Jeffrey Epstein arrested: Israeli-American pedo ring to be exposed?

I found a post on X about one of the emails where Epstein talked about preparing for the pandemic. This was in 2015. Sorry if this has already been mentioned, this thread is moving fast. It’s terrifying the things we’re finding out, and it’s a shame that mainstream media, at least in Argentina, isn’t covering this at all.

If people were really paying attention to this, the world would be on fire right now.
1000087079.jpg
 
fwiw, A. Dershowitz reactions to J. Kiriakou´s statement and P. Morgan on the 2nd video from @asmongold is quite telling , whether he´s a psychopath or a sociopath is unclear , but it showcases well what Political Ponerology describes , a formal government run by degenerates protecting each other at any (human) price, the network that J.E. served in a manner of speaking, and all those horrendous acts it enforces and conceals worldwide are merely a macrocosmic reflection of it. ( just another Monday on the BBM ).
 
About that Wexner deposition:

Wexner deposition details Epsteins Rothschild claims, Epstein told Wexner he worked for Rothschild family
Footage of billionaire Les Wexner being questioned by the House Oversight Committee over his relations with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has been made public.

Les Wexner was sworn under oath on Tuesday, and during his nearly five-hour-long testimony, he denied having witnessed or having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

Wexner, however, did reveal how he initially trusted Epstein as his personal finance manager.

The former Victoria’s Secret CEO shared that he trusted Epstein as his financial advisor due to “his experience at an industrial level, like working at a big company like Bear Sterns, and his personal work for the Rothschild Family in France.”

Wexner continued, “Specifically, I spoke to Élie de Rothschild. I mentioned that earlier. So he represented their whole family.”

Lex Wexner’s Epstein Testimony Goes Viral After Lawyer Caught Whispering Threat

Billionaire Les Wexner is back in the spotlight after his sworn testimony about his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was released to the public. The nearly five-hour deposition was conducted by the House Oversight Committee on February 18, 2026.

During the questioning, Wexner said Epstein often claimed he worked with powerful and wealthy people. He said Epstein told him he had done financial work for the Rothschild family in France. Wexner said he personally confirmed this by speaking with banker Élie de Rothschild.

However, Wexner said other claims were never verified. He told investigators that Epstein said he advised Jeff Bezos and the founders of Google, but Wexner said he never confirmed those claims and believed Epstein used name-dropping to appear more important.
Wexner described Epstein as a “diabolical” con man and said he was financially deceived by him. He also denied knowing about Epstein’s criminal activities at the time. Wexner has never been charged with any crime related to Epstein.

One of the most shocking moments came when Wexner’s lawyer, Michael Levy, leaned in and whispered: “I will f**king kill you if you answer another question with more than five words.” The comment was clearly captured in the official recording and quickly drew strong reactions online.

Lawmakers have questioned Wexner’s credibility, especially after his name appeared many times in files released by the United States Department of Justice. Some officials believe he was misled, while others say his answers raise more questions.

Wexner was Epstein’s main known financial client for years, and their relationship ended in the late 2000s. The testimony has renewed focus on how Epstein built his wealth and gained access to powerful people.

The release of the full deposition has sparked fresh debate and scrutiny, showing that Epstein’s connections and influence are still under investigation years after his death.
 
A long read, but a brave attempt by Michael Shellenberger to explain Epstein's role by making the case that he was not "running a sex blackmail operation for intelligence." Epstein certainly appears to have done many other things for and with intelligence agencies, but not that.


Since 2019, many in mainstream and alternative media, including Public, have speculated about financier Jeffrey Epstein’s apparent links to the intelligence community (IC), particularly Mossad and the CIA, his alleged involvement in sexual blackmail, and the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death. The picture that emerged for many of us was of Epstein filming powerful men in compromising situations with underage girls, for the purpose of collecting kompromat at the behest of a foreign or domestic intelligence agency.

