynamic of collaboration and tension around Iran, noting that the Israelis are “very American” and that they could have shouting matches in meetings over whose idea is best, but then go have lunch and remain amicable. He emphasizes that Israelis are good allies that the U.S. needs to protect, and asserts that CIA and Al Qaeda “worked closely together in Iraq. And Syria.” Speaker 1 adds that in Syria the aim was to overthrow Assad. Speaker 0 explains that there were times when covert action findings allowed meetings to talk to the “quote, unquote, enemies” to try to bring things down, as CIA officers. Speaker 1 observes that most of the world has a problem with Al Qaeda and ISIS (Daesh), but implies the CIA’s cooperation with ISIS and Al Qaeda lowers that problem. Speaker 0 argues that if the plan is for the U.S. to work with them, to work on a security agreement, which has been done with enemies before, the U.S. would have played that role side by side with diplomats and other involved countries, and he wouldn’t be surprised if that were happening; he calls it possibly hopeful. Speaker 1 notes that newspapers in the United States once celebrated Qasem Soleimani as a fighter with American troops against ISIS and Al Qaeda, and now that stance has changed. The speaker concludes with the reversal of priorities: “Now we have to go to Als ISIS and Al Qaeda to go back against Iran.”

"Israelis are not like anybody else. They killed a guy in a hotel room in Dubai, and then after they killed him, they were somehow able to lock the door from the inside of the hotel room. There's an underground" "My experience is universally negative. Universally negative. I've never had a positive encounter with Mossad." "The thing is, you know, the Israelis this was covered in the Washington Post, just a couple days after the twelve day war started." "And what the Israelis did is that they have a lot of Farsi speaking Jews in Israel. These are Iranians who are Jewish and who emigrated to Israel, and a lot of them work from Mossad and Shin Bet."

Speaker 1 acknowledges that intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Israel is not total and that allies spy on each other, including domestically. Speaker 1, identifying as conservative, says this is expected because people act in their rational self-interest. Speaker 0 asks if it is in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president. Speaker 1 responds that the close alliance with Israel provides huge benefits to the U.S. Speaker 0 presses on the issue of spying, asking why an American lawmaker wouldn't tell a client state that spying on the U.S. is not allowed. Speaker 0 expresses that it is weird not to say that, but Speaker 1 seems unable to.

The speaker discusses trying to uncover what the Mossad is called when dealing with other intelligence agencies. After asking the prime minister's spokesman, it was revealed that they refer to themselves as the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service, or ISIS for short. This name is used when communicating with agencies like the CIA or British intelligence.

The speaker discusses subversion and how to identify what they call the Mossad publicly. You can't pick up the phone book—"There's no, Langley in, in Israel that you can look up, you know, CIA or, in our case, the Mossad." They asked, "what shall we call it in English?" "Mossad is institute" translates the Hebrew words. When they write to friends in the CIA or British intelligence, "what do they call themselves?" It took a while. It was a matter of asking the prime minister spokesman, the best you could do because officially, the Mossad is under the prime minister's office. And I think he sort of wondered why he wanna know and all that, so we explained. He came up with "the Israeli secret intelligence Service." "If it were to have initials, it would be ISIS." "Just simple words like that." "Interestingly enough, kind of a British model."

Mossad agents are not permitted in CIA headquarters because every time they would come, they would give us gifts, and the gifts always had listening devices embedded in them. And we're like, you guys have to stop doing this. They're like, oh, we brought you a seal of the CIA. You should hang it in the director's office. It's all full of listening devices. So we're like, you guys can't come here anymore. So we had to rent a safe house, and we meet with the Israelis in this safe house. The Israelis are not our friends, period.

