Given gender differences and conditions, under which each sex competes for access to desirable
mates of the other sex, it would be astonishing to find that men and women were psychologically
identical in their behaviour in marriage. Infidelity represents a shortcut some take and from
the point of reproduction strategies can be viewed as attempt to obtain a more desirable mate, when
such opportunity arise. Whether a child will be conceived or not is another story and here social
restriction play dominant role. At this point in history, we can no longer doubt that men and women
differ in their preferences for a mate: primarily for youth and physical attractiveness in one case,
and for status, maturity, and economic resources in the other. So some males increase their value in
"mating market" as they age. While woman usually confront gradual deterioration (probably with the
exception of some Hollywood stars, who managed to look young up to their fifties). At the same time
women, especially married woman, dislike being treated as sex objects or valued for qualities
largely beyond their control, such as youth and beauty. Similarly men dislike being
treated as success objects or valued for the size of their wallet and the importance of their status
in a competitive world.
Marital infidelity is a pretty traumatic event. A very painful life experience. But
with ages behaviour
in which one spouse seeks happiness and sexual satisfaction outside the marriage not only became
more common, it became more socially accepted. Not so long ago (say 200 years from now) a man who seduced somebody else wife
risked to get a bullet in the chest. Now the rules are much easier and punishment is less severe. In the past it was regulated by law. Even now, for
example, in Minnesota, adultery
is a crime punishable by a fine of up
to $3000 and/or up to a
year in jail (St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch, 1987).
Yet 50% of men
and 30% of women admit they have engaged in such relations at some point of their current or former marriage.
The overwhelming number of Americans disapprove of extramarital sexual relations. In national
opinion polls, 87% of Americans say that extramarital relations are “always wrong” or “almost
always” wrong (Atwater, 1982). Still despite being a clear betrayal of the other spouse such
behaviour is relatively common: estimates are that,
during marriages in contemporary American culture, at least one half of the individuals (mostly
males) have
extramarital sexual relations.
This is high opportunistic behaviour and chance plays a dominant role in fostering
extramarital involvement. However, perceived opportunity may be confounded with other factors,
including the person attitudes toward sexuality, morality and life-styles. A study by Gerstel ( 1969) of commuter
marriages (couples who lived apart for professional reasons at least three days a week) showed that
60% had not had extramarital relations. But that most of those who did had also had extramarital
relations prior to the commuting circumstances. Nevertheless, even persons indisposed to affairs may
behave in remarkably uncharacteristic ways and end up in extramarital relationships when external
circumstances push them past their moral barriers.
Opposite-sex friendships may constitute a
particularly powerful opportunity for sexual affairs. Atwater ( 1979) found that, for many women,
extramarital sex developed within the context of friendship. Such entanglements may not start with
the intent of beginning an extramarital affair out of dissatisfaction with the marital relationship,
but may evolve to that point later. The excessive use of internet pornography also increased the
chances in engaging marital infidelity, especially for males, as they are primary consumer of this
new pulp culture.
Unless this is a case of infatuation, becoming
involved in extramarital relationships implies a decision process that identifies the costs and
benefits and compares them with the expected payoff of alternative decisions. Meyering and
Epling-McWerther ( 1986) found that men's decisions to become involved in extramarital affairs were
most affected by the perceived payoffs, such as variety. In contrast, women's decisions were most
affected by the perceived costs (e.g., guilt, destroying the marriage). Although extramarital
affairs play a role in one third of divorces ( Burns, 1984), research has not shown how many affairs
fail to result in divorce. Males were three times more likely to blame the breakup of the
relationship on their wives' affairs than on their own affairs. Females were significantly more
likely to identify relationship problems as the cause for the breakup.
Dissatisfaction with the marital relationship may push individuals into
affairs, simplifying obtaining divorce later. It seems that dissatisfaction with the
marital relationship is a more important motive for women to become entangled in extramarital
relationships, especially when it comes to affairs with the emotional involvement ( Glass & Wright, 1985). For
example, Atwater ( 1979) found that about half of the women who had been involved in extramarital
relationships mentioned an unsatisfactory marriage as part of their motivation. In general, the
occurrence of extramarital sexual relations has been found to be related to the level of marital dissatisfaction,
especially in women.
