(Full, UNCUT, Debate can be found here: https://rumble.com/v7eunfg-alex-jones-and-naomi-wolf-get-into-fiery-debate-over-israel-and-oct-7-uncut.html)

This transcript was prepared from the video recording of the live broadcast referenced above. Punctuation and a small number of proper names were cleaned for readability. Overlapping speech has been approximated. The bracketed timestamps mark elapsed time or gaps during the Live Stream.

Transcript of the Discussion

[00:00:09] ALEX JONES

All right, I told my producers a few weeks ago, I said, I want Dr. Naomi Wolf on. They said, what about? I said, whatever she wants to talk about. And then I’m talking to her in the break, and she says, I want to get into the red-green alliance because as much as we want to get mad at Trump and as much as we want to get pissed off about him going sideways on some things, he’s night and day, and he’s a lame duck anyway, so get what we can get out of him. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and all the great stuff happening, at least trying to stop the Ukraine war. And so I totally agree with her. That is front and center, the takeover of the Democratic Party. I mean, I’ve got the clips we played on this week. We’re going to have a violent revolution. We’re wargaming everything. They want to collapse society, so I want to get into them. But first, Dr. Wolf, I want to ask you, because you were a top Democrat strategist before, woke up in the last really 20 years ago or whatever, when you saw the police state, the martial law plans, all of a sudden the Democrats, it wasn’t like you were enamored with the Republicans, but you said, God, this party’s really bad, and then Trump was doing so good in his first term, so good his first six months, and then went sideways. How are you gauging that? How are you balancing that? Because I will say all these good things about Trump and what he’s doing good, call balls and strikes, then I’ll say, if he wants to nuke Iran and send in ground forces, impeach him, he’s crazy. They say, impeach him. No, I said, if he does that, impeach him. So it’s a problem with the media doing that. How do you, a really smart lady, balance all of this? Because if you don’t put pressure on Trump with some of the bad influences he has, then he’ll get worse. I’ve noticed we put pressure, we get some good things out of him. But how are you dealing with the MAGA civil war and then Russia and Iran and, obviously, the looting that’s going on? And just because the Democrats did it, it’s not okay to insider trade over here. It’s very embarrassing, and I just can’t sign on to that. So how are you, in general, what is your view of that? Because I really respect that. And maybe you’re like my counselor, my psychologist here, because I’m trying to, like, what is the best moral thing to do? I’m not a lesser-of-two-evils guy, but then I look over here at the Democrats, foaming at the mouth, packing the Supreme Court plans, actual communist overthrow, and I’m just like, okay. I’m kind of like a robot that has too much information. I have smoke coming out of my ears.

[00:02:21] NAOMI WOLF

Yeah. Wow. You’ve said a mouthful. And, you know, before I dive in, I just want to say it occurred to me, looking at the date that I first spoke to you about 17 years ago, and we were both in very different places, or I was in a very different place. But I spoke to you about the end of America, and you were one of the very few people who wanted to hear or talk with me, take the discussion further, you know, confirming that America was headed in a totalitarian direction, and that the problem wasn’t one party or another, it was fascism, and that anyone can be seduced into following a fascist regime or being part of a fascist regime. So I just really want to honor you. You were so ahead of the curve, and I remember getting a lot of flack, like, oh, because I was, you know, still a darling of the liberal media then, oh, Naomi Wolf spoke to Alex Jones. Well, Alex Jones was right, and the New York Times wasn’t right, and the Wall Street Journal wasn’t right. Well, you were a trailblazer too, reaching out and saying, let’s just end this insanity, or we’re all going to get killed. I mean, so thank you. Yeah, so it’s been 17 years. I was saying 17, 20, I couldn’t remember. What an insane time we live in now. Seems like the past was like green pastures compared to this. Absolutely. Now, you know, coming up to this present moment, I don’t see things the way you do. I’m really, really grateful for President Trump in this administration, and even where, you know, one can certainly criticize or second guess individual steps of his. I think the people with whom he’s surrounded are so talented, overwhelmingly, Harmeet Dhillon, Monica Crowley, I think Secretary Rubio is unbelievable, Secretary Kennedy. I mean, these are, I can’t remember in my lifetime a group of people, Scott Bessent, who was a classmate of mine, I think. Yeah, it’s night and day compared to Kamala Harris who couldn’t form sentences.

[00:04:17] ALEX JONES

No, no, I agree with you that it’s much better with Trump. I just have this issue within almost the betrayal, though, when he goes sideways on things. And I’ve even said it, like, I get emotional, and I don’t think I’ve been balanced at some points.

[00:04:31] NAOMI WOLF

But, like, can you be specific? Because I know it’s easy to say, oh, you know, he said he’d be America first, and we’re still, you know, in a conflict in Iran six months later. But I think that that conflict is actually, and I’m a peacenik, right? I’m a dove. I don’t like war. I don’t like wars of choice. I don’t like dirty wars. I don’t like un-congressionally mandated wars, of course. But I do think that the activity against Iran is very salutary, and I think it’s making the world a lot safer. I think that it was clear that Iran was a rogue state. You know, the fact that Iran sent missiles all over the region at their own allies in addition to, you know, their stated enemies is confirmation.

[00:05:18] ALEX JONES

Sure, I mean, let’s be clear. I said when this started 180-something days ago, I could hit a button and send the mullahs to the moon, or Mars, I’d do it, or hell. But the assessments were, it wouldn’t work. I mean, so my issue was just, this could derail the economic situation.

[00:05:27] NAOMI WOLF

Well, did it?

[00:05:38] ALEX JONES

Yeah, I mean, it’s still baked in, but it looks not too hot. We look at Bessent, who’s very smart trying to fix the bond situation. I mean, we’ll find out. It’s definitely a gamble.

[00:05:48] NAOMI WOLF

I, yeah, I really just disagree with you, like, and I have so much respect for you, but at what price prosperity, right? Like, is it really prosperity if we’re worried about the funding of Islamic terrorists all over the world, including on our own shores, including people who are running for office and getting into positions of power and being funded by.

[00:06:16] ALEX JONES

And I want to go there next, but let me just put bookends on this, because here’s my thing. This is where I don’t get mad at Stephen Crowder or people that are, you know, pro-war or whatever you. I get the perspective. To me, I’m trying to think a bunch of steps down. But definitely, I’m not praising Hunter Biden, whose dad engineered the Ukraine war. I’m not mad at Trump, so I’m going with them. There does seem like an overcorrection with a lot of people there, so I think that’s another. That’s why you’re on to talk about that. So let’s speak to that, and then let’s get in to the Red-Green Alliance and the takeover of the Democratic Party and what we’re facing.

[00:06:47] NAOMI WOLF

You bet.

[00:06:51] NAOMI WOLF

So talk about why I think this war is ultimately good for us.

[00:07:50] ALEX JONES

Sure, go ahead. Is that your – okay.

[00:08:49] NAOMI WOLF

And, again, you know, my husband’s veteran. I never want any young person to be at risk for no, you know, absolutely necessary reason. Eighteen service members have lost their lives in this conflict. Each one of them is a terrible loss. At the same time, that is a – like, to put it in perspective, like real politic perspective, that is a tiny price to pay for getting – for ruling out a rogue state that makes war on its own people, that reduces women to the status of slaves, really, that executes its own people, that gives women lashes for singing in public or, you know, letting their hair be visible out of their headscarves. You could argue that none of that is our business or our problem. There are regimes around the world that do similar horrible things to their own populations and to women. But the threat that Iran presented as a nuclear threat that would not allow inspections, that wouldn’t live up to international norms and treaties proving that they were safe to be in that region, that they weren’t building a nuclear arsenal. That’s a threat – I mean, that’s a threat that someone like you usually would recognize as an existential threat. And the other thing I want to say is, you know, that Scott Bessent today, I think, or this week, announced that he was investigating and suppressing a huge set of, like, shadow banks that were funneling billions of dollars from and to Iran. And these dollars were funding terrorist organizations around the world. Well, that really matters to us because, as you and I know, we’re fighting a war here at home, even though it’s not a declared war. And, you know, churches are being set on fire all over the West. There are attacks on civilians by Muslim fundamentalists, I think, posing as refugees, all across Western Europe, increasingly in the United States. There are, like, buddies of, you know, people who said America deserved 9-11, you know, hanging out with our leadership, right? People like Zohran Mamdani in the mayor of the city where I live, New York City. People like Abdul El-Sayed, who has won his primary, right? The Democratic Socialists of America are in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, essentially, and documented money flows to the Muslim, you know, to organizations adjacent to the Muslim Brotherhood. And through CAIR, which is, has been, like, confirmed to be funding terrorist-friendly groups, this is really, really serious.

[00:09:49] ALEX JONES

Let me back up what you’re saying from your perspective. And some listeners will go, wait a minute, you’ve been against this war, but now you’re going to argue it. I’m doing your perspective, then I’ll give you my third, fourth, fifth consequence reason I’m against it. Obama triggered the Arab Spring, overthrew Egyptian allies, blew up hundreds of churches, got caught money laundering hundreds of millions of dollars to them. He’s the same one who started the Ukraine war, that literally has us on the brink of nuclear war, with the Bidens. And so you can go, wait, Trump is opposing their agenda with Iran, with this triple game they’re running. This is good. And so I can see at one level, however, you look at it like that. I’m obviously not with the Islamists. I’m not with throwing gays off buildings. I mean, I’m Islamophobe, folks. Let’s just throw it out there. So I get all that. My issue is we’re always told we’re fighting them over there so they don’t come here. We have record numbers here with the left bringing them in. So I get the whole left-red-green alliance and that it’s the real cancer long term. I’m saying we’re post-Trump, folks. He’s got problems. Let’s try to get him to do the right thing but not be so hurt we then run and literally glaze the Democrats. And now Hunter Biden is like our priest who tells us what’s good and what’s not. And he says who’s woke and who’s not. I mean, it’s definitely an overcorrection. So I get you. That’s why I said earlier this week, I’m not infighting. They call it infighting. I’m bitching at Republicans to get what I wanted out of them. I don’t even try with Democrats.

[00:11:19] NAOMI WOLF

But what do you want? I mean, do you want Trump to pull out of the Straits of Hormuz? I mean, we’re so close to being the world’s superpower, which we should be, not Russia, not China. Someone’s going to be a superpower, right? We don’t want a multipolar world. But I mean, we had the Straits of Hormuz open before this did that. That’s my point. Right.

[00:11:44] ALEX JONES

But I think the strategy is, I think Trump’s strategy, from what I understand, is to keep it closed. And this degrades Iran’s ability to export and even manage its own oil. Yeah, but that also hurts us. That gun kicks as hard as it shoots.

[00:12:03] NAOMI WOLF

Okay, well, I guess I don’t see that. I guess what I see is... Well, Trump says let’s have some short-term pain for long-time gain. We’re on the verge of economic collapse.

[00:12:12] ALEX JONES

The economist I talked to said this is the only thing that could screw us over with the recovery. Because one thing, if we were like 10 years ago, we’re on the verge of default with $40 trillion. And so Trump’s like Kamikaze Canada, you know, and yeah, we’ll defeat them. But then even a few percentage points hurting us drives us underwater. That’s my point. It’s not like I’m a huge hockey fan and worship maple leaves or something. And I don’t dislike Canadians. But I mean, I just... It didn’t want to think that they weren’t building nuclear weapons aimed at us. I mean, I just don’t see how you can align or, you know, turn a blind eye to that kind of threat. I’m not, but North Korea has up to 50-something nukes. I mean, my point is Iran’s already got nukes. Okay, well, Israel getting...

[00:12:59] NAOMI WOLF

This whole thing now, Pakistan pumped up its nuclear umbrella. Everybody’s running under it. See how that... I was already thinking about that. So it doesn’t matter if Iran has nukes because we can... No, no. We surveilled the whole thing. Okay, let’s address the elephant in the room, Alex. What about Pakistan? Oh, no, Pakistan. Again, our CIA geniuses, A.Q. Khan... I’m going to speak to the elephant in the room. If Iran takes out Israel, we are going to be completely defenseless without one of our most trusted allies, whatever your criticisms, one’s criticisms of the state of Israel. Well, if they’re not fighting over there and being a beachhead of alliance for our values in the Middle East, we are completely at the mercy of 35 united fundamentalist Muslim countries who think of us as the great Satan

[00:13:49] ALEX JONES

and who are sending their billions...

[00:13:51] NAOMI WOLF

No, if they attack... It’s kind of too late if they attack us with a nuclear weapon, Alex. Oh, the Tinker Toys the Iranians have? A-bombs? You don’t know. They weren’t building nuclear weapons.

[00:14:07] ALEX JONES

This all began because they wouldn’t let the inspectors... They wouldn’t... Naomi, let me give you a newsflash. They have dozens of atomic bombs. So...