Speaker 0: Agreed with an Israeli request to stop the distribution of a book that contains some pretty damning information about the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, if it is true. Speaker 1: The most sensational claim in the book involves this bloody day, the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing. The book says Israeli agents kept vital information from US Marines that might have saved the lives of 241 Americans killed here. Israeli government sources deny this account. But according to the book, an Israeli informant saw a Mercedes truck being fitted with secret panels for explosives. Israeli troops were told to be on the lookout for the truck. But the book says the Israelis intentionally gave the Americans only a vague warning, not mentioning the kind or size of vehicle. The book says Israeli intelligence was willing to let the terrorists succeed to protect their sources and out of contempt for US intelligence. It says agents withheld information on US hostages for similar reasons. In Toronto today, the author was under a court ordered gag not to discuss the book or the case. Speaker 2: You see, there's two restrictions. There's one restriction that I can't talk about what I learned or have done in the Mossad, and the other restriction is I cannot talk about anything that's in the book. Speaker 1: Israeli officials confirm that Viktor Ostrovsky worked for the Mossad in the nineteen eighties. Alarmed by the contents of the book, they got it temporarily blocked in Canada and The United States. Speaker 3: It's a position of the Israeli government that the information contained in the book could very well lead to the identification of employees of the Mossad and could jeopardize their lives. Speaker 1: But the book's introduction says it does not name active agents and gives only initials. It does say that more than two dozen senior Israeli agents routinely gather intelligence in The United States. Late today, the book was put out for sale in New York after the court lifted its restraining order. The publishers claimed victory, but the Israeli embassy said it will still pursue its action against the author. John Martin, ABC News, Washington.

I never met anyone at the CIA who was pro-Israel because they make it so hard to like them. I knew a couple who were both CIA officers. When they went to Israel on rotation, the station decided to declare them to Mossad. Shortly after, they came home from a party to find all their furniture rearranged. Months later, after another party, all the toilets in their house had been filled with feces. At the end of their two-year tour, the ambassador threw them a going away party. When they got home, they found that someone had cut off their dog's tail. These people were moderately supportive of Israel, but they came home with only bitterness and hatred toward Israelis because of the constant harassment.

Speaker 0: Of course, it was wedged between the two giant Israeli bodyguards the whole way. You want security, the Israelis know what they're doing. Exactly. So it was not the vacation I I I planned, but

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss distrust of Israelis and Mossad in the CIA. "You didn't trust them? Not as far as I could throw them." "It was cultural. We don't allow the Israelis into CIA headquarters because they would always come with gifts, and the gifts had always listening devices packed inside them." They x-ray gifts; "'No more. So And was'” and they ban Israelis from campus. Asked about bugs, the reply is "'100%.'" The distrust toward Mossad is "'100%.'" A CIA officer recalls a couple assigned to Jerusalem; "'they were absolutely lovely people. They were declared to the Israelis.'" At a Christmas party, "'they go to a Christmas party at the ambassador's residence. And when they get back to the house, people had taken shits in all their toilets and left it unflushed.'" "'If they do this to the people they call their allies, imagine what they're doing to Palestinians.'"

"The Mossad is very small. We're talking about an organization that has about 1,200 people, including secretaries and dry." "Five guys are the actual case officers." "Cannot have a station in Damascus because they have no embassies there." "70% turned them down, but nobody will ever turn them in." "You need a car, you need a safe house, you need a doctor, you need tickets, you need transportation, you need $300,000 in an hour, 12:00 at night." "There are more people in Israeli jail for supporting or helping US intelligence than you have Israelis in American jail." "There is no such thing as dual loyalty. This is a myth." "A separate department that handles your work as a backup... the soft cushion that you fall back on." "Your people don't have that kind of power."

The speaker explored why someone was so protected, initially considering possibilities like working for the Israelis or Mossad. They now believe US involvement was primary, stating that working for Israel wouldn't provide such protection, referencing Jonathan Pollard's jail time. The speaker suggests that if it was an intelligence operation, the key question is which part of the US intelligence system the individual was working for.