Most divorces due to infidelity are sought by women, but a wife's infidelity is more serious
reason for divorce for most men, then infidelity of their husband is for most women. Generally high rate of divorces is linked
not to increase of cases of infidelity, but mainly to the new level of women’s
involvement in the workplace, as well as the modernization of women’s roles in general. The
realities of living together that inevitably create major strains are ignored in modern cultures and
are experiences not as a norm, but as a sign of the failure of the marriage. Those trends are amplified
by Hollywood with its too rosy and unrealistic view of "happy marriage" (and BTW on the "unhappy
marriage" too).
Women once married, are exposed and experience a social pressure to mold into the expectations that are ingrained in the
cultural concept of marriage, which are quite different from expectation throughout the engagement
period and are not visible during this period. For them workload dramatically increases. Many woman resent that their situation in marriage
inherently involves huge inequalities, putting substantially more stress on a woman shoulders including not only an unequal distribution of
domestic labor, but also an unequal fulfillment of other emotional or physical needs within the
relationship. That's why so many marriages do not survive for more then two years.
While previously mainly men phenomenon, now infidelity
became more common for married women too. Affairs can occur in happy marriages as well as in troubled ones,
but they dramatically more frequent in troubled one.
Although the involved spouse may not be getting enough from the marriage, often, in reality, the "disgrunted" spouse
is not giving enough. It take two for tango.
Among other typical reasons is attempt to raise low self-esteem, relationship deficits
(e.g., lack of affection), or a social context in which infidelity is condoned. It also may indicate
an addiction to sex or romance. People addicted to romantic relationships are driven by the excitement
and emotion which a new relationship temporary brings to them.
In most people affairs cause feelings of shame and worthlessness. that's not true for sex addicts
and philanderers. The latter perceive extramarital sex as an entitlement and status symbol (the more,
the higher status is). Infidelity is essentially a breach of trust, so it can be any action that
violates an implicit or explicit agreement between two married people.
Jovelyn Garcia
I just can't stand cheating in any form. You better give up the relationship then cheat all
you want. I quit on my marriage because my husband lied to me. I just can't accept deceit cause
i've been honest since day one.
Dishonesty is certainly always a part of an infidelity.
Seeking sex outside of the relationship can also be compared to seeking alcohol, drugs, shopping,
gambling; virtually any substance or behavior that provides a “quick fix,” a distraction from everyday
life, something that makes you feel anticipation, intoxication, even fear of being caught doing something
“bad”. It can also be difficult for some people who have sex with someone they have deep intimacy
and connection with. The idea of “dirty” or playful sex with the same person you share so much of
your life with can be a hard concept to reconcile. For some, built into their belief system of “hot”
sex is the idea that the person you are having sex with doesn’t truly know you nor do you know them,
allowing a certain freedom and separation from your real life.
Crossing the line from platonic friendships into romantic relationships is helped by modern communications,
especially Internet, as well as high demand of time of a modern workplace.
Internet bring a new class of affairs called emotional affairs. The latter differ from platonic friendships
by
greater emotional intimacy than in the marital relationship,
secrecy and deception from the spouse,
sexual chemistry.
absence of physical contact.
Certain life cycle changes (midlife crisis in men, etc) also stimulates infidelity. Some associate
infidelity with selfishness. Some dissatisfied spouses begin an extramarital relationship as a way of
exiting from an unhappy marriage. More frequently, however, the marital history is re-written to justify
an ongoing affair. It is unreasonable to compare a brief splash of intensity of feelings in an affair
which is still at the stage of romantic idealization with the routine familiarity of spouses in a long-term
marriage (The
Causes of Marital Infidelity LIVESTRONG.COM)
The actual chances of infidelity might not be as high as many sources claim. In fact, Dr. John
Grohol, founder and CEO of PsychCentral.com, suggests these chances could be less than six percent
in a given year in his article, "How Common is Cheating and Infidelity Really?" However, he warns
that this number could increase to about 25 percent, depending on how long the relationship runs.