[00:14:16] NAOMI WOLF

So how is that okay with you? That’s not okay. That is very dangerous. But we’re pushing them into using them. They’re lunatics. I would rather take out crazy fundamentalist tyrants who have, you know, numberless nuclear warheads, as you’ve just acknowledged, in one of the most dangerous conflict-ridden parts of the world than turn a blind eye to the growing threat since they’ve made their wishes clear. All I’m saying is they got Hiroshima and Nagasaki-type bombs, for my information.

[00:14:47] ALEX JONES

That’s like a BB gun compared to a howitzer. And all I’m saying is, is that from all the actuaries I’ve seen, this pushes them in to using those. And then, in most war games, it turns into a full nuclear war. That’s my concern.

[00:15:01] NAOMI WOLF

Have they used them? It’s been six months. Have they used them? No, but now they’re admitting they basically have them. They’re saying they might. I’m sorry. I’m not laughing because it’s funny. I’m just laughing because I’m familiar with, I don’t know how to put this nicely, fundamentalist Islamic rhetoric. We’ll use them. We’ll use them. Great Satan. Five months in, six months in, we’re really going to build that nuclear bomb. I mean, to me, just looking as a kind of amateur. They know they’re going to get nuked into oblivion if they use them. They, I am not seeing an Iran in a position of power. I’m seeing that President Trump’s sustained warfare combat against them is degrading them. And the other thing I kind of want you all to think about is headlines want war to be over in a week. But if you think about the history of warfare, many, many successful wars were sieges. And that’s what I think we’re seeing. No, they’re wars of attrition. That’s right. And I don’t think President Trump is naming his strategy because he’s too strategic to tell everyone, hey, idiots, this is a war of attrition. Sit tight. It’s working. But that’s what I see. I mean, you know, my husband was in Israel three weeks ago and people were, you know, sunbathing on the beaches and playing volleyball. And, you know, all the religions were going to prayer and they’re, you know, completely protected mosques and synagogues and churches. And if Iran was in a position of power, that whole country would be a smoking ruin right now. They’ve been wanting to get rid of Israel for decades. And they haven’t. They didn’t even strike Israel effectively because of Iron Dome. They haven’t struck the United States. Meanwhile, day by day, we’re increasingly becoming the, you know, the owners of 60 percent of the world’s energy reserves. And we’re crippling Iran’s ability to export their own oil. And now Scott Bessent, that genius Yale classmate I’m proud to claim, is crippling the money flow that didn’t just fund Iran’s strength at home and maybe, you know, their ability to build nuclear bombs that they would aim at us. He’s also crippled their funding of terrorists here at home. Rama Duwaji, the first lady of New York, reposted an approving post about rapes on October 7th. You know, Hasan Piker says he wants the cat to see.

[00:17:39] ALEX JONES

No, I agree. So here’s where we can agree that we have a serious Islamic problem and the left has adopted transgenderism and expansionist Orthodox Islam as its operating system. And also women killing their children. So I 100 percent agree with you on that. I agree. Like, I don’t want my main focus obsessing over disagreements with Trump. And it doesn’t matter if you do what you do anyways. We need to start focusing on post-Trump. We need to focus on the red-green alliance. So let’s talk about these guys because these are violent revolutionaries. They say they are. And where’s Joseph McCarthy when you need him? Yeah, he could be one of the most mischaracterized people in American history. In retrospect, maybe he was right. Maybe they really were communists. Reds under every bed. And it really was a threat.

[00:18:33] NAOMI WOLF

I hear you, but I guess what I would urge you is that short term, it’s really crucial to get out the vote in the midterms and to remind people that as mad as they might be about President Trump for, you know, one or the other thing that they think he should be delivering that he isn’t. The alternative is quarantine camps for you and me, Alex Jones, like literally as soon as— Oh, the Democrats are going to bring back plandemics. No, I’m not just agreeing with you to agree a little bit. That’s my pull is that I want Trump to be this purist. But then as I become a realist and think about how bad they are—I mean, that’s why I’m mad at even some of my friends—fawning over Hunter. Hunter’s dad triggered this whole war. They did the lockdowns. They said arrest people that don’t take the shots. We cannot forget that this is an enemy literally at the door. You’re absolutely right. Wait, your friends are fawning over Hunter Biden? I must have missed those episodes. No,

[00:19:32] ALEX JONES

I mean, have you seen all the interviews with Hunter Biden like he’s Jesus and he knows everything and he’s a great guy? Oh, that’s madness. What theater is being concocted now? My goodness. Hunter Biden, the drug addict. Hunter Biden, the son of President Biden. The guy that poses with like 12-year-old girls in trophy photos. No, my point is, is that, yeah, there’s this thing. Just because some people are pissed at Trump, I don’t understand this full amnesia about the Democrats that have now been testicized. Oh, no, I’m not even talking about Tucker. I love Tucker. My point is, is that. Oh, my gosh. I had missed that. That’s a shocker. Wow. Okay. Well, something happened to Tucker Carlson. I mean, you know, God bless him.

[00:20:32] NAOMI WOLF

But, I mean, look, Alex, you know, we’ve been old friends, I hope, long distance for many years. I will always respect you so much. There is a weird thing going on on the MAGA right where there’s this like eruption of anti-Semitism, anti-Israel venom and hostility toward Trump, which I think has to be engendered by our enemies that are trying to split us up. And specifically to split up Jews and Christians in America who have always had a traditional alliance with one another. I mean, we come from the same cultural root. We come from the same religious root. And if you’re a Marxist Islamist, how clever to introduce personalities and narratives on the right that destroy the trust and affiliation that Christians and Jews have, you know, had since the founding of our nation with one another. That’s my analysis. And I wish that the MAGA right, now called sometimes the MAGA right, would not fall for it. And some of my good friends, people I really love, have just embraced these weird conspiracy theories about Jews and this weird hostility toward Israel, which isn’t even the top receiver of our foreign aid, right? And is a loyal, faithful ally.

[00:21:32] ALEX JONES

And, you know. Well, my issue is I love blowing up political correctness. And so I say let people say whatever they want. But at the same time, I am not in the red-green alliance. I do see some of the right, like, getting with that. And I’m not with the left. And I want to have a populist. You know, Trump ran on being anti-war. I think that’s, you know, the big issue here is just in general. I know he said I won’t let him have a nuclear weapon and all that. So I think that’s what the issue is. But I do think we should spend a lot of our time, let’s do that when we come back, examining all these Democrats being replaced in the primaries with foaming at the mouth people that literally will line us up against a wall and shoot us. Let’s talk about the red-green alliance when we come out. Because no one can deny that’s going on. And a bunch of churches got burned down last night. We’ll be right back with Naomi Wolf. Stay with us.

[00:22:38] ALEX JONES

But just finishing up with this, Dr. Naomi Wolf, I respect you. You’ve been a trailblazer fighting tyranny. And I believe you’re coming from a perspective of where you feel like you’re right. I think you’re a moral good person. And I don’t hate people that I disagree with a few things on. You know, this whole climate where this person is horrible or this person is terrible, we have some disagreements. I think it’s more philosophical and very complex. But I wasn’t raised to be anti-Israel. I don’t have a fetish about hating Israel. Clearly, there’s a lot of juice behind that. There’s a lot of exaggeration and twisting. But then when I see statements out of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and the rest of them that sounds like it’s meant to inflame people and get a big conflict going and commit the U.S. to the Greater Israel Project, that goes into my equation with all of this. As much as I don’t like the mullahs, plus the Pentagon assessment is they wouldn’t fall. It wouldn’t work quickly. It would cause major blowback to our economy. Then I see BlackRock and Larry Fink happy about killing Trump’s original economic plan. See, I’ve got a lot of data points that feed into this. Oh, nuclear weapon. We’ve got to be moral. We’ve got to have a nuclear weapon. Well, what about the economic nuclear weapon? And then we lose the dollar status. We fall apart. Then Iran does whatever it wants. Plus, there’s a Pakistan nuclear umbrella. See, that was in my equation before. But I want you to be able to finish your point on that, and obviously you’ve been critical of some of the things Israel’s done in the past. My deal is you’ve got millions dead in the Ukraine conflict, so I blame the Democrats and Obama for starting that. And you’re right. We should look at who’s front and center. Almost no one’s talking about that because it’s not sexy. And the left loves the Ukraine war, but they just obsess. And I’m not defending the carnage and war crimes on both sides that happens in war that’s happened in the Middle East. But definitely Israel sucks the air out of the room. And then I see the Israeli leaders like Netanyahu who doesn’t want to go to prison. He is using that for his own political gain. And I’m not being cynical when I say that. I don’t think anybody can deny that. I’m trying to find the way out of this disaster.

[00:24:52] NAOMI WOLF

So I don’t really understand what you just said. I’m sorry. What is the question? I mean, I’m not.

[00:25:00] ALEX JONES

I am saying that Ben-Gvir, that’s the intelligence chief, is like, we’re going to burn all of Lebanon. We’re taking Lebanon. We’re taking part of Syria. Every time Trump has a peace deal, Israel goes and sabotages it. You’ve got the Israeli NDAA. You know, we don’t need your money anymore. We don’t need your money anymore. Jumping in, jumping in. Every time Trump has a peace deal, Israel goes and sabotages it.

[00:25:25] NAOMI WOLF

Who was responsible for October 7th?

[00:25:42] ALEX JONES

I mean, Israel founding Hamas and Netanyahu standing down for seven and a half hours. Israel was responsible for men coming over the border, raping women, killing babies, rounding up families, elders, butchering people, taking innocent people hostage, not soldiers. There’s raping women some more, keeping them in tunnels, raping them again, murdering some of them. Yeah, well, I’m not defending Hamas or Hezbollah that helped coordinate that. No one’s debating that. Israel helped found Hamas and Netanyahu was there. I love you.

[00:25:59] NAOMI WOLF

I love you, I love you, but you literally said Israel was responsible for October 7th, unless I misheard you. Yeah, Israel helped. Yeah, well, I mean, here’s the deal. If I go, I’m saying, are you denying Israel found Hamas? You’re saying they made war. Are you actually saying Israel made war on their own people on October 7th? Yeah, like 9-11, our government was heavily involved.

[00:26:35] ALEX JONES

I mean, Naomi, Israel is on record helping found Hamas, and Netanyahu was covertly paying them through Qatar. Well, I mean, we helped found, if you want to go that direction, like the Taliban. We helped found any number of, you know, psycho militias throughout the world.

[00:26:55] NAOMI WOLF

I don’t know if Israel helped found Hamas, but I do know that those were innocent people, and that it is respectfully, I think, racist of you not to hold the men who actually crossed the border north accountable for seizing unarmed, helpless, young women and men who were at a music festival, you know, or minding their own business on their kibbutz. Like, I’m sure you can find all kinds of flaws, but those men who crossed the border were not Israelis.

[00:27:56] ALEX JONES

Sure, Naomi, you’re a smart lady. I’ve talked to you for like 17 years, and I’ve read your books. This is a very sophisticated audience, okay? And it’s what I’m telling you is, if I set up all these dominoes, like V for Vendetta, and I knock over the dominoes, obviously there’s a bunch of people responsible. I’m an Islamophobe, very proudly. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Israel is on record. The Jerusalem Post, the Times of Israel, Haaretz, left-right, admitting that Israel was instrumental to destabilize the PLO, to put in Hamas’s even more destabilizing group. Netanyahu is secretly funding him. And you’ve had top Israeli officials say, and they even came and criminally investigated Netanyahu for the stand down of seven and a half hours. Do you believe that Israel, that is very competent, one of the most competent countries in the world security-wise, and many other ways, stood down for seven and a half hours and said no main military support, and then reservists of their own came? I’m not defending the Muslims that came and did horrible atrocities, and it’s there, and we’ve got all that, and I’m against October 7th. I’m saying, who is the progenitor to sit there and put Hamas in charge, give them money? It doesn’t mean Israel ran Hamas, but set up and released Dr. Frankenstein.

[00:28:38] NAOMI WOLF

Wow. I mean, honestly, I’m kind of shocked. So I don’t know what was happening at the border. I understand that you’re saying that Israel stood down. I have no evidence of that one way or another, but I know that each one of these men who went north, who, instead of building up their own, remember, Israel had withdrawn from Gaza in 2005. They said, okay, we want peace. We’re going to leave you alone. You can have this territory. Take it back. We’re not even going to occupy it. Yeah, from the river to the sea. I’m not debating the Muslims don’t want to kill every Jew on the planet. I’m not debating that. Hold on. I’ll let you finish. Go ahead. They withdrew. They withdrew. Now, Gazans, instead of building their own society, on October 7th, whatever the circumstances, those men made the decision as soldiers, as terrorists, to cross a border of people who were leaving them alone, right, trying to live side by side with them without disturbing them. And those people did not go after military bases, Alex Jones. And there are plenty. You know, Israel’s like 30 miles wide in a lot of places. You can cross it in a few hours. You can get north to the nearest base. There’s probably one in the Negev. There’s certainly one, you know, within an hour of the Gazan border. They didn’t go to find the soldiers. They went to the music festival and they went to the kibbutz. And they are responsible for that. And they took those hostages. They raped those women. They murdered those babies. And, you know, you can point fingers at whatever leaders you want to. Why don’t you point fingers at the leaders of Hamas who don’t have to take, if you’re saying Israel, you know, facilitated the growth of Hamas instead of the PLO, which, remember, was sending people into Israel, peaceful Israel, again, to blow up civilians, right? You know, you can point fingers at leaders, but you’re leaving the fundamentalist Islamist leadership in Gaza who would rather murder Jews and Israelis and non-Jews, because a lot of non-Jews died on October 7th, innocent people, you know, rather than build up their own country. And to me, that is hideously racist, because you are absolving these Islamist fanatics of any moral responsibility. Well, that’s because I’m getting Qatari money. Hold on, Alex Jones. And you’re saying it’s Jews, it’s the Jews, it’s the Jews. And in this case, it is the Islamist terrorists. And you need to place the moral responsibility where it lies.