Several key pieces of evidence stood out. One of Epstein’s early clients was Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi arms dealer who brokered arms shipments from Israel to Iran during the CIA’s illegal Iran-Contra scandal. The father of Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, was Robert Maxwell, who some believe was a “superspy” for Israel. Epstein met twice with former CIA Director William Burns and tried to meet with former CIA Director John Brennan.

Journalist Vicky Ward once claimed that Alex Acosta, then a federal prosecutor, let Epstein off easy with a 2007 federal non-prosecution agreement because he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and was “above [his] paygrade.” Newly released files show Epstein requested his CIA file.

The files also show he sent an email to himself, apparently in the voice of Bill Gates advisor Boris Nikolic, describing Gates’ philandering and STD, and alleging that he secretly gave his wife antibiotics. Epstein had many photos and videos of powerful men with young women. There are emails of Epstein ordering hidden motion-detection cameras be placed in Kleenex boxes. And the newly released files show UK Labour politician Peter Mandelson, the former UK ambassador to the US, in his underwear.

But after having spent several weeks reading through the files and related investigations, it’s clear to us that the totality of available evidence does not support the picture of a government-backed sex blackmail operation. Rather, it suggests that Epstein primarily served his own interests. If Epstein was a slave to anything, it was to his passions and perversions. Ward’s claim that Epstein “belonged to intelligence” is not reliable. She said she heard it third-hand from an anonymous source. Her former Vanity Fair editor and colleagues told the New Yorker that her reporting was not trusted, and said that she had provided inaccurate quotations in the past.

Epstein may have worked for governments as a deal “fixer” or financial advisor with a unique ability to win and maintain trust while overseeing complex legal schemes. But that does not mean a government controlled what he did. There is not sufficient evidence to claim that his sexual exploitation of girls and women was forthe CIA or for Israeli intelligence. Epstein’s request for his CIA file does not prove he had a relationship with the agency at the time; if he did, he would not have needed to make such a request. Nor did his two meetings with Burns, who was then at the State Department, prove that Epstein worked for the IC. There is no currently available evidence that Epstein met with Brennan. As for Robert Maxwell, he vehemently denied working for Mossad, and it’s not necessarily the case that his connections to Israeli intelligence would implicate Epstein.

Epstein’s emails about camera installation, and his email concerning compromising information about Gates, suggest, if anything, amateur methods, not a sophisticated intelligence operation. If Epstein was secretly filming his guests having sex, it could have been to fulfill his large appetite for pornography, or he could have been photographing them to simply gain leverage for his own purposes. And if any of what Epstein did was truly for the IC, then his emailing of a consultant to put cameras in Kleenex boxes would be far below the IC’s standards for operational security. And it’s not the case that Epstein’s photos all imply sexual blackmail. Epstein’s photo of Mandelson standing in his underwear next to a woman, for instance, is unlikely to be sexual kompromat because Mandelson is openly gay.

Finally, there is insufficient evidence, at this time, to determine that someone killed Epstein. On the one hand, questions about the video footage remain unanswered. A US attorney in the Eastern District of New York emailed another attorney in 2020, referring to an “investigation into the murder of Jeffrey Epstein.” On the other hand, Epstein had tried to kill himself 18 days before his death, and signed his will two days before. His neck fractures were consistent with suicidal hanging, particularly for older individuals. And the email didn’t say Epstein was murdered, it simply acknowledged that there was, indeed, an Office of the Inspector General investigation into whether Epstein’s death was a homicide.

To be sure, the Epstein Files have exposed misconduct, and future files may further complicate the picture. British police arrested former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor last week for sharing confidential government trade documents with Epstein, and arrested Mandelson earlier this week, apparently on suspicion that he leaked government secrets to Epstein. The files show that Kathryn Ruemmler, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama, volunteered to Epstein the fact that she had won the CIA’s highest award, which was confidential.

And there is still evidence missing. There are 2.5 to 3 million pages from the Epstein files that the DOJ has not released. The DOJ has withheld or heavily redacted approximately 200,000 pages under the “deliberative process privilege,” “attorney-client privilege,” or the “work-product doctrine.” And the Telegraph reported that more Epstein Files may be stored at various sites around the U.S. As such, new evidence may come to light, and we will be sure to report on any of it that suggests Epstein was running a sex blackmail operation for the IC.