In either case, if you’re worried about infidelity in your relationship, learning the common causes
of cheating can ease your fears or help you address potential problems.
Physical Desires. Sexual discontentment and desires often contribute to incidents of
cheating, suggests Susan Whitbourne, professor of psychology, in her PsychologyToday.com article,
"The Eight Reasons that People Cheat on Their Partners." Some people expect that a new partner
can serve their sexual needs better than his current spouse. This can especially true if the frequency
or physical passion has diminished over the years. In other cases, a person might believe that
in addition to sex with the spouse that she deserves more encounters.
Emotional Desires. Emotional needs contribute to incidents of cheating, as well. For
example, feeling an emotional disconnect from a spouse might lead someone to pursue an affair,
suggests Whitbourne. While this infidelity might initially be restricted to an emotional level,
it could grow into a physical affair. In other cases, a partner might feel underappreciated by
a spouse but praised by a third person, leading to cheating. Sometimes a spouse will feel completely
satisfied with their partner, but an emotional desire to simply pursue new experiences could also
lead to affairs.
Vengeful Desires. Affairs based on revenge are rare, despite over exaggerations in movies,
notes Whitbourne. However, a husband and wife routinely face domestic disputes, it is possible
that one member of the marriage might cheat out of spite. In cases like this, the cheater might
make the affair known to cause his spouse emotional pain. On the other hand, the cheating spouse
might still keep the affair a secret, as the satisfaction of secret payback could be rewarding
enough.
Platonic Relationship or Affair? Platonic friendships have the potential to evolve into
emotional affairs, warns the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. However, the
line between these two types of relationships can run thin. A platonic friendship becomes an affair
when three conditions are met, suggests the AAMFT. The first is that an emotional affair will
have more emotional intimacy than the marriage itself. The second is that the affair will involve
some level of secrecy. For example, perhaps a husband intentionally does not tell his wife that
he has daily video chats with another woman online. The third trait of an affair is sexual chemistry.
As Marilyn Monroe said: "It's better to be unhappy alone than unhappy with someone". In most people affairs cause feelings of shame and worthlessness. that's not true for sex addicts
and philanderers. The latter perceive extramarital sex as an entitlement and status symbol (the more,
the higher status is). Infidelity is essentially a breach of trust, so it can be any action that
violates an implicit or explicit agreement between two married people.
Jovelyn Garcia
I just can't stand cheating in any form. You better give up the relationship then cheat all
you want. I quit on my marriage because my husband lied to me. I just can't accept deceit cause
i've been honest since day one.
Life becomes polarized into "before" and "after". Some can raise above this breach of trust
in the name of children or similar "higher level" considerations, but many can't. In this case the loss of trust being
irreparable for one, the continued anger and blame intolerable for the other
A majority of respondents in Western society disapprove of extramarital relationships under all
circumstances. Therefore, most persons who enter into extramarital affairs know their partners will
disapprove. Disclosure at some later time, then, will trigger feelings of not only betrayal but also
indignation over the deceit. Many negative feelings (e.g., guilt, fear, anxiety, conflict, fear of
pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease) dissuade individuals from engaging in affairs and
are often experienced by those who entered them. Those experiencing guilt reported less
satisfaction with the affair. The degree of disapproval has been found to be a function of the
nature of the extramarital involvement. These feelings along with anger, sadness, and fear of other
spouse may seriously disrupt or terminate the relationship. For instance, Thompson ( 1984) found
that the combination of emotional and sexual extramarital involvement was viewed as more
unacceptable than just sexual involvement.
Formerly condemned in the name of good morals, infidelity is now
condemned as a breach of trust.
the common view is that instrad of trying to pursue such a petty practice it is better to tell each other everything and get out of marriage that proved to
be so unsatisfactory. And is you can't do that you need just shut up and behave yourself than to resort to the subterfuges.
Making people laugh at the misfortunes of cuckolded husbands was a mainspring of boulevard theater for almost a century, and the cuckold has always been a character in vaudeville.