[00:31:17] ALEX JONES

Okay, well, you’ve gone for like three or four minutes here. And I love the magic racist term. I’m not mad at you, Naomi, but come on.

[00:31:31] NAOMI WOLF

It’s not a magic racist term. You’re saying these people are robots or zombies and that it’s the, you know, it’s Israel. Oh, no, I never said I want to deport all the Muslims.

[00:31:45] ALEX JONES

What I’m telling you is, just like Turkey and Israel worked with al-Qaeda to take control of Syria, and then now they’ve gone and made a deal with Russia, I am sick of British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Israeli intelligence, working with these people and then turning them basically loose. And there was a seven and a half hour stand down. You know Netanyahu got criminally interviewed. You know what? Did you know the head general of the IDF said that Netanyahu basically did a stand down?

[00:31:58] NAOMI WOLF

Do you know what Hamas could have done in those seven and a half hours? Not enter Israel. That’s what Hamas could have done. But that’s a non-sequitur. Wait a minute. We had, it’s not a non-sequitur. Alex Jones, who killed those people? It’s Hamas. Dozens. Who took them hostage? It’s a false debate to say, oh, the Muslims, I’m not saying the Muslims didn’t do that. What I’m saying is, I mean, here’s the thing.

[00:32:29] ALEX JONES

If I’m a fire department chief three miles from a fire at a high-rise building, and then there’s a fire, and then I tell the fire trucks don’t go, the arsonist that set the fire is guilty, and so is the police chief or the fire chief. So my point is, it’s two separate apples and oranges. It’s two different issues there.

[00:32:46] NAOMI WOLF

There would be no fire if it weren’t for the arsonists, and you haven’t even named the arsonists. You’re just putting all the moral responsibility at their feet.

[00:33:04] ALEX JONES

No, I actually said Iran. I said day one. Iran was heavily involved training Hezbollah, and I predicted on a show with Eric Prince and Steve Bannon and Ken Paxton, like five days after, I said Israel’s going to go in and level it. It’ll turn the world against Israel. China’s the winner. Israel will rope us into war with Iran, and then that will probably cause the dollar to die.

[00:33:23] NAOMI WOLF

Well, I’m not thinking at a meta level. Honestly, I’m thinking at a human level, and what I’m looking at is absolute devastation of a civilization, a community that was flourishing and had a strong economy and actually has a beachfront that could have been directed to becoming one of the tourism destinations of the world, and Hamas chose to sacrifice all those people, innocent children, innocent women, innocent families, for two years. They would rather hold however many it was, like 29, you know, hostages, single digits, double digits hostages who were Israeli. Yeah, nobody’s saying they aren’t an absolute cult. They are people, devastation. Nobody’s saying they’re not a cult. That’s the monsters that they are. Those are the monsters that they are. And you’re attributing all of that devastation to the Jews instead of saying, hey, what’s wrong with these Islamist crazy people who would rather their own people suffer and die? Horrible devastation.

[00:34:28] ALEX JONES

Yeah, that’s an appeal to emotion. Naomi, I’m not doing that. I’m not doing that. I’m not doing that. I’m against Hamas.

[00:34:42] NAOMI WOLF

There was a ceasefire the day after the hostages were returned. There was a ceasefire the day after the hostages were returned. There could have been a ceasefire on October 8th, 2023, if the hostages had been returned. Let me raise this since you brought this up.

[00:34:56] ALEX JONES

Yeah, Ben-Gvir goes and shows his crocodile pit. He’s going to throw people in, his execution chambers. He gets the flotilla people bringing rice into Gaza and beats them up on camera. He’s not a very good spokesman for Israel, is my point. And Israel’s lost the propaganda war. Israel’s launched its eighth front in the eighth front war, and I’m not getting money from Qataris or from Israel, to say what I say. I’m sitting back. It’s very human to war game it and actually come out with a larger spectrum, not just I’m being human. I’m only looking at what Hamas did. I’m looking at the girls’ school blown up, all the massive dead. Trump talking about Iran will be a glowing crater, a civilization never to return. That’s what I’m upset about, this escalating into total war.

[00:35:42] NAOMI WOLF

Did Russians do atrocities to Ukraine? Yes. Did Ukrainians do atrocities? Yes. I’m trying to end it.

[00:35:50] ALEX JONES

So to sit back and use the word racist, I mean, I guess the word would be antisemitic.

[00:35:59] NAOMI WOLF

Well, I do think it’s racist that you’re not holding the people accountable who were responsible for this devastation. If they had stayed in Gaza on October 7th and looked after their own women and children in schools and hospitals, none of this would have happened.

[00:36:07] ALEX JONES

No, that’s, again, a false equivalency. When I said, in general, when you fund Hamas and then you stand down and it’s your country being attacked, then that’s like a capo or a mafia, Don. You know, in the mafia who sends people out on a mission, they don’t even know they work for him, and then saying he’s less guilty.

[00:36:28] NAOMI WOLF

Well, Alex Jones, we funded the Taliban.

[00:36:36] ALEX JONES

Are we responsible for all the atrocities that the Taliban is committing now that we’re no longer in Afghanistan?

[00:36:43] NAOMI WOLF

I would say yes. I would say yes. I mean— Israel isn’t in Gaza. Israel isn’t— Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

[00:36:50] ALEX JONES

I blame the U.S. government and Lindsey Graham and, before him, John McCain, the tens—hundreds of billions overall, two radical Islamic groups. I mean, I call out the U.S. government. The British went—the kings of starting it all. You know, the fact that Israel plays that game, I give Israel the point that they’re just following British models. My point is, is that the idea that I side with Hamas, who I’d put in a cannon and shoot to the moon, is not what I’m saying here, is that Israel, Smotrich, their finance minister, said three weeks ago, this is ideal. America’s fighting our war. You know, we knew it wouldn’t go quick, but we’ll destroy Iran through attrition. You said that earlier. It hurts us through attrition, too. So I’m mainly mad that it wasn’t honest that we’re going to siege warfare, and this is the thing. Oh, no, it’s Midnight Hammer. Oh, it’s strategic strides to take out their missiles and nukes. No, it’s regime change, and the dog ain’t hunting, Naomi.

[00:37:42] NAOMI WOLF

Let’s see how this ages in a year. You think the mullahs are going to fall? You think the mullahs are going to fall? Well, right now, I mean, first of all, you’re so sophisticated that you know that intelligence chiefs have many audiences, and not all of them are Americans. You know, he may be posturing for a home audience. I don’t know. He may be posturing to intimidate the enemies that surround Israel. That’s also possible. But who’s winning? Well, right now, the longer the strait stays closed, and I am granted reading from notes, Iran can’t pay soldiers or terrorists. They crash their own economies. China remains at a 44% oil import deficit. Europe is forced to buy oil from us. China doesn’t have enough liquid natural gas to power its data centers so that we can win that race. And keeping the strait closed doesn’t hurt us. We get no oil from Hormuz. The port of Corpus Christi, Texas, is having record imports and exports. So we are gaining energy dominance.

[00:38:05] ALEX JONES

Sure, and half the fertilizer to Africa comes out of the strait, one-third of the world. What about the Africans and the mass starvation that’s about to happen? Well, you know, it’s just incredible to hear you.

[00:38:28] NAOMI WOLF

Like, I love you to bits, but you’re literally championing an Islamist tyranny and Hamas. Like, you’re in bed with some really bad people right now. I’m surprised.

[00:38:51] ALEX JONES

When I got out of bed this morning, the Ayatollah was in bed with me. It was hot.

[00:39:17] NAOMI WOLF

No, I’m not trying to be mean. I just think that, you know, these are not the heroes of our geopolitics right now. Who’s winning? Well, right now, Gaza’s in ruins, tragically. You know, Israel’s doing fine. It’s startup capital of the world.

[00:39:32] ALEX JONES

You know. Sure, so I’m asking you, I asked a question earlier, Naomi. I mean, what is Israel going to do about its PR problem? What about Israel’s PR problem?

[00:39:51] NAOMI WOLF

I don’t, I don’t, I mean, I don’t think they have the best communicators in the world, but they remain our, some of our best allies. I mean, right now, Britain is doing worse on the world stage than Israel is. It’s completely emasculated, and it’s being taken over by Islamists, and they’re putting moms in jail for two years for tweets critical of immigrants. I totally agree. It’s a false equivalent.

[00:40:10] ALEX JONES

See, I’m the ultimate Islamophobe. I’m not for them. I just don’t want to be in a giant war that the Pentagon said wasn’t probably going to be winnable. See, I don’t like doing things don’t work.

[00:40:28] NAOMI WOLF

Well, I think we’re winning. You know, I think we’re winning this war, and I think Americans are doing actually really well. Our border is closed. We’re saving billions of dollars because President Trump has deported a lot of illegal immigrants. We’re, again, ascending to energy dominance. We have free speech. We have rule of law again. You know, I think it’s wonderful. And, you know, again, speaking as a mother, the hostages, the remaining living hostages are home.

[00:40:57] NAOMI WOLF

Would you rather they were still in tunnels, you know, being raped? I mean, you should hear the women who have come home from Gaza. They were, I mean, one woman was raped to death. Like, where are you, Alex Jones? These are monsters. And it is not, you know, the Jews who were responsible for those Jewish women being dragged south of the border of their own country. I never, you keep saying like, oh, what are you doing about rape women?

[00:41:17] ALEX JONES

I have nothing to do with that. I mean, are you trying to tell me that Islam doesn’t do horrible things to women? They’re blaming it on their own country. You’re blaming their suffering on the wrong people. Let me, let me, let me, let me explain to you this way. Let’s say you got a couple of starving pit bulls on methamphetamine. And then I go put a baby by their pen and open the gate for them. Are the pit bulls to blame? Or is the psycho that put the baby in with the pit bulls to blame?

[00:41:48] NAOMI WOLF

Yeah, that’s really like, I really respect you, but that is a totally disgusting analogy. She, the person who rapes the woman is responsible for her rape. And the Gazan Hamas rapists are not pit bulls. So the Muslim that threw the three-year-old into the crocodiles in England, the crocodiles are to blame, not the Muslim that threw the little kid into the crocodiles. I do not hold Israel accountable for Hamas rapists and murderers coming north of the border to kidnap innocent civilians and take them south of the border.

[00:42:13] ALEX JONES

You can blame both, right? Like, like, I don’t, you understand, like, like, I can be mad at the Muslims and know what they’re like. Like, and then I can also go, oh, Netanyahu wanted this war, so they stood down. I mean, you can do both, right? Like, right? We can walk and chew gum. Like, literally, our border, our southern border was open for four years under Biden. And, you know, I’m going to blame the rapist. I’m going to blame, sure. If Israel could have had better border security. What about judges that let a guy out that has, like, 15 rapes and five assaults and one attempted murder? I blame the guy that goes, that is released in rapes again, but I blame that judge even more because they’re smart.

[00:43:07] NAOMI WOLF

Once again, you know, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The Gazans made their own decision to go north and murder and kidnap innocent civilians. And I will say that till the day I die. And I, like, I, you know, again, I love you. And I, like, I literally don’t know how you can look at men who cross the border, seize a family, a mom, two little babies, children, right? Take them in terror, seize young women. Well, they, I think Hamas had a lot of atrocities. I think Hamas had a lot of atrocities.

[00:43:27] ALEX JONES

But a lot of the original propaganda about babies in ovens wasn’t true.

[00:43:37] NAOMI WOLF

Why are you avoiding the fact that those men are responsible for what they did? And every day they kept those people.

[00:43:47] ALEX JONES

Because I’m on the Qatari payroll. Well, obviously. No, no, seriously. I didn’t say that. Listen, I’m joking. I call balls and strikes. I think the Democrats are disgusting and way more evil. And I don’t want to blow Israel off the map. And I don’t want borders to the, you know, river to the sea crap. And if I could send the Muslims, I’m being mean here, to the moon, I’d do it. My point is, is that I wanted to get on about Red-Green Alliance. They are a huge threat.

[00:44:15] NAOMI WOLF

Well, let me ask you this. What happens post-Trump? Because everybody’s obsessed with Trump.

[00:44:18] ALEX JONES

What do you see in the future for the political landscape?