But the weight of the currently available evidence suggests Epstein was the puppet master, not the puppet. Epstein’s emails reveal him to be an extraordinarily gifted manipulator. He put himself at the service of helping powerful people meet their social, sexual, financial, career, intellectual, and other needs. Epstein helped former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak transition to civilian life in exchange for access to selling cybersecurity to the Israeli government; there is no evidence of any Mossad influence in the exchange. Epstein arranged for Ruemmler to use her knowledge and relationships at the Department of Justice to settle a case brought against Ariane de Rothschild. There is no evidence that the CIA controlled Epstein through Ruemmler. And Epstein charged Rothschild $25 million for his services and $10 million for Ruemmler’s.

Epstein’s pattern of sexual abuse and coercion seems to have been in service of his own desires. In 2007, Epstein was charged with abusing teenage girls, recruiting them under the guise of giving him “massages.” He served 13 months in prison, during which he received a work release. Epstein’s co-conspirators were employees and associates, such as Ghislaine Maxwell, who found girls for him, promised them gifts and favors, and arranged “massage” sessions. Epstein also manipulated young womenfrom Eastern Europe by offering them modeling opportunities before pressuring them to participate in sex acts. Jean-Luc Brunel, a French modelling agent, helped recruit young models for Epstein. After an investigation, Brunel was charged in France with sexual assault, including of minors, stemming from complaints about acts independent of Epstein. He killed himself in prison in 2022.

It appears that if Epstein passed women along to other men, it was to create a sense of both friendship and obligation among those men toward him. But sex was not his only means of winning loyalty. Through various means, Epstein cultivated relationships with powerful individuals with an eye to gaining information useful for his investments. Mandelson, for example, informed Epstein the night before it was announced that Europe was about to bail out Greece, which would have meant a certain rise in the stock market the next day; there is evidence that Epstein sent moneyto Mandelson’s then-boyfriend and now-husband. It appears that Epstein encouraged a young woman to date New York Giants owner Steve Tisch for the same reason he counseled Larry Summers on how to hit on a Chinese economist: to establish himself as someone trustworthy and capable of helping them get what they wanted, and as someone to whom they were indebted.

If Epstein indeed worked for American and/or Israeli intelligence over the decades, it was likely as someone skilled at hiding and sheltering money, which is much of what he appeared to do for his other clients, and which was the reason he lived in the Virgin Islands, a notorious tax haven. Epstein would thus have been a contractor and not fundamentally important to what those agencies do and don’t do. There is no evidence that Epstein’s sexual activities and crimes were connected to any government.

The Files suggest that people loved Epstein and called him a “best friend” because he was skilled at helping them, including by giving them advice they trusted was in their interest. He got some of the world’s greatest minds and professionals to believe he genuinely cared about them as individuals, even though he seemed to care only for himself.

Some high-profile victims have alleged a sexual blackmail scheme, but there are reasons to question their accounts. Virginia Giuffre claimed for years that Alan Dershowitz had repeatedly raped her when she was a minor, but she retracted her allegation in 2022, saying, “I may have made a mistake.” Another victim, Maria Farmer, said in 2020, “It’s just unfortunate that all the Jewish people I met also happen to be pedophiles that run the world economy, you know. So it gives a bad taste in your mouth.”

Given all this, neither we nor anyone else should have been persuaded that Epstein ran a government-backed sex blackmail operation. We remain open to new evidence, and we believe important questions remain, such as why Epstein had hidden cameras, why he sent himself that email about Gates, and what exactly Epstein did with Khasshogi and others with ties to the IC.

But the picture that emerges from the Epstein Files is different from what we had imagined. Though we did not write many pieces on Epstein, our Corrections Policy requires us not only to correct the error but also to share the lessons learned.

Why did we see evidence of a sexual blackmail operation when we should have seen, at the very least, insufficient evidence to make a judgment and, at the very most, evidence of Epstein as a master manipulator? And why are others, on both the left and right, still inclined to see something in Epstein that isn’t based on the evidence?