However, adultery, even
if it is discredited, is not dead: outdated as a genre, it remains current as a practice and is one of the main reasons for the breakdown of marriages. Adultery is practiced by both men and women who deceive one another to combat boredom, to respond to temptations, or to lead several lives at once; it is a symptom of an individualist society torn between the ideal of fidelity and a neoliberal thirst for unlimited and selfish individualism.
There is also a kind of betrayal with respect to relatives and friends: as Oscar Wilde noted we
stab in the back only those who are close to us and whose weak.
We recall the stories that have run in American newspapers in recent years: the conservative
judge Clarence Thomas, accused in 1991 of having made indecent remarks to one of his advisors at the
Department of Education; Clinton-Lewinsky affair; the tribulations in 2007 of the governor of
New York, Eliot Spitzer, a champion of the fight against prostitution who was caught with a
ravishing twenty-two-year-old brunette whom he was paying for her services; the public confession
made by his successor for fear that later on the press would reveal his own infidelities; and the
attacks made in 2008 against the head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who had had intimate
relations with one of his former employees.
We can understand that political officials are called upon to be exemplary in their private
behavior: a public man does not belong to himself; if he wants to exercise authority over others, he
must be able to control his own instincts. The TV series
The Good Wife provides pretty
interesting depiction of consequences of such behaviour.
There are two types of fidelities: one a fidelity of convention, the other a fidelity
of conviction. The former involves a mechanical observance of social norms, the second a free
decision to be loyal to one’s beloved. Similarly there are a least to types of infidelity: with and
without emotional bonds.
For example, accidental infidelities (“It just
happened”) are unplanned acts based on the situation that arose spontaneously, are are not
expected to last more then a brief encounter. It not always that they develop as planned, so
risk is typically underestimated (Fatal Attraction). Such an
encounter does not entail strong emotional bonds and are somewhat similar with sexual acts with
prostitutes.
Men might
be vulnerable to a sexual encounter for several reasons. They may still remain curious about what
they are missing. The very things most men and women find so exotically attractive in
the beginning often become irritating incompatibilities when you have to live with them.
In any case, once the “honeymoon is over” most couples are disappointed. In addition to the
inevitable disenchantments of marriage, some men and women were unpopular
as teenagers. Now as adults they can't believe that what they once longed for has become theirs for
the asking. Some just can't say no, have had no practice in gracefully refusing a sexual invitation.
Ado Annie in Oklahoma! bemoaned the fact that she just “cain't say no.” Women may be afraid
that by refusing they might crush the man ego, especially if he is her boss. Men are afraid
“the Good Ole' boys” will think him a “wimp” if he declines. Thus they accept sexual overtures they
don't really want. Sometimes, people tend to make impulsive decisions when they are drunk. Or maybe they have just had
a bad (or good) day. Or else they are horny.
In any case, some men just slide into an affair, without
really thinking about consequences. Such an adultery can
be fairly harmless in a marriage — if
the spouse doesn't find out (If the tree falls in the forest and no one sees or hears it, did it fall?). Later, they may be sorry. Laurie Colwin
(1981) depicted the emotions after such a encounter pretty vividly (see also classic scene in the
train in Unfaithful):
I was not prepared for the aftermath of this affair. The distress I felt seemed uncontainable. At the shop I found myself in the bathroom in tears, running the faucets so that Pete would not hear me weeping. … I was beset by devils I had not known existed: grief, rage, longing and pure desire, (pp. 148-149)
Some couples may embark on an extramarital affair as an act of revenge. Other couples may be engaged in a power struggle. Having an affair gives them ammunition to use against one another. They can represent a flamboyant revenge affairs that keep stormy marriages in a state of
intense passion and
jealousy. The sex goes
outside the marriage, but the emotion is still directed in. Unhappily married couples may stay together for a variety of perfectly good reasons. They may decide to stay together “for the sake of the children,” to protect the couple's family, careers, or finances. Some people are in a permanent process of
“getting a divorce.” Their state of prolonged separation protects them from having to get seriously
involved with anyone else. Some are just “shopping around” to see if they can find more suitable
mates. The secrecy of extramarital affairs may add to the erotic thrill. The strategies and
deceptive practices they must adopt to maintain the secret naturally drive a wedge between them and
their mates and cause the two secret lovers to become more obsessed with each other. After all, it
is only to one another that they can speak mindlessly; tell all. Secrecy adds an extra thrill—which
may vary from a shiver of delight to a rush of terror, depending on what is being risked — on each
encounter.