[00:44:23] NAOMI WOLF

Well, like, I kind of feel like it’s pointless to try to talk to you about the Red-Green Alliance. Because I’ve just tried to point out the incredibly dangerous and immoral behavior of not just- No, you’re right. Hold on, Mamdani. Hold on, Mamdani. I’m saying what you said to her, sir. So you’re saying you won’t even talk about the Red-Green Alliance because I’m too tainted to even discuss the threat. Because, no, no, no, no, hold on, Mamdani. What do I say to her? I like your, I like your, I like your red top. Okay. Mamdani, anything else? Okay. I mean, no. I didn’t say that. I said you’re refusing to hold a group of Muslim men who committed atrocities for two years responsible. You said that. So I don’t, I feel that you are refusing to hold them responsible.

[00:44:40] ALEX JONES

No, Israel opened the door for the pit bulls to eat the toddler.

[00:44:57] NAOMI WOLF

They’re not pit bulls. They’re human beings who could have let those women go at any time.

[00:45:16] ALEX JONES

Well, I mean, okay. You’re now saying that the Hamas are, okay, I just, I don’t know what, these are mindless idiots. And they’ve also lived in like a horrible war game. They’re exonerating them. They’re not mindless.

[00:45:30] NAOMI WOLF

They knew what they were doing and they kept doing it for two years. And the minute they returned the hostages, there was a ceasefire. And I don’t know why I can’t.

[00:45:40] ALEX JONES

Naomi, I can see what Israel’s doing, committing us to a full war. What do you think of the Greater Israel project? Do you support it?

[00:45:56] NAOMI WOLF

I don’t know that it exists. I’ve never seen it in a policy paper. And what I do see is that Israel has stayed with, hasn’t just stayed within its borders and only taken more territory when it was attacked. But I’ve seen that they put up with a lot of security threats to stay, to leave the West Bank alone,

[00:46:08] ALEX JONES

to leave Gaza alone.

[00:46:09] NAOMI WOLF

Where’s that even from? What’s the source of that? Who came up with that?

[00:46:14] ALEX JONES

No, they’ve now called for a greater Israel. Ben-Gvir and others have. Naomi Wolf, I want you to come back and debate. Let’s do a two-hour debate. Let’s do a friendly debate. Who said let’s conquer Syria? Who said it? Ben-Gvir?

[00:46:29] NAOMI WOLF

Okay, he said it when? To whom? I’d have to seek a quote.

[00:46:35] ALEX JONES

Hey, don’t worry. The viewers will clip it in, and so does all of them. I mean, my God, they said burn all of Lebanon. Take it all. I mean, listen, Naomi Wolf, dailyclout.io. Hold on. Let’s do five more minutes. It’s propaganda failures. I mean, Netanyahu a year ago said they’re getting their clock cleaned. Gallup, almost unpopular country in the world. I don’t have this hard on for Israel. I don’t want this to be our main issue. This is crazy, but perception is everything. That’s where we are. So I want to give her the floor. If she wants to call me racist ten more times, that’s fine, because it’s like Mario Brothers. I eat a mushroom every time she does. I mean, the public is done with the whole system. Israel has made itself look like it’s the system. I got other fish to fry, AI, the Chi-Coms, the Globalist, the Red-Green Alliance. I said, let’s get back to the Red-Green Alliance. I gave her a lot of off-ramps into that. But instead, it’s the black hole that consumes everything in Israel. So come back on in a week. We’ll do two hours commercial-free. You can send your talking points, videos you want to play. We’ll have a full-on shindig here, because I just can’t not go against it. I just have to obsess on Israel all day. So you’ve got about four minutes left. Naomi, why don’t you have a closing comments here?

[00:47:45] NAOMI WOLF

Sure. Well, you brought up Israel. I responded honestly. I don’t have talking points about Israel. I have notes about the Strait of Hormuz. And my response to you was a very heartfelt response as a woman and as a rape survivor about who’s responsible for rapes and murders. And it’s the people who rape and murder. And I did say it was racist of you to absolve the people who raped and murdered the women and put all the responsibility at the feet of the people who run those women’s country. I think that’s nonsensical. And I really object to you diminishing the sincerity of my feelings that the people who rape women and hold them hostage in tunnels for two years aren’t responsible every single day. And not one person in that whole community helped the hostages. Not one person. So we’ll have to agree to disagree about this. But as a woman and as a rape survivor, I think it’s really gross that you’re trivializing my feelings and saying that I have talking points because I don’t. Okay. Well, I’m sorry you’re a rape survivor.

[00:48:54] ALEX JONES

I’ve never been involved in any raping, but that’s an appeal to emotion there. I would just upset Israel stood down for seven and a half hours. I think it’s wrong to throw kids in a crocodile pit. So that’s all I said.

[00:49:06] NAOMI WOLF

It’s not an appeal to emotion. It’s, again, logically insisting as a woman that the guy who grabs the running, innocent young woman and takes her back across the border to his own country, rapes her and keeps her for two years, is the one who’s morally responsible. And that happens to be a group of Muslim Islamists and not the state of Israel. And not the Jews. Like, it’s not the Jews who rape those women. So, you know, if you’re obsessed with the Jews in Israel, that’s your problem. You know, me, Israel.

[00:49:39] ALEX JONES

Well, I’m not obsessed with Israel. Israel dragging us into these wars is obsessed with me. You know, a tiny country, like, if you don’t like the people who are Jews in Israel. A tiny footprint with AIPAC and primarying members of Congress and bragging, you know, that

[00:49:57] NAOMI WOLF

good luck. Good luck with Qatar. And I don’t mean you personally. I mean, you know, Qatar, Turkey, the billions coming from Israel’s enemies are flowing onto Capitol Hill, flowing to influencers. And if you want to choose your poison, I think Israel’s, I think America is a lot better off with a staunch ally who shares our values, shares our Judeo-Christian tradition, and isn’t even the top recipient of USAID. But here’s the thing, here’s the thing. That’s a very fair statement, because that’s kind of what we’re presented.

[00:50:32] ALEX JONES

Were we with the Muslims or with the Jews? So now you’re, now you’re.

[00:50:36] NAOMI WOLF

Yeah, I’m saying you’re better off with the Jews. That’s what I’m saying. You’re way better off with the Jews. Back to why, I’m not against Israel.

[00:50:50] ALEX JONES

Why, why does it have to be, why do I have to be involved in this? You don’t have to, you can vote.

[00:51:04] NAOMI WOLF

Alex, you can vote for people who don’t do business with Israel at all. And if you choose the Red-Green Alliance, you will be voting for people. I don’t even, I don’t have, I don’t want to hurt Israel. I just don’t want, I just don’t want the ADL calling for my arrest on TV. I, you know, I, they shouldn’t call for your arrest. We have free speech, but you can vote for people who don’t do business with the ADL. And if you, you know, if you can have a, have an America with no allies, then you can dispense with Israel. But right now, Israel is a very loyal ally.

[00:51:18] ALEX JONES

All right, Naomi Wolf, great interview, powerful, amazing. DailyClout.io. Let’s do a debate soon. Let’s do it. Thank you.

[End of recording]

(PLEASE NOTE: This is a summary based on the raw transcript Adapted from the unscripted live broadcast of Investigate Everything which aired on August 26, 2026 and has been edited for print. This is not a structured article or essay. Factual claims are linked. Judgments about motives are analysis, not charging documents or accusations. All opinions are my own. As you read this if you and find yourself in disagreement with my views or analysis, please send me your feed back, with sources, and let’s have a chat…but only after you’ve investigated my claims…and challenged your own…that’s how we find our way to transparency).

OPENING SEQUENCE

If you want to understand the information war we are actually in, start with a man who is not even trying to hide it: Vladimir Solovyov.

“Us? No, it wasn’t us, someone else did it” Vladimir Solovyov, Host of Russia’s “Full Contact”

Vladimir Solovyov is one of the most recognizable faces on Russian state television. On Full Contact and Evening with Vladimir Solovyov, he talks to a mass audience the way a nationalist talks when he is doing his job for his country. He has called himself “an ardent proponent of using nuclear weapons.” He has told viewers Russia can “destroy all of them with nuclear weapons” and invited them to “think about it during our commercial break.” He has listed Kyiv, Odesa, Mykolaiv, and Kharkiv as cities to be “razed to the ground.” He has welcomed guests into what he called a “Nuclear Maniacs Club.” Then, as if the weather were next, the show moves on.

"And now...the weather." Vladimir Solovyov

That last part is the tell. The passion is the product. The commercial break is the confession. He is not whispering. He is not pretending to be your cousin from flyover country. He is a Russian nationalist, on Russian state media, selling a Russian war. Whether he is “right for Russia” is Russia’s problem. Whether Americans treat that kind of performance as analysis is ours.

INTRODUCTION

This is not an essay about Russia being uniquely evil and America being uniquely good. Every serious country has people like Solovyov. Israeli nationalists. Palestinian nationalists. Chinese nationalists. American nationalists. The delivery changes. The job does not. The “handlers” of such unscrupulous “influencers” take a warm audience (people who already trust the voice, the face, the vibe) and they load that trust with a payload.

The payload is propaganda. The sucker is the person who feels that surge of passion (triggered by the content) and mistakes their passion, or feelings, for knowledge. “Trust me” is the oldest con in the book. And in the right hands (or wrong hands), that trust is a weapon.

The Original “Operation: Trust”

A century ago in the USSR, the Soviet Union’s secret police ran an operation so perfect they named it after the very thing they were stealing from it’s targets.

Operation Trust, from 1921 to 1927, was a Cheka/GPU/OGPU counterintelligence play. Soviet agents built a fake anti-Bolshevik underground which they named the Monarchist Union of Central Russia (“MUCR”) and used it to lure real opponents, émigrés, and Western intelligence services (and anyone within the USSR whom the Soviets viewed as threats) into a trap. The front even had a business cover: the Moscow Municipal Credit Association. In coded traffic they called the whole thing a “trust.” The joke was in the name…a pun wrapped in irony. The “Trust” was also the bait.

This operation worked because it sold people what they wanted to believe: that a serious, moderate, well-connected resistance still existed inside the USSR; that the time was not yet ripe for action; that the “trusted” men on the inside had it under control. Sidney Reilly, the British agent later romanticized as “Ace of Spies,” walked back into the Soviet Union on the strength of that legend and never walked out. Moscow is still studying the file. Western audiences, as a rule, are not…because they seem to be walking into the same types of traps built largely on trust.

(Above: After the reported execution of Sidney Reilly by the Soviet Joint State Political Directorate [“OGPU”], the alleged corpse of Reilly was photographed in OGPU headquarters, circa 5 November 1925. Source: This photo appears in numerous books and was taken by Soviet functionaries in November 1925. The copyright has long since expired)

This method (using trust as bait in espionage dragnet operations) did not die in 1927. It just changed platforms. You no longer need a fake monarchist union. You just need a laptop or an smartphone, a face the crowd already loves and trusts, and a message that feels like forbidden truth shared be a special subculture of so-called “truth tellers” as the target audience. From there this audience does the rest. They will defend the messenger as if they were defending themselves, because in a very real sense they are. Their identity is now fused to this “trusted” feed and their “trusted” influencer.

I have been calling the modern version of the now infamous Soviet influence operation by a version of it’s original name: “Operation: Trust Us.” Not because I have a charging document sitting on a prosecutor’s desk, but because the structure is the same. Trusted American influencers - some sincere, some for sale, some both - are spreading the talking points of foreign governments and transnational factions, using the credit they built with their audience as the delivery system. A warm audience is a ready audience. A ready audience does not ask for sources. It asks for more feelings.

The “Madness of Crowds” is not a Metaphor

In 1841, the Scottish journalist Charles Mackay published Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. His point was not that people are stupid. It was that whole communities can “suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit.” Tulip bulbs. South Sea shares. Witch hunts. Crusades. The object changes. The mechanism does not.

I have seen the mechanism with my own eyes, not as a pundit but as someone who has done close protection (i.e. body guard work for executives and vips). For example, in a street march in Argentina or Brazil, you teach a client one rule: if you get caught in the crowd, never turn around and walk against it. The crowd will tear you apart. Instead you go with the flow, then you cut diagonally toward an alley, then you get off the main vein. That is mob psychology in physical space and knowing how to navigate it is paramount to your own survival.

Online, there is no alley. There is only the feed. But the danger is still there…except now it targets your intellect as well as your sanity.

You can call people stupid if you want. “Stupid people” used to show up with pitchforks and torches. Skilled operators do not need to invent the rage. They tap it, then spin it up, then aim it and let it fly.

The first stage is the celebration of death. We watched an entire political side of the aisle cheer the murder of Charlie Kirk, shot in the neck on September 10, 2025, on a college campus in Orem, Utah, in front of the world, with his wife and children left to live with the tape. God rest his soul. The second stage is people actually doing it. That stage is not new this year, and it did not start with Donald Trump’s second inauguration. But the ball of rage has been festering, and overlapping narratives have been feeding it.

Not Left vs Right. Us vs Them vs Them vs Them.