In June 2019, a few months before Epstein’s death, the journalist Tom O’Neill published Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties. The book documented links between Manson, whose cult in 1969 killed at least nine people, and the CIA programs MKULtra and CHAOS. It told the story of Operation Midnight Climax, a sub-project of MKUltra that used government-hired sex workers to lure men to CIA safehouses in San Francisco and New York. The CIA secretly dosed the men with LSD and observed them through two-way mirrors to study the drug’s effects.

There are more recent cases of the IC using honeypots. In 2015, the FBI seized the illegal dark web child exploitation site, Playpen, and instead of shutting it down immediately, ran it from government servers for weeks. From 2018 to 2021, the FBI ran Operation Trojan Shield to covertly manage an encrypted messaging app called ANOM. The FBI marketed it exclusively to organized crime syndicates. Believing it was secure, criminals used it to openly discuss drug trafficking and assassinations, effectively handing their entire operational playbook directly to the FBI. And it is well established that the IC uses cyber honeypots, which look like critical US infrastructure or sensitive databases, to monitor how Chinese and other groups attack them.

Independent investigators have traced connections between Epstein and the IC. Mike Benz argues that Epstein played a role in covert money laundering and in hiding transactions for the CIA, which might also explain his rapid rise in wealth. Epstein worked at Bear Stearns and processed funds for the CIA-created Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). The CIA used BCCI for off-books operations after Congress curtailed direct agency funding for such operations after the Church Committee hearings of 1975. Drop Site News has documented deals facilitated by Epstein with the help of Barak to sell Israeli surveillance and security technology to Côte D’Ivoire, Mongolia, and others.

These connections have great significance for the two of us. Since 2023, we have been alert to abuses of IC power due to our work documenting the weaponization of intelligence agencies and their proxies for both censorship and lawfare. We were predisposed and motivated to see a broader conspiracy run by the IC.

Where we did our own research on censorship and lawfare, when discussing Epstein, we relied too heavily on secondary sources. These sources included both alternative ones, like Whitney Webb’s two-volume One Nation Under Blackmail, and mainstream or left-leaning ones, like the Miami Herald and the Daily Beast, which, in our minds, helped legitimate the alternative ones.

It wasn’t so much that the facts in those sources were all wrong as that they were exaggerated and arranged to create a misleading narrative. Motivated to see a broader IC conspiracy and still deferential to mainstream sources, we repeated Ward’s claim, for example, that Acosta said “Epstein belonged to intelligence.” Had we scrutinized this seemingly damning (and highly quotable) proof, we would have noted that she heard it third-hand from an unnamed source, and many distrusted her fact-checking and reporting.

Perceiving Epstein’s death as a murder rather than as a suicide further increased our suspicion of a wider governmental conspiracy. We weren’t alone in doing this. Shortly after Epstein’s death, both then-President Trump and then-mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio speculated that someone killed him. “It’s just too convenient,” said de Blasio. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, about Epstein allegedly hanging himself, said, “That’s pretty hard to do.” But the evidence was and is far from clear that it was a homicide.

During a chaotic time of eroding trust in institutions, the story of Epstein as a puppet for shadowy deep state agencies and creepy elites seemed plausible.

Another reason we were inclined to believe that something larger and more sophisticated was at play was for the simple reason that we had never reported on anyone quite like Epstein. His ability to attract people to him and win their trust is comparable to that of past cult leaders. In the Bay Area in the 1970s, for instance, the highly charismatic left-wing preacher, Jim Jones, sexually preyed upon his vulnerable congregants. At the same time, he charmed and even captivated societal elites, including leading Democratic Party politicians, by meeting their needs for money, voters, and sex. Epstein, similarly, operated at the highest levels of elite society, winning the admiration, trust, and even love of highly intelligent people.

Finally, like many others, we feel a deep sense of betrayal by our ruling class, which some have now nicknamed the “Epstein Class.” During a chaotic time of eroding trust in institutions, the story of Epstein as a puppet for shadowy deep state agencies and creepy elites seemed plausible.