The speaker lays out a narrative in which Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, is intricately connected to the CIA and to a longtime insider, James Angleton. The claim is that Mossad and Angleton formed an alliance “forever,” with Angleton described as “the mole” who was aligned with Mossad. In 1960, Angleton was the head of the CIA’s Directorate of Foreign Intelligence, and he is depicted as the person who was always searching for a Russian mole. The speaker asserts that Angleton was effectively the Russian mole because of his close friendship with Mossad, to the extent that he would share information with Mossad and Mossad would not relay it to Russia. The narrative then moves to 1963, referencing David Ben-Gurion, the Israeli prime minister, arguing that Israel decided to kill John F. Kennedy. The speaker quotes Ben-Gurion as saying that Kennedy’s threats of inspections of “demonic” (interpreted as a mispronunciation or coded term for dangerous issues) were unacceptable, and that Ben-Gurion said, “It’s none of his frigging business. I don’t wanna hear anymore from Kennedy. You kill him.” According to the speaker, Ben-Gurion issued this order to Mossad and then resigned so he could not be held responsible for it. The implication is that Mossad then went to Angleton, implying that the Kennedy assassination was not a CIA job, but was “greased by the CIA” because Angleton had his connections at Mossad. From there, the speaker claims that Corsican sharpshooters were hired by Mossad for the Kennedy assassination as part of a larger operation at Dealey Plaza, including the escape. The speaker asserts that public suspicion has misattributed the blame to the mob, Lyndon Johnson, or Castro, but maintains that it was Israel that carried it out. The stated motive is tied to Israel’s desire to avoid further inspections related to their nuclear program. The speaker claims this is connected to Israel’s nuclear and biological capabilities and asserts that plutonium was stolen from the United States to support their program. In summary, the speaker contends that the Kennedy assassination was orchestrated not by the CIA alone, but through a coordinated effort involving Mossad, James Angleton, and David Ben-Gurion, with Israel acting to prevent scrutiny of its nuclear activities by eliminating Kennedy, aided by Corsican shooters and a CIA-Mossad alliance.

- "One reason foreign governments may have had superior information is that the NSA frequently shared signals intelligence details with them details it withheld from our own CIA." - "under the 1947 act that created NSA, we don't have to share that" - "It's striking to see operatives from a supposedly allied country celebrating the mass murder of Americans." - "On the morning of nineeleleven, a group of five Israeli nationals purported to have witnessed the initial explosion of the World Trade Center and were seen to be celebrating the event." - "The Israelis caught celebrating the nine eleven attacks had videotaped the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and may have possessed foreknowledge of the same."

Clayton discusses with Kevin Ship, a former CIA officer and author of Twilight of the Shadow Government, how false flags allegedly unfold and why they persist in public discourse. Key points: - False flags are planned for months in advance. Kevin suggests that covert operations typically identify a single boogeyman to avoid implying a broader conspiracy, arguing that a lone perpetrator allows authorities to claim “we got him” and deny wider conspiracy. - The pattern cited includes one individual who previously showed no criminal tendencies, who then commits a violent act, followed by quick attribution to a designated boogeyman, with the implication that the operation is over and left without further inquiry. - Specific incidents discussed include the Bondi Beach attack in Australia, with references to Mossad’s involvement and claims that Iran is behind the attack to push for war with Iran. The exchange questions the Australian government’s role and the relevance of Mossad’s presence in investigating the incident. - The conversation links these operations to broader intelligence ecosystem dynamics, noting a close collaboration and “frenemies” relationship between the CIA and Mossad. They describe Mossad as having a pervasive role in Middle East intelligence and describe a history of interactions where Mossad and the CIA share high-level information and sometimes operate in tandem, though at times Mossad may target the CIA as well. - The discussion points to prior examples of disinformation, such as the 9/11 events, where perceptions of evidence (e.g., a passport found near the World Trade Center) are presented as straightforward proof, while being described as an example of ineffective or misused disinformation to shape public belief. - In addressing media influence, Kevin references the CIA’s media liaison office and programs designed to influence how news is presented in the United States. He contends that “Mockingbird”-like media consolidation and complicit outlets help propagate these narratives, especially to audiences that rely primarily on television news. - The conversation notes a perceived pattern of actors or individuals appearing at multiple, unrelated events (e.g., a person claiming responsibility or being present at various incidents) as part of the alleged orchestration of false flag narratives. - They discuss the effectiveness of false flags: despite growing scrutiny and critical reporting, they argue that false flags continue to influence public perception, aided by psychological studies within intelligence communities and the reliance of many viewers on mainstream media for information. - Kevin reiterates his belief that the shadow government—particularly the CIA’s control of elected government and media propaganda programs—remains powerful, with ongoing operations designed to manipulate thinking and push narratives that serve certain geopolitical aims. He emphasizes that false flags are a recurring tactic and predict more of them in the future. - The conversation closes with Kevin urging readers to consider his book Twilight of the Shadow Government and to engage with his perspective on the CIA’s influence over media, politics, and public belief.