Marital infidelity is not only about devaluing of the other spouse.
It is also the breach of trust. A form of betrayal. The emotions that are connected with marital
infidelity are the same as in case of betrayal. The most challenging aspects of the healing
process are the justifiable rage. So rebuilding trust is difficult unless couple agrees to stay
together for the sake of wellbeing of their children or some other "common cause". This emotional trauma fades with time
but rarely completely. When couples seeking a divorce were asked what caused their breakup, many
cited infidelity as the problem.
The US culture, especially movies has come to glamorize affairs rather than condemn,
them but it not clear what social factors are in play, which is kind of the chicken
the egg problem. As one Amazon reviewer put it:
The same social forces act on ALL of us, but only SOME of us cheat. Thus, the social forces
cannot explain why cheaters cheat. Differentiating cheaters from others requires looking at variables
on which they differ from others, not on forces common to all.
Ms. Vaughan's "evidence" that adultery has increased significantly in the last few decades,
when sex has become more public and less closeted, depends to a great extent on generally-unrespected
researchers like Shere Hite. Her figures on the rate of adultery are higher than others I've seen
(and I've read a lot on this subject). So far as I can tell, we do not really know that there has
been a meaningful rise in adultery to accompany the rise in glamorized sexuality (including glamorized
icons of adultery).
Even if there is a rising rate of adultery, and even if it correlates the social forces Ms.
Vaughan mentions and a rising rate of adultery, it does not follow that one causes the other. Alternative
hypotheses can explain both. One such alternative would be that both are results of increasing egoism
and hedonism, which could result from any of a number of factors--consumerism, the decline of Heaven-oriented
religious belief, decline of community life, commodity-centered views of the person growing out of
capitalist ideology, etc. Another might be that both reflect the decline of patriarchal social structures.
Surely others could be framed. The point is that we just don't know.
Differences in the economic independence
of women, in the benefits provided by husbands, and in the intensity of competition for husbands all drive the critical cultural variation.
Where women benefit
from marriage
and where competition for husbands is fierce, women compete to signal chastity, causing the average amount of premarital sex to go down. Where women control their economic fate, do not require so much of men's investment, and hence need to compete less, women are freer to disregard men's preferences, which
causes the average amount of premarital sex to go up. Men everywhere might value chastity if they could get it, but in some cultures they simply cannot demand it of their brides.
From a man's reproductive
perspective, a
more important
cue to the certainty of paternity than virginity per se is the assurance of future fidelity. If men cannot reasonably demand that their mates be virgins, they can require of them sexual loyalty or fidelity. In fact, the study of temporary and permanent mating found that American men view the lack of sexual experience as desirable in a spouse. Furthermore, men see promiscuity as especially undesirable in a permanent mate, rating it -2.07
on a scale of -3.00 to +3.00.
The actual amount of prior sexual activity in a potential mate, rather than virginity per se, would have provided an excellent guide for ancestral men who sought to solve the problem of uncertainty of paternity.
Indeed,
contemporary
studies show that
the single best predictor of extramarital sex is premarital sexual permissiveness --
people
who have many sexual partners before marriage are more unfaithful than those who have few sexual partners before marriage.
Modern men place a premium on fidelity. When American men in the study of temporary and permanent partners evaluated
sixty-seven
possible
characteristics for their desirability
in a committed mating,
faithfulness and
sexual loyalty
emerged as the most highly valued traits.
All men give
these traits
the highest
rating possible,
an average of +2.85
on a scale of -3.00 to +3.00.
Men regard unfaithfulness as the least desirable characteristic
in a wife, rating it a -2.93, reflecting the high value that men place on fidelity. Men abhor promiscuity and infidelity in their wives. Unfaithfulness
proves to be more upsetting to men than any other pain a spouse can inflict on her mate. Women also become extremely upset over an unfaithful mate, but several other factors, such as sexual aggressiveness, exceed
infidelity in
the grief they cause women.