Others appear attracted to the Epstein story for different reasons. For many on the left, Epstein provided a way to attack Trump as an abuser of women. The idea that Acosta, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Labor in 2017, had helped cover up Epstein’s crimes strengthened this narrative. At the same time, Epstein fit conveniently into right-wing theories like “pizzagate,” which imagined that political elites like Hilary Clinton were engaged in child sexual abuse, trafficking, and cannibalism. These theories mirrored the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, in which discredited therapy techniques generated a series of false claims about pedophilic abuse at daycares.

Anger toward and hatred of Israel and Jewish people appear to motivate some who see a broader conspiracy. Epstein’s real connections to Barak, wealthy Jewish businessmen, and Jewish intellectuals are potent ammunition for the theory that the state of Israel, or Jews in general, secretly control the US government through extortion.

For others, Epstein provided an easy way to understand complex problems about sex and power. Part of the reason that people trusted for their good judgment, such as Ruemmler, saw nothing wrong in what Epstein was doing is that we have a sexually libertarian culture. Ruemmler even joked about Epstein’s massages, suggesting she knew they had a sexual element.

Liberal and worldly people like Ruemmler accept that powerful men like Epstein are promiscuous. One hundred and fifty people signed his 50th birthday book, with many making comments that suggested they viewed Epstein’s promiscuity as benign. “There was nothing unusual about Epstein’s perversions,” writes Kathleen Stock in UnHerd.“He just had the means to indulge them to the max.”

And even if Epstein’s friends and colleagues knew he was hiring prostitutes, it’s not at all clear that they would have objected. “Grooming, pimping out, coercive control, sexual exploitation, an insatiable appetite for extreme youth and novelty: all fall under the respectability cover of ‘sex work,’” notes Stock. Liberal cosmopolitans know that rich and powerful men routinely hire high-priced “escorts” with little fear of arrest or prosecution.

And most of the women hanging around Epstein after 2008 were not officially escorts or prostitutes. Many were aspiring models and actresses who were given gifts and opportunities. It is thus unsurprising that few around Epstein believed his conduct violated either the law or social norms.

Traditional sexual norms once served to shield vulnerable women against widespread exploitation, and their disappearance results in periodic hysterias. The collapse of traditional religion and morality has made it more difficult to identify and guard against the kind of predatory behavior Epstein exhibited, because much of this behavior is normalized. “The Epstein panic, like so many moral panics, arises from an intuition that something is amiss in our libertarian sexual settlement,” notes Julia Yost. And the movement, and its demand that we “believe women,” made it taboo to challenge the inconsistencies of accusers. In the Epstein case, the right followed the left’s tendency to treat alleged victims as above scrutiny, even after they are caught defaming an innocent person, as Giuffre was with Dershowitz.

Unfortunately, the heightened emotions of a moral panic make it impossible to properly understand Epstein. Online, people routinely accuse the most prominent critic of Epstein hysteria, Michael Tracey, of defending pedophilia. Just as Giuffre and Farmer must be above reproach, Epstein must be below understanding. Trying to understand him is, for many, tantamount to defending him.

But not understanding Epstein’s genius for manipulation undermines our ability to protect ourselves from others like him. His high overall intelligence, including emotional intelligence, made him magnetic. And, like other cult leaders, there is something indefinable about him that gave him a charisma difficult to appreciate before the publication of the files....
 
A long read, but a brave attempt by Michael Shellenberger to explain Epstein's role by making the case that he was not "running a sex blackmail operation for intelligence." Epstein certainly appears to have done many other things for and with intelligence agencies, but not that.
In a 'worst case scenario', it's actually the other way around and Epstein was "tasked" with catering to the perversions of others (in my opinion).

It seems that Shellenberger et al. have been "tasked" with the rehabilitation of the Mossad's and Israel's reputation in an attempt to say: "Nothing to see here", and, "It was all him - never us - we're still special - more special than you because we're Jewish!"