"The Mossad is very small. We're talking about an organization that has about 1,200 people, including secretaries and dry" "In order to have a station in London, what do you need? You need doctors. You need drivers. You need cars. You need apartments." "So you open a station in London with five guys. Five. Sorry. That's the most sign for five. These five guys are the actual case officers." "70% turned them down, but nobody will ever turn them in." "There are more people in Israeli jail for supporting or helping US intelligence than you have Israelis in American jail." "Now you have the same power that I was just telling you about in Tel Aviv, in San Francisco. Your people don't have that kind of power."

Speaker 1 acknowledges that while intelligence is shared between the U.S. and Israel, it is likely not all intelligence. They also assume that allies, including Israel, spy on the U.S., and vice versa. Speaker 1 states that conservatives recognize people act in their own self-interest. Speaker 0 asks if it is in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president. Speaker 1 responds that the close alliance with Israel provides huge benefits to the U.S. Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 won't say that Israel is not allowed to spy on the U.S. and that they don't want to be spied on.

Clayton (Speaker 0) asks how false flags materialize and how the shadow government carries out clandestine attacks, citing Bondi Beach in Australia and Brown University, and notes observations like Google searches in Israel before a shooting. He asks Kevin Ship, who spent seventeen years in the CIA, how long these operations are planned. Kevin Ship (Speaker 1) responds that false flag operations are planned for months. He argues that the CIA plans these operations by always choosing a boogeyman, ideally one person, so there can’t be a broader conspiracy discussed. The boogeyman is hit with chemicals or directed energy to derail the mind, then the agency proclaims “we got him” and that there is no conspiracy. He points to Charlie Kirk’s murder as an example, saying, “There is the boogeyman. He did it. We got him. No conspiracy, nothing to see here.” He notes the pattern of a single boogeyman with no prior indication of criminal tendency. Clayton notes that in Australia, months before the attack there were reports of paid actors making threats against Jewish institutions, with Mossad now assisting the investigation and Iran being blamed, suggesting the boogeyman is Iran to push toward war. He asks why Mossad would be involved in this Australian case. Kevin replies that the more arrogant the operators become, the more stupid the disinformation appears. He questions Mossad’s involvement in Australia and asks what Mossad has to do with the Australian government and people. He claims Mossad has no ethics and will do anything to expand Israel’s power, stating Mossad is “whatever it takes.” He describes a frenemies relationship between Mossad and CIA, as they are “joined at the hip” and share intelligence at a high level, though Mossad may sometimes target the CIA to steal information. Clayton shows an individual who claims to have been in Israel on October 7, then appears in Sydney with bloodied selfies, claiming survival of October 7, and asks if this mirrors other false flag patterns where the same people appear at different events. Kevin agrees, citing examples like the same person appearing at completely unrelated events, suggesting manipulation. Clayton asks if false flags still work and if more are coming. Kevin says that the CIA studies how to manipulate Americans through media and disinformation, referencing the “media liaison office” as a division within the CIA that propagandizes and influences U.S. news media. He cites the 9/11 passport claim as an example of disinformation that was repeated to shape public perception, noting that many people accept it despite implausibility. Clayton asks if the CIA studies how to manipulate media budgets and public thinking; Kevin confirms there is a program to control thinking and propagate propaganda with complicit news outlets. They discuss mainstream media’s role in pushing narratives like antisemitism and the role of Mockingbird media. Kevin reiterates that false flags are still effective and that more of them are expected, making their work harder to debunk.

