TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

The speaker describes a surprising series of letters between Kennedy and David Ben Gurion. Kennedy says, 'I'm killing myself trying to get a nuclear test ban treaty. I've even got the Gaul on board, and that's impossible. And you keep testing in Damona. You've got to stop.' Ben Gurion replies, 'it's easy for you to say sitting in Hyannis Port. I'm sitting with the Arabs all around me, and you want me to give up nuclear testing.' Kennedy threatens him, and the speaker says the threat was such that Ben Gurion resigned. The speaker also cites articles—not in crackpot publications, but in very sophisticated publications—saying, 'forget Lyndon Johnson, forget the CIA, Forget Fidel Castro. The Mossad killed Kennedy because they were so upset over what he did to Ben Gurion.' The speaker concludes, 'we've got a few little bombshells we throw in there. Not proven.'

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.”

I've lost a lot of friends. I've particularly in the Israel question, I've never talked about Israel. I'm not a hater of Israel. Netanyahu is really hurting The United States and the world. It's completely out of control. Over twenty years, twenty five years. And, so I've always had that view, but I've kept it to myself because it's not worth it. But we've been pushed so hard and used so much by him that it's just terrible for the country that I I grew up in. And so I've said something and, you know, you do that and people you really, like, had dinner with and really liked are all of a sudden denouncing you as a Nazi or whatever. I never wanted that and it makes me sad now.

"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."

Discussion centers on subversion and thwarting plots against the state of Israel and, publicly, what they call the Mossad. It was hard to answer because 'you can't pick up the phone book.' 'There's no, Langley in, in Israel'—so they couldn't simply look up 'CIA or Mossad.' They asked, 'What shall we call it in English?' 'Mossad is institute,' but they wondered, 'when they write a letter to their friends in the CIA or the British intelligence, what do they call themselves?' It took a while, 'a matter of asking the prime minister's spokesman,' since officially 'the Mossad is under the prime minister's office.' He 'sort of wondered why you wanna know and all that,' so they explained, and he came up with 'the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service.' 'If it were to have initials, it would be ISIS. Just simple words like that.'

The speaker recalls how, in the Mossad, they dealt with a problem in the United States who was speaking out against Israel—specifically, a person who claimed Israel was bombing Lebanon with cluster bombs. They referred to this critic as “Pete McAfee,” and they also called him “Pete the cockroach” because he was noisy and hard to get rid of. The tactic described involved contacting a station in New York or Washington and telling the people at Bneighbred to label him. A campaign would then start, and before long, the critic would be labeled an anti-Semite, a stain that “you cannot wash.” The speaker then says it shames him as a Jew to tell you that, but that’s the fact, and those perpetrating it don’t really understand what they’re doing because they’re losing their own liberty.

The speaker concludes that the Israeli Mossad was involved in John F. Kennedy's assassination because Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building nuclear weapons. The speaker claims that when they first presented this proposition, they were fiercely attacked by JFK assassination researchers who hadn't read their book. The speaker states that people misrepresented their argument as claiming that Israelis directly assassinated Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. The speaker clarifies that their actual suggestion was that pro-Israel elements in the CIA, connected to pro-Israel elements of organized crime and in the Mossad, were involved. Despite this clarification, the speaker says people preferred to attack them rather than pay attention to what they wrote.

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 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."

In San Diego, while the speaker and his wife are at a bar waiting for a table, a man comes up and says, “oh, you run the USS Liberty.” The speaker asks, “How'd you know that?” The man replies, “I know,” and holds a large camera-watch in the speaker’s face. The speaker asks him to remove the watch, saying, “hey. But get that thing out of my face.” The man then asks for guidance on “the best thing to do about the Liberty,” and the speaker replies, “just leave it alone.” The speaker asks, “who are you, Mossad?” The man says yes, identifying as Mossad. The speaker describes this as intimidation. The question of whether he was really Mossad is raised, but the speaker notes that it didn’t matter to him because “I got the message.”

"And that suits the Israelis just fine." "And if you're wondering why there's an awful lot of lunatic antisemitic comment about Israel online, you have to wonder how much of that is organic." "But how much of it is not organic at all?" "How much of that is being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy?" "Probably some because it serves their interest." "And so the true shame here, the actual villain in the story is the leadership of The United States that is putting up with serial humiliation for decades." "You'd think every country would act that way, and most do." "And for what reason? So if there's someone to be mad at, it's our leaders."