Epstein had a 'talent' for networking, so blackmail (or was blackmailed himself?) into catering for the perversions of others. From his photos, he always struck me as looking careworn and somewhat defeated. It was as if everyone else was having 'a good time', but for him it was just a job.

In my opinion, his main interest was in girls from 14-16 years old, not children, boys, men or sadistic torture and death. Some of his clients would have had these perversions.

He was described (at the begining of his career) as "not very impressive" and was probably not that intelligent, so this was probably the only thing he could do as an asset for Israel. Ghislane was most likely much more intelligent and probably more interested in power, domination and cruelty. She also had access to the British aristocracy.

I think their blackmail list is probably what Israel is so desperate to hide. It's an illustration of how much their infiltration and control exists in the United States and basically what sick perverted bastards they are.

Sigh.... do I really have to read the Shellenberger whitewash attempt? I'm sure it's lovely and all that, but I must admit to seeing the worst in these people and having plenty of black pills to throw around, especially since Covid. :lol:
 
A long read, but a brave attempt by Michael Shellenberger to explain Epstein's role by making the case that he was not "running a sex blackmail operation for intelligence." Epstein certainly appears to have done many other things for and with intelligence agencies, but not that.


Hello,

I don't know M. Shellenberger: would you be able to define his "credibility"? I sometimes see warning about various media figures and I was wondering if there was anything with him.

If I refer to a past C session, they explained that this Epstein thing was to be framed specifically. The author operates a slight digression from it, in the sense of "Epstein was NOT working for Intel services". He comes up with "Epstein was working alone".

- I am always suspicious of people coming up with such alleged game-changers (X > Y > Z)!
- I am always suspicious of the lone wolf theory

He introduces the fact that Epstein was "perverse"; but we all know he was, or at least to some extent. It seems the author decides to be conclusive. But "the perverse lone wolf" theory is a recurring one.

So, more or less, "Lone wolf", "perverse",... In addition we may be made sensible to "... was not running a blackmail operation..." 🤔

Ultimately, his take is no "intel services" - "working alone". Let's assume this, why not. Does it go against the C take?

Can there even be a lone wolf in our world? With scope and capabilities?
 
Hillary's deposition relating to her relations with Epstein by the House Oversight Committee 👼

HRC Repeatedly Said, 'I Don't Know, You'll Have To Ask My Husband' During Epstein Testimony: Comer


And here's MSN's subsequent follow-up

 
Sigh.... do I really have to read the Shellenberger whitewash attempt? I'm sure it's lovely and all that, but I must admit to seeing the worst in these people and having plenty of black pills to throw around, especially since Covid. :lol:
That's just it, we've become emotionally attached to the idea that "it's all completely black!" and so resistant to any efforts to scale things back towards a white - or at least gray - shade, that we're policing each other "not to pay attention to anything suggesting it may not all be completely black!"
 
The problem IMO is that there are roughly two camps, each with their own blindspots:

Camp A: "it's all a grand satanic conspiracy-Israel-Mossad-pedophile-blackmail operation, Epstein was literally working for the Mossad and worshipping the anti-christ", etc. I think those in this camp have the right instinct, because in the grand scheme of things, that's close enough to how our STS world actually operates. But when analyzing the real (3D) world, it can lead to errors in judgment (seeing hard evidence where there is none, and generally failing to understand how humans actually engage and interact with each other, with all the different shades of gray involved, even when we include various pathological types of different flavors).

Camp B: these are the people who "just look at the evidence" in a very strict way trying to figure out what we can actually see there, and what we can and can't infer. This is a more grounded approach and useful to tease out what actually happened. The problem is, these people are often blind to the conspiracy lore, and the mountain of circumstantial (or direct) evidence for all kinds of outrageous and out-there things past and present, so their inferences will be limited in that way. Shellenberger is a good example: he makes some excellent points (including how a moral panic actually prevents us from truly understanding and thus protecting ourselves from characters like Epstein, which is very in line with Political Ponerology), but his blind spots prevent him from seeing the Jewish/Israeli connection (even if not "official"), or the likelihood of much darker things lurking behind it all, or that evil is organized in a pyramid, ultimately transcending our realm, and hence nobody, including Epstein, is a "lone wolf" and always has someone, or something, higher up to answer to.