(The Ecosystem of Multiple Influence Campaigns Targeting the US)

Americans are conditioned to see one conflict: left versus right, us versus them, good guys versus bad guys. That map is now a lie of omission. What we actually have is competing influence campaigns, running at the same time, through overlapping audiences, often using the same emotional tricks.

The Beijing Camp

(Goal: The CCP-led China rules the world by 2049)

One camp is Beijing’s. The Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”) has been explicit about “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” by 2049, the centenary of the People’s Republic, including a world-class military that can “fight and win.” The Pentagon’s China military reports describe a strategy to raise China’s “international influence, appeal, and power to shape events.” Beijing does not hide that it intends to revise the order. It does not have to. The method, historically and presently, is to turn people against each other so the target nation does the weakening itself.

A clarification from something I mentioned on this episode, because accuracy matters more than a round of applause: China is not, in dollar terms, “outspending” the United States on defense. SIPRI and CSIS still put American military expenditure well ahead of China’s official and estimated totals—on the order of three times as much in recent years. What China is doing is concentrating a rapid, multi-decade aggressive buildup against the USA while using every other instrument—trade, infrastructure, information, talent—to make the military gap less relevant. If you are only looking for signs of traditional warfare and are not looking for “Unrestricted Warfare”, you are already behind.

The Multipolarity Camp (led by Russia)

(Goal: The World is Divided into four North-South meridian zones, each a pole with several “great spaces” inside it…all four sharing the planet but not meddling in the affairs of each other…)

A second camp is the multipolar project, with Moscow as a principal vendor. One of the key products that the Russians are selling and a large part of the American “Right” is consuming is isolationism: stop being the sheriff, stop backing allies, treat every foreign entanglement as a swindle. Some of that critique of forever-war excess is earned.

I spent much of a military and intelligence career inside the Global War on Terror, and I had to face that a lot of what we were sold about Iraq was not true. That does not make the opposite sermon true. A world that is globalized does not become safe because you announce that you are done with it. Adversaries do not stay out of our business because we stay out of theirs.

Solovyov himself is useful here as a specimen, not as a guru. When he talks about the RS-28 Sarmat, Russia’s heavy intercontinental ballistic missile, he is not talking about a weapon built for Brussels. Analysts have been clear that Sarmat is a strategic deterrent aimed at the United States, with range and trajectory options—including a southern approach—designed to complicate American missile defense. That is the conversation Russian state television is having with its own public while some American influencers are telling theirs that Moscow is a misunderstood regional power that just wants to be left alone.

The Multipolar World (modernized by Aleksandr Dugin aka “Putin’s Brain” but based on old KGB Grand Strategy doctrine) sounds great in theory, neighbors staying in their own “spheres of influence” and not meddling in the affairs of the other “spheres”. The big problem with this, at least for the US, is that the other three spheres have made it clear that they intend to destroy us.

The Open Societies Camp Aligned with The Transnational Progressive Machine (“TPM”)

(Goal: More international institutions, looser borders, NGO/legal pressure on states, and “global” answers to migration, rights, and climate. The DSA and other socialist groups as well as the WEF align more closely with this camp than any others mentioned, but neither officially falls under the Soros-backed Open Societies tent…all seem to think they are using the other for their own ends. In this episode I focused solely on the DSA as part of the subset of this camp, the TPM)

A third camp is a combination of the Soros backed Open Societies idea and the old transnational progressive machine, using what analysts have long called a red-green alliance—revolutionary left plus Islamist politics—to capture institutions from inside. The Democratic Socialists of America is not a political party but is one very visible part of this camp. It is a 501(c) organization that runs candidates on the Democratic ballot line in order to take over the party from within. Call it a PAC, a movement, a “party surrogate.” The strategy has a name inside the organization: the dirty break, or, as some now put it, the dirty stay. Either way, the point is the same. They do not need a third-party line if they can own yours. (Note: The DSA and other socialist groups as well as the WEF seem to align more closely with this camp than any others mentioned, but neither officially falls under the Soros-backed Open Societies tent and all three seem to use each other for their own ends).

Key Takeaway: This is why the midterms matter, and why “don’t vote, it’s a uniparty” is not dissent. It is a demobilization script. If the people who actually believe in the Constitution stay home, you do not get a mystical reset. You get the faction that showed up. In Michigan, that faction just nominated Abdul El-Sayed for the United States Senate, a candidate who, on live television, answered a question about sex-change surgeries on minors by asking Jesse Watters, “Are you circumcised?” Talk about intrusive! You think Flock cameras are a threat to your civil liberties? Wait until Senator Abdul “Chop-Chop” and his DSA comrades decide that there are too many males in America. That’s what we have waiting for us if the DNC wins, because the DNC is now nothing more than a barely living host for the parasitic DSA.

The sucker test

Here is the test I want people to run on themselves.

If you get furious at a person you have never met or over a country you have never studied or have been to because a “trusted” influencer delivered an impassioned and furious message with style, than congratulations: you are a sucker. Suckers do not end up in charge of their own lives. Their lives end up run by influencers, and their lives end up sucking.

Two current examples.

Data centers and AI. You can want community buy-in. You can demand that sites not drain aquifers or dump heat onto a town that never voted for it. That is the American way. What is not the American way is a mob chorus of a collective “no” borrowed from a social media feed that you never checked the sources on. Whoever wins the AI infrastructure race will hold a form of power that is already more daily, and may prove more strategic, than a nuclear stockpile. If the United States bans the plants while China builds them, we have brought a knife to a gunfight. The people who benefit from that outcome do not live in your school district. Some of them live in Zhongnanhai.

Isolationism as moral hygiene. After the Revolution, Americans went home. The British did not. In August 1814 they marched into Washington and burned the White House and the Capitol. Freedom is not a trophy you put on the mantle. It is a going concern. A business that takes a week off, then another week off, is not resting. It is being eaten. We have spent a century as a great power, and we have developed a habit of being great and then taking a break. Freedom does not take a break. Neither do freedom’s enemies.

I am America First. That does not mean “America Alone”. It means we are first, our allies are second, and everyone else is a fact on the map we have to live with. “Sheriff of the world” is a vulgar phrase. No…we are the current Unipolar Power of the world…and there is nothing wrong with that. You should be proud, not whiney or weak about it. Own it…we are the power, dammit! Rome’s legionaries were not wringing their hands about Rome’s hegemony. Alexander’s army was not taking sensitivity training and apologizing for being awesome (at the time). No time in history have great nations apologized about being great. You can be a great power and still be a good country—built by and populated by people who believe in God, or in goodness; Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics—and still refuse to pretend that it is virtuous to lose.

I have been to more of the countries that people yell about than most of the people yelling about them have…and not as a tourist, and not at suite in the Sofitel. I’ve The common men in China (or “Lao Baixing”) the non-government affiliated people in Cuba who tattoo Trump on their arms, a lot of Canadians (not their government), a lot of Dutch civilians (not their government), they crave the freedom we seem to have gotten bored of or used to.

By the way, in the Netherlands, a country of decent people with a terrible government, you cannot even own a baseball bat. Meanwhile the same state that treats a baseball bat as a dangerous weapon has been letting their country literally get invaded by illegal immigrants who come in in droves…right through the airport. I know because when Naomi was getting her last book published in Dutch they’d flown us over to promote it. But as we went through customs she breezes through and I get stopped. One hour turns into six hours because they had some questions about a past weapons charge at JFK (don’t ask) and somehow during that time they, the Dutch customs people, lost my passport! But you know who they didn’t stop as I sat there, popping buffalo pills from The Wellness Company because I had no food: they let group after group of illegal immigrants in from what looked like Africa, Pakistan, and even Mexico. Yeah…Mexico (I know because I chatted the “dad” up and he told me). But here is the crazy part: they had no passports. The “dad” of each group would simply show what looked like some sort of official permission slip, and they’d waive the whole group of them through…only checking the “dad’s” permission slip and nothing else. Meanwhile I am stuck there for hours because the Dutch were curious about me and then lost my passport for hours (probably didn’t, they were just waiting on my background check to come back).

So why do I bring up the Netherlands? Well because of this headline:

That same Dutch government moved to ban products made by Jews in Judea and Samaria, and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expelled Dutch representatives from the U.S.-backed Gaza coordination center in Kiryat Gat. “Those who act against Israel will have no foothold in the region,” he wrote. You can like or dislike the policy. You cannot miss the pattern: a government that will not defend its own streets has appointed itself moral auditor of someone else’s. I have also noticed, in the last year, a surge of low-follower, newly minted, identical-sounding anti-Israel accounts that geolocate to the Netherlands. I cannot prove they are government-run. I can say they rhyme with the official line. That is how you watch a pattern without inventing a conspiracy.

When the passion stays and the product changes

Influencers are allowed to change their minds. Analysts are required to. The difference is whether the evidence moved, or the incentive did.

In intelligence work, and in the legal version of it I later did as competitive intelligence, you do not start with the true believer. You start with pressure. Debt is the classic one. Not because indebted people are immoral. Because a man with a billion-dollar hole in his life is a man who can be offered a ladder. Alex Jones was ordered to pay on the order of a billion dollars to Sandy Hook families for years of claiming the massacre was a hoax. A Connecticut jury’s compensatory award was upheld on appeal. The Supreme Court declined to take his case. That is not a rumor. That is a judgment. I am not saying he was bought. I am saying that if you have done this work, a sudden, total, high-passion reversal on the subjects that happen to be most useful to America’s adversaries is a pattern you do not ignore.

I went back into the archives. In an August 2018 InfoWars segment, Jones is on camera saying he is not an “Israel-phile” or an Anglophile but an “American-phile,” and then defending Israel as “civilization in the Middle East” against a system he described as anti-Israel.

The passion is the same whether he is making that case or, years later, joining the pile-on. Same heat. Different product. He can say he loves ducks on Monday and hates ducks on Tuesday, and both days will sound like revelation. That is a skill. It is also a warning. I do not know the man. My wife has appeared on his show; I have not. I am not accusing him of being an agent. I am describing what a trained eye sees when the passion is constant and the inventory has been swapped.

October 7, 2023, is the hinge. Logic says a massacre of Israelis—rape, murder, mutilation, filmed for the internet—would produce a surge of support for the victim. In the influencer class, a striking number of large voices moved the other way, in the same window, onto the same talking points: Israel as the source of the world’s ills, America as the villain in every story, Trump as a disappointment the moment he had to govern rather than campaign. Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Max Blumenthal, Jeffrey Sachs—different tribes, converging product. Carlson has since said he will not support the Republican Party. Thomas Massie, a hero of that set, lost his primary. Marjorie Taylor Greene left Congress and the party. If the project is “America First,” it is a strange America First that cannot win a Republican primary and tells you not to bother with the midterms.

I will not pretend I was immune. During 2020 and 2021 I hated Volodymyr Zelensky and, by extension, Ukraine, because they had been framed as a tool of the left, and I hated the left. I still have no patience for the American left. What I did not do, for too long, was research Russia with the same appetite I researched Ukraine’s sins. Friends from that region—Vlad Davidson, Lev at Break the Rules—did not propagandize me. They put me in debates with Ukrainians and Russians who live there. I had to listen without performing. What I found was not “Ukraine good, Russia bad” or the reverse. I found two states with interests. My earlier hatred was emotion wearing a lab coat.

I have not become a Ukrainian nationalist. I have become a person who can look at a campaign and ask what it does. Since 2024, and with particular intensity from the second half of 2025, Ukraine has been hitting Russian oil refineries, depots, ports, and platforms. The Baker Institute has tallied hundreds of discrete strike events. By late 2025, reporting put Russia’s oil-product processing down sharply—on the order of a fifth to a quarter—with gasoline and diesel output falling in the same range. That is not a morality play. That is a reduction in the energy Russia sells, including to China, at the exact moment China needs power for an industrial and AI surge. Seaborne Russian crude to China had already jumped from about 637,000 barrels a day in 2021 to more than a million in 2025. If the United States wants energy dominance, a weaker Russian export machine is not a betrayal of America First. It is a fact that happens to serve it.

Spain is a cautionary tale of a different kind. Madrid recognized a Palestinian state on May 28, 2024, alongside Ireland and Norway. Spain has since banned imports from Israeli communities in Judea, Samaria, and the Golan, and has become a major European landing pad for Chinese industrial capital. Some commentators, myself included, have noted the coincidence of Chinese commercial leverage and Spanish political fashion. China is also Spain’s largest pork customer outside the EU, and the two governments spent 2025 negotiating regionalized export protocols when African swine fever appeared near Barcelona.

What I will not do in print is claim that China flipped Spain’s lights off in April 2025 to win a pork contract. The Iberian blackout of April 28, 2025, was real, lasted hours, and knocked out tens of millions of people. The official investigations—Spain’s government and the European grid operators at ENTSO-E—found a technical cascade: voltage, oscillations, inverter-based generation, planning errors. Not a cyberattack. Not a pork price. Timing is not causation. If we demand sources from other people, we do not get to skip them ourselves.

That is the whole essay, in one sentence.