"What we put up with the attack on the USS Liberty that everyone's so afraid to talk about, clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting, Israel, and it's somehow shameful to say that." "For example, during the twelve day war, such as it was with Iran, during that short conflict, there are a bunch of Israeli Defense Force officers in the Pentagon that week." "And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it." "How can a foreign military officer barge into military headquarters, even if invited, barge into a meeting and start demanding, we want this, we want that, you need to get on this." "The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get."

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.

Joshua Peterson, a former representative for Turning Point USA, recounts his experience during training with the organization. He describes the first nights as long and strenuous, followed by a planned group time that turned out differently than expected. Instead of bonding with the current cohort, he and others were paired with former representatives from previous years who would guide them around the city. He notes an unusual setup: two “stripper vans” rented to take them into the city. He emphasizes that there were no strippers, but the vans contained stripper poles, which he found odd and inconsistent with the organization’s values. Once they reached bars in Arizona, the former reps allegedly started getting the trainees drunk. During the night, the former reps allegedly singled out individuals to smoke with them. When it was his turn to talk to them, Peterson says they asked about his views on Israel, and he expressed that he thought Israel was a good country at the time. They pressed him further about Mossad and Israeli forces, and he replied that they were “alright.” They then claimed, “we’re part of, like, Israeli groups and forces,” and asserted, “we’ve been working for Turning Point for the past four or five years now.” Peterson states he did not know at the time whether the company knew about this or if they were infiltrating Turning Point USA, but he believed there were more such individuals—“Israeli agents within Turning Point USA” and more of them in the organization. He and a couple of other representatives discussed the issue with Turning Point’s administration, believing action would be taken. However, he says nothing was done in response and there was “absolutely zero retaliation” toward the Israeli-affiliated representatives, which he describes as a significant red flag for many of them. In closing, Peterson highlights that these events raised serious concerns about possible infiltration by Israeli agents within Turning Point USA and the lack of disciplinary response from the organization’s leadership.

"On the USS Liberty that everyone's so afraid to talk about, clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting, Israel." "And it's somehow shameful to say that." "During the twelve day war, such as it was with Iran, The US and Israel versus Iran, bombing on all sides." "But there are a bunch of Israeli defense force officers in the Pentagon that week." "And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it." "The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get." "Because of the weakness of our leaders, we have incited predators in a foreign country to take advantage of us." "Oh, that's such an anti Israel thing." "It's not anti Israel at all." "And they're not even pretending."

The speaker states they did not trust Israelis, "not as far as I could throw them," and that the CIA doesn't allow Israelis into headquarters because they would bring gifts containing listening devices. According to the speaker, 100% of the gifts from Israelis had bugs in them, even at a safe house in Virginia. The speaker claims that 100% of their colleagues didn't trust Mossad. In contrast, the speaker trusted the British the most because their national interests are closely aligned.

More trouble, no one has caused more harm, no one has caused more wars in my lifetime than Israel. Israel is not our ally. At this point, they are our enemy. They take money from us. They incriminate us to the whole world. They implicate us in their immoral war crimes. No one has hurt this country more than Israel has. Israel is our top enemy. Enemy.

I'm considering taking in an Israeli refugee, but I have some concerns. I joke about giving them a shelf and fridge, but then I might end up sleeping in my own shed because the toilet is occupied. It's funny, right? I recently did a job where I got heavily booed for a joke, but I believe if you don't like it, you can leave. I care about the people in Gaza.

Yes. I I watched Mossad take over the Pentagon in 02/2002. The Pentagon was infiltrated by Mossad. They did not need any identification to get through the river entrance to the building. They went upstairs to Douglas Fife, the undersecretary of defenses for policy, the third most powerful man in the defense department. Occasionally, they went to the second most powerful man, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, and they had run of the Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, said to my boss one time, hell, I don't run my building. Mossad does.

This is a nation that is the most resilient I've ever seen on earth. It may sound a little bit this afternoon as if I'm almost speaking on behalf of Israel rather than The US, but I want to explain that part of my advocacy in our relationship is because if you came to my house tonight for dinner and you came in and you said, "oh, Mike, we like you. We really think the world of you. We just enjoy being with you. So excited to be here with you and have dinner with you." "But your wife, we can't stand her. We don't like her a bit. I hope she's not gonna be at the table. I would say, well, she will be. You won't be." "Get out. Because if you were to insult my partner, you have insulted me."

"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."

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.