That's just it, we've become emotionally attached to the idea that "it's all completely black!" and so resistant to any efforts to scale things back towards a white - or at least gray - shade, that we're policing each other "not to pay attention to anything suggesting it may not all be completely black!"

Indeed, if we can't even read a different take without "moral panic", what are we doing? We want to avoid/shrink our own blind spots as best we can, to get the widest and best read on the situation, of what's actually going on. Lobachevski talked about a "clinical" approach instead of "moralizing" when dealing with evil, and this includes recognizing the blind spots of both "camps", understanding where these camps are coming from, and of course understanding a character like Epstein and his network on a human level, drawing from our knowledge of (and experience with) various human types, including the pathological ones etc.
 
I had a look back at the sessions to see what the quotes exactly say; ultimately, I believe the M. Shellenberg take may not be worth it. His conclusions at least; but I would agree with the idea of seeking refining all of it, as you suggest.

I had a look at the text in very segmented way, and since it's well written, it's easy to see the guy's point.

The problem with his text seems to be this chunk which is the pivotal point:

But after having spent several weeks reading through the files and related investigations, it’s clear to us that the totality of available evidence does not support the picture of a government-backed sex blackmail operation. Rather, it suggests that Epstein primarily served his own interests. If Epstein was a slave to anything, it was to his passions and perversions. Ward’s claim that Epstein “belonged to intelligence” is not reliable.

<> no evidence of Intel
<><> lone individual

Fair enough and logical. But - that's a bet & the essay becomes an exercice in hypothesis. The author remains cautious; to his credit:

If Epstein indeed worked for American and/or Israeli intelligence over the decades, it was likely as someone skilled at (...)

But his hypothesis is wrong:

C's said:

Session 12 November 2016
Q: (Joe) Is one of the main reasons that Trump and every other president who comes into power immediately goes and makes nice with Israel, has that got a lot to do with this Epstein guy and others like him who blackmail everybody? Essentially, does Israel control by blackmailing? It's not so much that Israel's our best friend, but...

A: Close. Watch closely for events that will reveal the "man behind the curtain."

Q: (L) And that is in the context of Jeffrey Epstein and Israel blackmailing people in power - literally everybody.

(Joe) Do they have anything on Trump?

A: Not much.

Session 26 April 2025
(Ennio) Is Trump also trying to redact or obscure Epstein's connection to Israeli intelligence?

A: Yes

Session 26 April 2025
(Joe) Is our assumption that the whole Epstein case, his activities and stuff... that it was basically a Mossad or an Israeli blackmail or honey trap operation for all and everybody, whoever they could get, basically? Is that true? Is that basically what it was?

A: Yes.

So we would have to proceed like the guy did, but with the appropriate "bit", that which allows to progress. Let's look at the "progression" that is available to us:

C take allows:

??? < ??? < Intel/blackmail

We have the end-point; from there on we need to find the whole. I suggest step-by-step, only 100% verifiable bits should be acceptable, for definite conclusions.

An element appeared: the files + the graphic claims of ritualistic abuses. What to do with this?

If we assume the graphic parts of the files are true, it kind of requires to fit in the above equation.

Nowadays, common people go by:

[babies] > ??? > "Epstein"

So, the mind takes the exercice backwards. That's what most of the people are up to.

One matter seems to be the connector (< or >). Ultimately we want to figure out how the structure "is", so no arrow:

??? ==== ??? ==== Intel / Blackmail

And, like a puzzle, we need to locate "Epstein", "ritual abuses" (if the latter has anything to do - we believe so, we believe so but it's somehow cold shower, and a backward end-point, not attesting from the root origin - Israeli intel).

M. Shellenberg proceeds as follows (C way):

[babies] < perversion < lone wolf

He stratifies several elements, he is able to "progress & unveil" - but it's not aligned with the C's since the above only works when discarding the Intel aspect.