A war of names: Judea and Samaria is not a slogan

If your only education on the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean is a passionate person on a podcast, you do not have an education. You have a mood.

The term “West Bank” is not ancient. It is a Jordanian administrative name, applied after the Hashemite army seized the territory in the 1948 war and annexed it in 1950—an annexation recognized by almost no one. It means what it says: the west bank of the Jordan River, as seen from Amman. Before that, the highlands were Judea and Samaria in Jewish, Christian, and much of the Western cartographic tradition. You can prefer the UN’s vocabulary. You should know whose vocabulary it is.

The Oslo II Accord then divided that land into Areas A, B, and C. Area A, about 18 percent, is full Palestinian civil and security control. Area B, about 22 percent, is Palestinian civil control and Israeli security control. Area C, about 60 percent, is full Israeli civil and security control, and it is where the settlements sit. Israelis, including Israelis, need permits to build there. Illegal structures get torn down. That is not the picture you get from a slogan about “kicking farmers off their land.” Go look. A lot of what gets sold as pastoral dispossession is scrap yards, illegal dumping, and a slow geographic squeeze. If you have not looked, you are repeating someone else’s script.

On indigeneity, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 and, famously, never produced a definition of “indigenous” tight enough to police the claims that followed. Every minority with a lawyer noticed. Hebrew University geographer Ruth Kark, with Havatzelet Yahel and Seth Frantzman, put the academic tests in print in Middle East Quarterly and in Israel Studies: original inhabitants, deep time, pre-colonial sovereignty, spiritual connection to a specific land, and recognition as such. Their conclusion, which you are free to dispute after you read it, is that Negev Bedouin claims fail those tests, and that the Jewish people have the longer continuous national presence in that land. Read the paper. Then argue. Do not outsource the argument to a man who has never opened a map.

The same standard applies at home. If you cannot say the words “China is a threat” without a stranger in the comments calling you a Mossad agent, the comments are the tell. Natalie Winters has spent years as a thorn in Beijing’s side. The idea that she is a “CCP Mossad agent” is not analysis. It is a loyalty oath to a conspiracy that has to keep adding villains because it cannot stand up to a fact. By that math, half the country works for Israeli intelligence. Mossad, if the trolls are right, would be the largest employer in American life. It is not. It is a small service of a small country, and “anyone I dislike is Mossad” is the current form of an old, ugly habit. There is a version of this that always adds, “not all Jews, of course.” That is not a disclaimer. That is the tell.

And yes: forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience in China is not a meme you can wave away because it spoils a narrative. The China Tribunal in London, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, concluded in 2019 that it had been committed on a significant scale, with Falun Gong practitioners a principal source. The State Department has reported the allegations. Congress has voted on them. If your influencer can rage for an hour about Israel and go quiet on that, you are not watching a human-rights brief. You are watching a targeting list.

How you refuse to be the idiot in the room

The countries that are holding their own in this environment are not the ones who spend all day rebutting every smear. They are the ones who stay on message about what they are.

When Iranian missiles and drones hit Gulf cities in the 2025–2026 campaigns—Qatar’s Al Udeid in June 2025, then a much heavier barrage on the UAE, including Dubai, in 2026—Abu Dhabi and Dubai did not only say “they are bad.” They kept selling the country: livable, ambitious, open for business, worth defending. Israel, whatever you think of it, has relearned the same thing. This is who we are. This is what we believe. If you have not been here, you know less than you think. Stay on message. Do not chase the troll.

The United States needs that discipline for the people who still believe in the Constitution, in America First, and in the unfashionable idea that they do not want their lives to suck. Energy dominance is not a slogan for oil executives. It is leverage. Leverage is how you tell a hostile world to behave without having to send a son to do it every time. If you think that is “not our business,” they will make it your business anyway. They always have.

Vote in the midterms. Influence is not a substitute for turnout. “Tear it all down and rebuild” is not a conservative program. It is a revolutionary one. Lenin would recognize the energy even if the hats are red instead of redder. A lot of the incoming aimed at people like Dan Bongino is coming from a crowd whose candidates are not converting celebrity into votes. I like Dan. I also like having friends in that other crowd, because a friend can still hear you. Burn-it-down is not a strategy. It is a tantrum with a ring light.

Talk to people who are not on social media. Ask them about the new roof on the high school, or the zoning permit that will block their sun. You will get real passion, tied to real stakes. Then imagine they reverse themselves overnight, with the same heat, in favor of the developer. You would assume someone got to them. Apply that standard to the celebrity with the new studio and the new line on every war. Occam’s razor still works. People who transmit all day, who flip on the subjects most useful to foreign services, and who suddenly have the overhead for a media operation are not always taking a salary from a hostile power. They are always taking a salary from someone. Ask who.

I am not perfect at this. I am a Cold War kid and a trained analyst, and I still walked into the Ukraine trap because I let a domestic grudge pick my foreign policy. The correction was not to become someone’s activist. It was to put freedom and American interest back at true north, and to treat every other country’s passion—including Solovyov’s, including ours—as data, not as a command.

If you crave the freedom that people without it can see from a distance, you will not hand your mind to a stranger with good lighting. You will read the source. You will talk to the person who disagrees. You will notice when the passion is constant and the product has been swapped. You will vote. You will stay in the fight after the vote. And when a voice you used to trust says “trust me,” you will say: “show me.”

That is how you stop being the idiot in the room. That is how you refuse to be the audience Operation Trust Us was built for.

Brian O’Shea is a former U.S. military and intelligence professional, host of Investigate Everything, and a writer at Daily Clout. He publishes at brianoshea.substack.com.

Sources

Linked sources document the factual claims in the essay. Opinion, pattern recognition analysis, and intelligence-community inference are the my own. Where a live-show figure could not be sourced to a primary record, it was replaced with a sourced one or marked as analysis.

1. Vladimir Solovyov, nuclear threat on Full Contact (Newsweek, Aug. 15, 2025)

2. Solovyov on razing Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, Mykolaiv (Express, July 2, 2026)

3. Solovyov as “ardent proponent” of nuclear weapons (Express, Dec. 26, 2025)

4. “Nuclear Maniacs Club” on Russian state TV (IBTimes UK, April 7, 2026)

5. Operation Trust (Wikipedia overview, with bibliography)

6. Jamestown Foundation: Moscow still uses the Trust as a model (Sept. 30, 2025)

7. Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (Project Gutenberg)

8. Assassination of Charlie Kirk (AP, Sept. 10, 2025)

9. Pentagon annual report on Chinese military and security developments / 2049 rejuvenation (USNI, 2024)

10. CSIS ChinaPower: what China really spends on its military

11. CSIS Missile Threat: RS-28 Sarmat

12. Hague Code of Conduct / IISS analysis: Sarmat is a U.S.-oriented strategic deterrent, not a Europe weapon (May 2026)

13. Vox: DSA is not a political party (2017 explainer, still accurate on structure)

14. Washington Examiner: DSA’s “dirty stay” inside the Democratic Party (July 14, 2026)

15. Abdul El-Sayed asks Jesse Watters, “Are you circumcised?” (New York Post, Aug. 25, 2026)

16. Burning of Washington, August 24, 1814

17. Gideon Saar expels Dutch officials over settlement-goods ban (Times of Israel, Aug. 26, 2026)

18. Saar statement on X (Aug. 25, 2026)

19. DutchNews: Israel expels two Dutch officials (Aug. 26, 2026)

20. West Bank: origin of the name

21. Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, 1950

22. Oslo II Areas A, B, and C

23. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)

24. Yahel, Kark, and Frantzman, “Are the Negev Bedouin an Indigenous People?” Middle East Quarterly (2012)

25. Frantzman, Yahel, and Kark, “Contested Indigeneity,” Israel Studies 17:1 (2012)

26. Baker Institute: quantifying Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy infrastructure

27. Euromaidan Press: 2025 drone campaign and Russian fuel-capacity losses (Dec. 7, 2025)

28. S&P Global: four years that shook the Russian oil market; seaborne crude to China

29. Spain, Ireland, and Norway recognize a Palestinian state (Reuters, May 28, 2024)

30. Spain–China pork regionalization after African swine fever (Reuters, Dec. 1, 2025)

31. Spain says April 2025 Iberian blackout was grid failure, not cyberattack (AP, June 17, 2025)

32. ENTSO-E final report on the April 28, 2025 Iberian blackout

33. Alex Jones Sandy Hook judgment; Supreme Court decline (Reuters, Oct. 14, 2025)

34. Connecticut Appellate Court upholds $965 million verdict against Jones (AP, Dec. 6, 2024)

35. Tucker Carlson says he will no longer support the GOP (AP, June 22, 2026)

36. Newsweek timeline: Massie primary loss, Carlson–GOP split, Greene departure (Aug. 6, 2026)

37. 2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar

38. 2026 Iranian strikes on the United Arab Emirates

39. China Tribunal / Guardian: forced organ harvesting from detainees (June 17, 2019)

40. U.S. State Department 2019 China human-rights report, organ-harvesting section

41. Investigate Everything / Daily Clout

42. Author’s Substack

© 2026 Brian O’Shea. For publication on Substack and DailyClout.io. All hyperlinks were live as of August 27, 2026.

Brian O’Shea: Investigator, Investigative Journalist, Intelligence Analyst

Disclaimer: This page is about the American investigator and journalist, husband of author Dr. Naomi Wolf. It is not about the late Irish Labour TD, the China-based actor/influencer, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution journalist, or academic researchers of the same name.

O’Shea, 2023

Occupation

Investigative journalist; private investigator; competitive-intelligence consultant

Known for

Investigate Everything; In the Lair; Consumer Diligence

Spouse: Naomi Wolf (m. 2018)

Children: 2

Residence: New York and Massachusetts

Past Active Duty Service / branch: U.S. Army, Military Intelligence Corps

• Years of service: c. 1992–2003 (11 years active duty)

• Commands Served Under: FORSCOM, CENTCOM, INSCOM, SOCOM:

Tactical military intelligence, including 1st & 5^th Special Forces Groups (Airborne), has worked across 47 Countries (including southern Philippines days after 11 September 2001) and most recently (July 2026-August 2026) toured the crime scenes in Southern Israel where Hamas terrorist murdered, raped, tortured and kidnapped thousands of peaceful Israeli citizens.

Education

Boston University (M.C.J., white-collar crime / terrorism); three undergraduate degrees; Graduate of the Defense Language Institute (Modern Standard Arabic)

Website

brianoshea.substack.com

Social Media:

• X @BrianOSheaSPI

• LinkedIn

• Muck Rack

• Instagram

Biography

Brian William O’Shea is an American investigator, investigative journalist, and former U.S. government intelligence analyst. He is the host of Investigate Everything on DailyClout and Rumble, co-host of In the Lair with his wife, the author and DailyClout CEO Dr. Naomi Wolf, and founder of Consumer Diligence. He is a disabled U.S. Army combat veteran and Arabic linguist who spent 11 years on active duty in military intelligence, including service with two Special Forces groups, then more than 12 years as a contractor and subject-matter expert for two of the U.S. government’s largest intelligence agencies.

O’Shea later ran Striker Pierce Investigations (more than 1,500 private cases) and now reports on propaganda, Chinese Communist Party influence operations, WHO “One Health” governance, consumer fraud, and political money trails. The New York Times identified him as a private detective when he married Wolf in 2018. He splits time between Brooklyn, New York & Salem, Massachusetts.

Early life and education

O’Shea is a son of Harmony D. O’Shea, a retired nurse, and the late William C. O’Shea, who owned Donut Haven, a doughnut shop and diner with consecutive locations in the Bronx, New York, and Windham, Maine. He holds three undergraduate degrees and a Master of Criminal Justice from Boston University, with concentrations in white-collar crime and terrorism. While in the Army he completed the two-year intensive Modern Standard Arabic program at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, Presidio of Monterey, California.

Professional History

Military and intelligence career

O’Shea served 11 years on active duty in the U.S. Army Military Intelligence Corps, working with two Special Forces groups in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia. After the 11 September 2001 attacks, he was a tactical military intelligence detachment leader with 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) in the southern Philippines until early 2003. He was honorably discharged as a staff sergeant in July 2003. He is a disabled combat veteran.

He then spent more than 12 years as a senior consultant and subject-matter expert for two of the U.S. government’s largest intelligence agencies, in intelligence collection, counterterrorism, special activities, and covert influence. In-country professional or military experience includes China, Russia, Georgia, the UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, areas in and around Gaza and Judea and Samaria, Thailand, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the western Balkans, Czechia, and 44 U.S. states (some locations omitted under NDA or classification).

He has taught social engineering, elicitation, counter-stalking, surveillance and counter-surveillance, and counter-corporate espionage, including twice as a guest instructor at the Human Rights Foundation’s Oslo Freedom Forum. He has spoken at Students for Liberty / LibertyCon events in Eastern Europe, InfoSec Southwest (Austin, 2015), and corporate intelligence conferences in Canada and the Middle East.