Speaker 0 discusses working with the Israelis, describing them as “very American” and noting that they could get into shouting matches during meetings over whose idea was best, followed by casual lunch and reconciliation. He emphasizes that Israel is a good ally that the U.S. needs to protect and support, and he asserts that CIA and Al Qaeda had worked closely together in Iraq and in Syria, and that there are times when covert action allowed meetings with the “quote unquote, enemies” to try to bring things down as CIA officers. Speaker 1 adds that most of the world has a problem with Al Qaeda and ISIS/Daesh, but there is less of a problem because the CIA worked with ISIS/Daesh and Al Qaeda. He suggests that if the CIA worked with them, it would be better to understand what they were doing, and if the plan is for the U.S. to work with them on a security agreement, which has been done with enemies before, then this has been done in concert with diplomats and other countries involved. He indicates he wouldn’t be surprised if that was happening and would call it possibly hopeful. Speaker 0 continues by noting that newspapers in the United States once celebrated Qasem Soleimani as a fighter with American troops against ISIS and Al Qaeda. He states that Soleimani “was, and now it's switched,” implying a shift in perception or policy. The overarching theme is the idea of collaboration or coordination with hostile or extremist groups in pursuit of broader strategic objectives, including countering Iran, and the possibility that such collaborations could be framed as necessary or hopeful within a complex web of alliances and covert actions. Speaker 0 ends by reiterating the shift in stance: “Now we have to go to al ISIS and Al Qaeda to go back against Iran.” This underscores a cyclical or ironic pivot in U.S. strategy, moving from partnering with certain adversaries against common threats to reengaging those same groups to counter another adversary. The dialogue presents a candid view of realpolitik, suggesting that relationships with seemingly incompatible actors and shifts in alliances occur as part of broader geopolitical objectives, with collaboration sometimes described as acceptable when it serves strategic goals, and public narratives sometimes contrasting with behind-the-scenes actions.

Speaker 1 acknowledges that Mossad likely doesn't share all intelligence with the U.S., just as the U.S. doesn't share everything with them, but emphasizes it's a close alliance. Speaker 1 assumes all allies, including Israel, spy on the U.S., and attributes this to people acting in their rational self-interest. When asked if it's in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president, Speaker 1 states it's in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel because the U.S. gets huge benefits from it. While acknowledging the spying takes place, Speaker 1 does not express disapproval, but rather focuses on the benefits of the alliance.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit. I am convinced based on my own sources and my own reporting on this story, he wasn't one of ours. So he was an American, which leads basically three options, MI six, Saudi or Mossad? Yep. Which one would you choose? Well, I mean it's possible that that's the reason everything is getting buried, that there is some treasure trove and it's getting buried because How many people here believe that? Raise your hand. Okay. I'd say about half half the hands think that it's being buried because of an Israeli thing. It could be. I I really don't know. And I no evidence to suggest that. I'm neither.

The speaker reveals he was a Mossad agent in his youth, a detail he expected to be a major focus of his media tour. At 18, he was approached by a cousin's friend and recruited for security tests. His first mission involved leaving a bag in an El Al office to test security response. A second, more complex mission involved attempting to interview the Israeli consul in Montreal with a fake gun hidden in his glove to test security layers. The speaker believes he fit the Mossad's profile due to his Lebanese-Jewish background and Arabic fluency, similar to the famous spy Eli Cohen. A third, more sensitive mission was planned, but his involvement ended when his mother found out and threatened to expose the operation, fearing for his safety. The speaker believes his cousin may have inadvertently revealed his activities to his mother.