Another problem is that this does not account for parrallelism of Epstein, with the Network, and he becomes a full "fellow member".

We know how Dutroux - The Network - had ties with GLADIO and things. In addition, when the Berlin wall falled, the West puts its hands on the Statis kompromat files. Who was the West, at the time? This indicates changes of ownership, in kompromat files. That's quite an additional layer that we are not used to handle!

First - Epstein, as Israel, would be part of the GLADIO aspect of the Dutroux Network. That's because ultimately, Israel IS part of the GLADIO machine. I believe that's one step we could assume. But then, it seems the Epstein operation turned wrong (jailing, files, light). So, did it, and why? Has there been any change of ownership, like the Stati files?

In addition to this, the kompromat aspect appears. That would be a safe element we can hold on to, even if this is not much. We would need to understand the history of Epstein's kompromat.

But @Niall is right - we need to find a "just milieu": Epstein cristallizes many bold conclusions, and we tend to attribute him wrong aspects. On my part, I feel that I overestimate Epstein's capabilities: I believe he was super powerful and that he managed to blackmail every important politician to the extent of controlling the "sphere". In fact, he may have been not that powerful (that would be an example, of a wrong "lead").

Thanks to @luc 's observations, I would say that M. Shellenberg cumulates "Team 1" and "Team 2":

Team 1 is "follow the pure facts". "we cannot prove Epstein was intel = let's progress with full discarding of all this area".

He ends up with perverse lone wolf, into passion (AKA satanic rituals - so, Team 2).

This hints at the truth being "Team 3" 🤔

In addition, nothing tells us that people performing rituals are, strictly speaking, people taken over by their "passions & perversion". This is a precise conclusion that is being suggested to us by the author M. Shellenberg. GLADIO operations may be a solver here: some operators are embarked into passion (Brabant terrorists), but overall it's under control, of no passion.

My question goes to @luc: with your method of thinking, outside of the b/w box, discarding "Team 1" and "Team 2" - would you be able to formulate some words, for direction? I consider much your push for remaining flexible, and understand it's the big basic - not critallizing any fixed idea. This would boil down to "dynamism" and "transiency" of the phenomenon observed. It cannot be directly approached in 3D terms, or with the usual logics.

Thank you, all the posters, to me it's a complex matter because there are many elements involved and we are trying to make sense of very different elements, and put those into a cohesive whole.

In my opinion, we need solid points. Reading about the ritualistic descriptions gives us the feeling that it is sufficient enough. Those are solid "end-points" - but not solid glue-points. We would need to find the elements allowing to show the cohesion of the whole individual elements (the graphic descriptions, Epstein, Intel, Israel, and blackmail processes). M. Shellenberg tried to progress along those lines so as to form a "scenario"; in doing so, he glues the elements together, but I feel he is wrong.

M. Shellenberg portrays irrationality at Epstein himself and the ritualistic people. Epstein was probably on a job like another, and he was professional. Less passion. The ritualistic people would do those things because of the usual thing: enslaving humanity at large - so a sort of "job" too, less passion. The passion element comes back a bit here, we tend to attribute it automatically, because that's our way to explain it (human world view). But psychopaths are less into "passion", I would say. They would just "feed", being "natural", acting naturally.

Antonyms of "passions" are:

apathy
calm
calmness
coolness
dullness
happiness
indifference
lethargy
peace

This matches the ritualistic people (and Epstein) I would say.

Result is we'd need to avoid to go too much into the passion explanation, at least for some elements. That's what normal people do - emotional & giving in to "passion". So the right angle would be a study making sense of non-normal-people logics.



That's super few, and it's a long post for ideas - sorry about it. I wish to be the ambassador of "let's think again", "let's start up again with a clean table", "let's start over". I have been trying to gather specific elements of interest so that we may think of a scenario. I am not pretending anything. I wanted to illustrate the relevant elements that would allow to understand the whole, and discriminate the ones that are not useful.
 
Back
Top Bottom