Private investigations

After leaving government contracting, O’Shea worked in competitive intelligence and founded Striker Pierce Investigations, which he has said conducted more than 1,500 private investigations for businesses, individuals, and legal teams while based in the Washington, D.C. area. Practice areas include litigation support, human-capital due diligence, opposition research, reputation management, counter-competitive intelligence, and counter-stalking for executives, public figures, and NGO leaders. A 2014 Epoch Times profile described his use of social engineering in corporate investigations and his later shift toward defensive work. He also published a case study in Frontline Security (reprinted by RPS Partnership, UK).

Journalism and broadcasting

O’Shea is an investigative journalist at DailyClout. In July 2024 he launched the weekly show Investigate Everything (“investigating beyond the headlines”), covering geopolitics, influence operations, international crime, and terrorism. In May 2025 he and Wolf launched In the Lair, an uncensored weekly conversation. He is a recurring co-analyst on Wolf’s Outspoken.

He has appeared as an intelligence-operations specialist on EpochTV’s Over the Target with Lee Smith; One America News In Focus with Allison Steinberg; Real America’s Voice American Sunrise; Securing America with Frank Gaffney; Ask Dr. Drew; Emerald Robinson’s Absolute Truth (Lindell TV); The Bill Walton Show; Hearts of Oak (UK); Man in America; and others. In August 2025 he presented reporting on Chinese manufacturing of Pfizer mRNA vaccines destined for the United States (X video). He is a member of the Sovereignty Coalition, opposing WHO pandemic-agreement overreach.

Consumer Diligence

O’Shea is director and founder of Consumer Diligence (Substack; X @ConsumerDD), a public due-diligence project on pharmacies, supplements, NGOs, and consumer claims. He has described crowd-sourcing investigations with viewers of Investigate Everything. A September 2025 Hearts of Oak interview covered the project’s methods.

Advocacy

O’Shea has worked with Dexter Taylor, a Brooklyn software engineer serving a 10-year sentence at Coxsackie Correctional Facility after a 2024 conviction for possessing homemade, unserialized firearms. Taylor had no prior criminal record. At sentencing, Justice Abena Darkeh was widely quoted saying the Second Amendment “doesn’t exist” in her courtroom (New York Sun). O’Shea has used his audience and investigative network in the effort to publicize the case.

Personal life

O’Shea married Dr. Naomi Wolf on 23 November 2018 in Easthampton, Massachusetts. They met in 2014 after colleagues recommended him for close protection and threat investigation following online and in-person threats related to Wolf’s human-rights reporting. The marriage was covered in the New York Times “Mini Vows” column, “An Author and an Investigator Find Comfort in Each Other.” He has two children from previous marriages: a daughter, Ayla, who works in fundraising and operations in Brooklyn, and a son, Alexander, a student in the greater Boston area.

Selected media appearances

• 26 Aug 2026 — Investigate Everything — EP260826: Idiocy, the Madness of Crowds — Rumble

• 10 Aug 2026 — Investigate Everything — Propaganda, with Laura Dodsworth — Listen

• 4 Aug 2026 — Investigate Everything — Back from Israel, taking questions — X

• 29 Jun 2026 — Outspoken — What Happened to our Votes?

• 22 May 2026 — In the Lair — Neo-Nazis in Kentucky

• 27 Mar 2026 — Outspoken — Buying Influence: CCP talking heads

• 23 Feb 2026 — Outspoken — Climate Lockdown in NYC?

• 11 Feb 2026 — Investigate Everything — Fighting Communists Borough by Borough, Trevor Loudon

• 10 Nov 2025 — Outspoken — What Was Wrong with That NY Election

• 13 Sep 2025 — Hearts of Oak (UK) — Consumer Diligence: Who’s Cashing in on Your Trust?

• 9 Jul 2025 — Ask Dr. Drew — UN AI Summit, with Viva Frei & Brady Bates

• 24 Jul 2025 — J.J. Carrell — America’s Trojan Horse: How Propaganda Shapes America

• 11 Jun 2025 — Ask Dr. Drew — Riots R Us, with DC Draino

• 23 May 2025 — In the Lair — Episode 1 (WHO treaty, HHS, Pfizer Papers)

• 20 May 2025 — Heart & Mind — Ep. 39, Decoding Intelligence Tactics, Dr. Dina McMillan

• 11 Mar 2025 — Outspoken — UK financial exposure re Ukraine

• 11 Dec 2024 — The Bill Walton Show — Ep. 290, Fifth Generation Warfare, with Brandon Weichert

• Nov 2024 — Investigate Everything — Stealth: Kamala Harris’s Communist Roots, Trevor Loudon

• 22 Jul 2024 — Outspoken — On the Porch: a week of crisis

• 16 May 2024 — Securing America — WHO power grab and One Health, Frank Gaffney

• 10 Apr 2024 — Man in America — CCP and the 2024 election, Seth Holehouse

• 6 Jun 2023 — Ask Dr. Drew — WHO power grab, with Michele Bachmann

• 19 Jun 2023 — Real America’s Voice — One Health / CCP unrestricted war

• 2023 — Vigilant Fox — How to Counter a Communist Takeover

Also: Cafe Locked Out (Australia); Shannon Joy Show; Brave New Normal; America’s Black Robe Regiment; Unrestricted Invasion with J.J. Carrell; Stop Vax Passports / Sovereignty Coalition webinars; Energetic Health Radio (Henry Ealy); LibertyCon Belgrade 2018; recurring Daily Fix X Spaces (Drax and Kay Daly).

External links

• Investigate Everything (Rumble)

• Investigate Everything (Substack)

• DailyClout

• In the Lair

• Consumer Diligence

• X @BrianOSheaSPI

• LinkedIn

• Muck Rack

• Instagram

• GiveSendGo — investigations

• Sovereignty Coalition

• NYT wedding announcement

For hosts: paste the companion markdown into the live Substack post at brianoshea.substack.com/p/brian-oshea-press-kitbio. Last updated 27 August 2026.

Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (1847)

Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-masterand journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground – what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity – the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons – the modern working class – the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class – the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.

Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”

SOURCE: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. Veröffentlicht im Februar 1848. (London: Gedruckt in der Office der "Bildungs-Gesellschaft für Arbeiter" von I. E. Burghard. 1848) https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2752/ManifestKomministischenPartei1848.pdf

Xi Jinping:

“Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and Chinese president, addressed China’s commitment on common prosperity at the 10th meeting of the Central Committee for Financial and Economic Affairs in August. Excerpts of the speech were published by party journal Qiushi Friday. Here is the full text:

Since China launched the reform and opening-up policy, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has conducted a thorough review of the historical experience of both positive and negative aspects, gaining a much deeper understanding that poverty is not socialism. Therefore, the CPC has broken the shackles of the traditional planned economy system and allowed a portion of people and regions to become prosperous first, ultimately liberalizing and promoting the development of productive forces.

Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the CPC Central Committee has kept abreast with new changes in the era, put the step-by-step realization of common prosperity for all in a more important position, pushed forward with coordinated regional development, taken powerful action to safeguard and improve people’s livelihoods, won the decisive battle against poverty and finished building a moderately prosperous society in all aspects, laying a solid foundation for common prosperity. So far, China has ushered in a historic stage to tirelessly realize common prosperity.

Now, China is marching toward the second centenary goal into a great modern socialist country in all respects. To act in the evolution of the principal contradiction in Chinese society and better fulfil the ever-growing expectation of the people for a better life, the CPC should put the focus of promoting people’s well-being on boosting common prosperity to strengthen the foundation for the Party’s long-term governance. High-quality development relies on high-quality workers. To increase total factor productivity and cement the driving forces for high-quality development, the only way is to promote common prosperity, raise the income of urban and rural residents, and improve human capital. Currently, the world is facing a prominent issue of income inequality. In some countries, the wealth gap and middle-class collapse have aggravated social divisions, political polarization and populism, giving a profound lesson to the world. China must make resolute efforts to prevent polarization, advance common prosperity and realize social harmony and stability.

Meanwhile, we must have a clear understanding that unbalanced and inadequate development remains prominent in China, and the disparities in development between rural and urban areas, between regions, and in income distribution remain substantial. A new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation is a powerful driving force for economic development and imposes a significant impact on employment and income distribution, including some negative effects that must be effectively solved.

Common prosperity is an essential requirement of socialism and a key feature of Chinese-style modernization. The common prosperity we are pursuing is for all, affluence both in material and spiritual life, but not for a small portion nor for uniform egalitarianism.

Efforts should be made to conduct in-depth research on staged objectives and promote common prosperity by stages. By the end of the 14th Five-year Plan, we will march in confident strides toward common prosperity for all and gradually mitigate income inequality and narrow consumption gaps. By 2035, we will make more remarkable and substantive progress toward achieving common prosperity for all and effectively ensure equitable access to basic public services. By the middle of the 21st century, we will basically achieve common prosperity for all and reduce the income and consumption gaps between urban and rural areas to a reasonable range. Efforts should be made to formulate an action plan for promoting common prosperity and work out scientific and feasible indicator systems and evaluation mechanisms in line with national conditions.

To realize common prosperity, we should adhere to the following principles:

Encouraging hard work and innovation. Happiness is achieved through hard work. Meanwhile, common prosperity depends on hard work and wisdom. We should safeguard and improve people’s livelihood while pursuing development, give top priority to high-quality development, create more favorable and equitable conditions for the people to receive better education and improve their development capabilities, enhance human capital and professional skills throughout society and improve people’s abilities to get employed and start a business and their competence to prosper. We should prevent the ossification of social class, shape a development environment that provides chances for more people to become wealthy and avoid ‘involution’ and ‘lying flat.’

Adhering to the basic economic system. As China is still in the primary stage of socialism, we must work unswervingly to both consolidate and develop the public sector and encourage, support and guide the development of the nonpublic sector. We must uphold the dominant role of the public sector and common development of economic entities under diverse forms of ownership, exert the important role of the public sector in promoting common prosperity and promote healthy growth of the nonpublic sector of the economy and workers in the sector. We should allow a portion of people to become rich first, encourage them to help those still lagging behind and focus on encouraging entrepreneurial individuals who work hard, engage in lawful operations and have the courage to start their own businesses. We do not advocate becoming rich through side doors, and we will deal with violations in accordance with the law.

Doing everything within our capacity. A scientific public policy system should be established to make the “cake” bigger and form a pattern of equitable distribution for all. Efforts should be intensified, and more practical measures should be taken to enable the masses to have a greater sense of gain. Meanwhile, we must recognize that the development level of our country still lags far behind that of developed countries. We plan by considering both needs and possibilities and improve people’s well-being based on economic development and financial sustainability. We should not aim too high and make promises that cannot be fulfilled. Instead of taking on everything, the government should focus on carrying out programs that are general, inclusive and guarantee basic needs. Even if we become more developed and financially stronger in the future, we should not set excessively high goals and provide excessive guarantees, in order not to fall into the trap of “welfarism” that encourages laziness.

Advancing step by step. As common prosperity is a goal that requires long-term efforts and cannot be achieved overnight, its long-term nature, arduousness and complexity should be fully estimated and realize the goal step by step. Even some developed countries have not achieved common prosperity yet, and the gap between rich and poor is instead becoming increasingly serious due to problems in their social systems, although they have been industrialized for centuries. Therefore, we need to be patient, take solid steps and improve the effectiveness of our work. Great efforts should be made to construct the demonstration zone for common prosperity in Zhejiang and spur all local governments to explore effective paths in light of local conditions, sum up experience and gradually implement the corresponding plans.

The general idea is to adhere to the concept of people-centered development; promote common prosperity in high-quality development; correctly handle the relationship between efficiency and fairness; make basic institutional arrangements for the planning of primary distribution, redistribution and tertiary distribution; increase the intensity and accuracy of regulation such as taxation, social security and transfer payments; expand the proportion of the middle-income group, increase the income of the low-income group, rationally regulate high incomes and ban illegal incomes to form an olive-shaped distribution structure; facilitate social fairness and justice; accelerate the all-round development of people; and enable all people to make solid progress towards the goal of common prosperity.

First, identifying a more balanced, coordinated and inclusive development path. The socialist market economy should be improved at a faster pace as a way to make development more balanced, coordinated and inclusive. Development should be more balanced among different regions through the implementation of regional major strategies and regional coordinated development strategies; the transfer payment system should be improved; differences in per capita fiscal expenditures among regions should be narrowed and support should be increased for less-developed regions. The coordinated development of industries should be strengthened; the reform of monopoly industries should be accelerated; and the coordinated development of the finance and real estate sectors with the real economy should be advanced. Support should be rendered to the development of small and midsize companies, and an enterprise development ecosystem in which large, midsize and small enterprises are interdependent and mutually reinforcing should be fostered. 　

Second, endeavoring to expand the middle-income group. Priority should be given to solving key problems, and measures should be taken accurately to allow more low-income people to enter the middle-income group. Higher education graduates are one important part of those who are expected to enter the middle-income group. The quality of higher education should be enhanced so that students can be armed with expertise and useful knowledge that help them meet the needs of social development as soon as possible. Technical workers also constitute an important part of the middle-income group. Efforts should be stepped up to train skilled talent, raise their salaries and attract more highly competent people to join the ranks of skilled workers. Small and midsize company owners and self-employed people are important sources that contribute to entrepreneurship-based prosperity. The business environment should be refined their tax and dues burdens should be reduced; and more market-based financial services should be offered to help them maintain stable operations and increase incomes. Rural migrant workers in cities are an important source of the middle-income group. The reform of the household registration system should be deepened, and the schooling of trailing children of rural migrant workers should be properly resolved so that they can migrate to cities without worries and find stable jobs. The salaries and benefits of civil servants, especially front-line civil servants and civil servants at the grassroots level and grassroots-level employees of state-owned enterprises and public institutions should be appropriately raised. Urban and rural residents’ incomes from housing, rural land and financial assets should be increased. 　

Third, facilitating equal access to basic public services. Priority should be given to supporting the low-income group for common prosperity. Inclusive human resources investment should be increased to effectively reduce the education burden for needy families and make children from low-income families more educated. The systems of elderly care and medical security should be improved, which will help gradually narrow the gap in financing and security benefits between workers and residents, urban and rural areas, and raise the level of basic pensions for urban and rural residents. The system for subsistence allowances should be improved by speeding up efforts to narrow the differences in social assistance standards between urban and rural areas, thus raising the subsistence allowances to guarantee the basic livelihood of the people. Furthermore, the housing supply and security system should be perfected. We must keep in mind that housing is for living in, not for speculation, and need to encourage both housing purchase and renting by adopting city-specific policies. To this end, we need to improve the long-term rental policy and supply more government-subsidized rental housing with a focus on addressing the concerns of new arrivals.

Fourth, intensifying the regulation and adjustment of excessive income. While protecting legitimate income according to law, it is necessary to prevent polarization and eliminate unfair wealth allocation. In this regard, we should take many measures, like rationally regulating excessive income, improving the personal income tax system, standardizing the management of capital income, actively and steadily promoting the legislation and reform of real estate tax while ensuring the good completion of pilot projects, intensifying tax regulation in consumption links, expanding the scope of consumption tax collection, strengthening the standardized management of public welfare and philanthropy, improving preferential tax policies, encouraging the high-income group and enterprises to return more to society, cleaning up unreasonable income, enhancing the management of income distribution in monopoly industries and state-owned enterprises, rectifying the order of income distribution, and eliminating distribution chaos such as increasing the income of senior executives in the name of reform, resolutely prohibiting illicit income, curbing the power-for-money deal and cracking down on the acquisition of illegal income through insider trading, stock market manipulation, financial fraud and tax evasion.

After years of effort, we have explored a complete range of solutions to poverty alleviation, but we still need to explore and accumulate experience on how to help people prosper. We must attach importance to the protection of property rights, intellectual property rights and legitimate wealth acquisition, resolutely oppose the unlimited sprawl of capital, draw a negative list of access to sensitive areas and strengthen anti-monopoly supervision. Meanwhile, we need to mobilize the zeal of entrepreneurs and promote the standardized and healthy development of all kinds of capital.

Fifth, promoting common prosperity of the people’s spiritual life. Being highly consistent with pursuing the all-round development of the human being, the cause of promoting common prosperity requires strengthening the guidance of core socialist values, enhancing patriotism, collectivism and socialist education, developing public cultural undertakings, and improving the public cultural service system, thus constantly meeting the diversified, multi-level and multi-faceted spiritual and cultural needs of the people. To provide a good public-opinion environment for the cause, we should strengthen the guidance of public opinion in promoting common prosperity, clarify all kinds of vague understandings and prevent a rush to succeed and fear of difficulties.

Sixth, promoting common prosperity in rural areas. As a hard nut to crack, promoting common prosperity in rural areas needs greater effort. However, it is inappropriate to set unified, quantitative indicators as we do for poverty alleviation. The key to common prosperity in rural areas is to consolidate and expand the achievements of poverty alleviation, strengthen monitoring and early intervention for people who are prone to falling into poverty again, and give counties out of poverty a leg up to get them going, thus ensuring that large-scale return to poverty and new poverty do not occur. In addition, we should comprehensively advance rural revitalization, speed up agricultural industrialization, make good use of rural assets and increase farmers’ property income, thus helping more rural residents to acquire wealth through hard work. In the meantime, efforts should be made to develop rural infrastructure and public service systems and improve the living environment in rural areas.

In my opinion, pursuing common prosperity, like building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, is a general concept that involves all aspects of the society across the country and is not proposed for only urban areas or rural areas, or east, central or west regions, insomuch that putting forward indicators requires overall consciousness. To achieve common prosperity for 1.4 billion Chinese people, we must take concrete, long-lasting actions. It does not mean simultaneous prosperity for everyone or the same level of affluence across the country. The degree of prosperity of different groups and regions and the time of achieving prosperity may vary. Common prosperity entails a process of moving forward amid developments and must be constantly promoted for continuous success.”

Originally published on October 10, 2021 by Caixing Global, https://www.caixinglobal.com/2021-10-19/full-text-xi-jinpings-speech-on-boosting-common-prosperity-101788302.html

The June 2026 AP-NORC Center poll is being treated as a serious snapshot of American Jewish opinion on Israel, politics, and identity. It shouldn’t be. The Jewish subsample of 1,022 adults rests on a f…

Read more

Read more

May 16, 2026, Cambridge, MA: NBC News reported that State and Local police search residence located at 34-36 Kelly Road in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts State Police and Cambridge de…

Read more

Read more

Why am I posting this article which was essentially a hit piece on me from the Canadian Epoch Times in 2014? Because lately, we have seen a lot of our trusted influencers suddenly do a 180 on their messenging, from America First to “We Hate Trump” and “We Hate Jews” and “We Hate Israel” and “we refuse to say anything bad about Venezuela, China, Russia,…

Read more

https://rumble.com/v727hga-comintern-2.0.-the-influencers-part-1-kim-iversen-aka-the-explorer.html

Overview and Lengthy Summary:

The COMINTERN was the political movement of international communists to essentially spread communism to every corner of the world. This was done by sending it's more charismatic or socially adept "comrades" to America and other…

Read more

On July 25, 2025, ICE arrested Jon Luke Evans—an illegal alien from Jamaica who had been hired and was actively working as an armed, reserve police officer in for the town of Old Orchard Beach in the Sta…

Read more

Reference my article earlier for context: “Judge Who Denied Pres. Trump's Bid to Unseal Florida Federal Grand Jury Epstein Transcripts is Married to then-Successor of State Attorney Who Helped Broker Epstein's "Sweetheart Deal" with Acosta” https://brianoshea.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/169180343?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts

Read more

Judge Robin L. Rosenberg has ensured that the decades-old grand jury transcripts remain sealed. If she is attempting to shield someone, that person may be her husband, Michael McAuliffe, who succeeded …

Read more

Episode Introduction and Summary Below: (Full Episode on DailyClout.io’s Rumble)

Read more

The above video is sourced from the full episode regarding the initial findings on this newly opened case.  It is a video montage of the items discussed here and on the full episode.
Music Credit (from video): "Crimes of Man" by Brian O'Shea, Copyright 2025

The California Fires of January 2025 continue to rage across some of the most prominent communities of Los Angeles. On January 4, 2025, the National Weather Service announced the following: “Fire Weather Watches & High Wind Watches are in effect Tuesday-Friday next week. Strong/damaging N-NE winds will be possible, likely peaking Tuesday-Wednesday. Stay up to date with the forecast as we get closer to the event.” On the same day of this announcement, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass boarded a plane for Ghana as part of a diplomatic visit to attend the inauguration of the newly elected John Dramani Mahama on January 7^th the following week.

(Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2025/01/03/president-biden-announces-presidential-delegation-to-the-republic-of-ghana-to-attend-the-inauguration-of-his-excellency-john-dramani-mahama/)

On January 5^th, as Mayor Bass arrived in Ghana, the National Weather warned that widespread damaging winds and extreme fire weather conditions were to be expected Tuesday afternoon (January 7) through at least Wednesday across the greater Los Angeles area. Bass remained in Ghana. On January 6^th, Monday, The National Weather Service was no longer holding back. It announced:

“HEADS UP!!! A LIFE-THREATENING, DESTRUCTIVE, Widespread Windstorm is expected Tue afternoon-Weds morning across much of Ventura/LA Co. Areas not typically windy will be impacted. Stay indoors, away from windows, expect power outage.”

(Source: https://x.com/NWSLosAngeles/status/1876343016526598292)

Mayor Bass merely referenced this dire warning with a canned message probably posted by an intern…she was in Ghana at this time…and her X account didn’t mention anything about the weather or potential for fires or damage till 8 hours later. She was too busy in Ghana, apparently. She also gave no indication that she would be returning to do her job as Mayor and help protect her city and its population.

(Source: https://x.com/MayorOfLA/status/1876473464640442820)

The next day, on Tuesday morning, January 7, the Palisades fire broke out around 10:30am. Meanwhile, Mayor Bass attended the inauguration of the Ghanaian President. Later that day, the Eaton fire broke out at 6:30pm. At 1030 pm the Hurst fire broke out in Sylmar just northwest of downtown Los Angeles. By Wednesday wildfires were raging across Los Angeles County.

(Sourced on 1/10/2025 from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/los-angeles-mapped-kenneth-fire- palisades-eaton-altadena-b2677045.html )

At noon on this same Wednesday Mayor Bass returned to her city, arriving via commercial plane at Los Angeles International Airport. Bass refused to answer questions or even utter a word as a Sky News reporter asked her numerous but appropriate questions. Her face puckered up but still she stood silently, refusing to answer the reporter’s questions.

(Source: https://news.sky.com/video/la-mayor-asked-if-she-owes-citizens-apology-over-handling-of-wildfires-13285730)

As of this video, the fires continue and have ravaged some of the most valuable neighborhoods in the country. At the same time there have been widespread reports of fire hydrants losing pressure and water, insufficient numbers of personnel to fight the fires, looting, and even numerous reports of arson…yes…arson! So many things that either started and/or exacerbated this fire seem criminal…not accidental.

On my show, INVESTIGATE EVERYTHING, I am investigating everything (or everything I can) about these fires because there are just too many coincidences to create the perfect storm…or firestorm.

(Sourced from Full Episode: https://rumble.com/v6805f7-ep-20250110-firestarterinvestigating-motives-behind-the-california-wildfire.html)

The lack of preparation and planning by the leadership of Los Angeles city, Los Angeles County, and the State of California are too overt to be just poor leadership or inept management. The cancellation of thousands of homeowners insurance policies prior to these fires, now the largest in California history, cannot be ignored. Groups and individual arsonists setting fires (or attempting to) in multiple locations seems coordinated. And the mere timing of the Mayor’s trip to Ghana seems planned (because, she is after all, just a mayor…so why send her as part of a White House delegation??).

I also started diving into the most important question of any investigation: motive. Who would benefit from these fires in these areas? Who would have the motive to either start them or, if they did begin naturally, who would have the motive to create the conditions to let them burn so hot, so far, and so destructively? Yes, Detectives Circle (i.e. founding members here on my newsletter) are leaving room for the possibility that this fire started naturally…but we are also collecting facts to determine if this ongoing destruction was merely negligence on the part of the Mayor (Mayor Karen Bass), Governor Gavin Newsom, and/or others or if the destruction was intentional, expected, and planned.

Right now we only have leads, but these leads, like the fires, are growing and starting to touch upon key areas that could potentially expose corruption…and criminality. I am following the facts, but the trail continues to grow hotter. I’ve provided the opening video montage to this past evening’s episode, but please go to Rumble and “follow” the show, and join in the investigation as we open a new case, The Case of the FIRESTARTER. I hope to see you here and on Rumble.

Thank you!

Brian O’Shea

January 10, 2025 at 11:52 pm.

NOTE: We are still investigating the DOJ case against Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. We will update you on our case and new findings soon. As of January 8, 2025, the Prosecution has delayed Mangione’s indictment hearing for several weeks citing only that the delay would give both parties a chance to better prepare for the case. This is interesting because up till Christmas New York County DA Alvin Bragg’s office was practically boasting about the “mountains of evidence” they had against Mangione. Maybe those mountains are starting to crumble…we’ll see. Stay tuned for more on the Mangione Case here and on DailyClout.io’s “Investigate Everything.”

Subscribe now

Share

Investigate Everything with Brian O'Shea is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming paid subscriber.

The above video is sourced from the full episode regarding the initial findings on this newly opened case. It is…

Read more

INTRODUCTIO…

Read more

Subscribe

From my episode last week… some key takeaways:

-DOJ intentionally or unintentionally mislabeled key locations in their narrative and did not include any footage of the shooter at the hostel.

-They also did not release any pictures of Luigi…

Read more

Subscribe now

Please note I have been and will continue to cover this case on my show, INVESTIGATE EVERYTHING: The Brian Thompson Murder (On Rumble an as part of the DailyC…

Read more