It is painful to be the wife of a man whose desire for sexual variety leads
him to sexual infidelity. It is painful to be the husband of a woman whose desire for emotional closeness
leads her to seek intimacy with another man.
Men and women also differ in their proclivities for casual sex without emotional involvement, in
their desire for sexual variety, and in the nature of their sexual fantasies. Men and women face
different forms of interference with their preferred sexual behavior and so differ in the kinds of
events that trigger powerful emotions such as anger and jealousy. Men and women differ in their
tactics to attract mates, to keep mates, and to replace mates.
Conflicts in marriage become exacerbated when one deceives the other. Forms of deception abound
in the plant and animal world. Among married couples, deception about the depth of commitment
continues in the form of sexual infidelity. The motivations for male infidelity are clear, since
ancestral men who had extramarital affairs had the possibility of siring additional offspring and
thereby gaining a reproductive advantage over their more loyal counterparts. Women get extremely
upset by male infidelity because it signals that the man might divert resources to other women or
even defect from their relationship. Women stand to lose the entire investment secured through the
marriage. Based on this prospect, women should be far more upset by an affair that contains
emotional involvement than about one that does not, because emotional involvement typically signals
outright defection rather than the less costly siphoning off of a fraction of resources. This proves
to be the case, because women are more forgiving and less upset if no emotional involvement
accompanies their husband's affair. Men seem to know this. When caught having an affair, men
often plead that the other woman "means nothing."
Not to mention that deception has an incontestable erotic potential: the fear of being caught,
spur-of-the-moment rendezvous, and shared secrets lend some clandestine encounters a density that the
conjugal gruel no longer has. We sometimes lie not to conceal the truth but to make life more
intense.
Because the deceived can suffer tremendous losses, there must have been great selection pressures
for the evolution of a form of psychological vigilance to detect cues to deception and to prevent
its occurrence. The modern generation is merely one more cycle in the endless spiral of an
evolutionary arms race between deception perpetrated by one sex and detection accomplished by the
other. As the deceptive tactics get more subtle, the ability to penetrate deception becomes more
refined.
Women have evolved strategies to guard against deception. When they are seeking a committed
relationship, the first line of defense is imposing courtship costs by requiring extended time,
energy, and commitment before consenting to sex. More time buys more assessment. It allows a woman
greater opportunity to evaluate a man, to assess how committed he is to her, and to detect whether
he is burdened by prior commitments to other women and children. Men who seek to deceive women about
their ultimate intentions typically tire of extended courtship. They go elsewhere for sex partners
who are more readily accessible.
To guard against deception, women spend hours discussing with their friends the details of
interactions they have had with their mates or with potential mates. Conversions are recounted and
scrutinized. When asked, for example, whether they talk with their friends to try to figure out the
intentions of someone they have gone out with, most women admit that they do. Men, in contrast, are
significantly less inclined to devote effort to this problem of assessment. Women must separate men
who seek casual sex from those who seek marriage.
Although women have developed strategies for penetrating men's deception, men clearly cannot
ignore deception at the hands of women.
This is especially true when men seek spouses. Accurate assessments of women's reproductive
value, resources, kin group or other alliances, and prospective faithfulness become paramount. This
is vividly illustrated in a scene from Tennessee Williams play A Streetcar Named Desire: Mitch is on
a date with Blanche DuBois, a former high school teacher to whom he is engaged to be married but who
has deceived him about her sexual past with other men, including a sexual relationship with a
student which caused her expulsion from the school. A friend has just alerted Mitch to Blanche's
past, so he aggressively tells her that evening that he has always seen her only at night under a
dim light, never in a well-lit room. He turns on a bright light, from which Blanche recoils, but he
sees that she is older than she had led him to believe she was. He confronts her with what he has
heard about her florid sexual past. She plaintively asks Mitch whether he will still marry her. He
says, "No, I don't think I'll marry you now," as he approaches her menacingly for sex.
Given the tremendous importance that men assign to physical appearance and sexual exclusivity in
a potential mate, they are especially sensitive to deception about a woman's age and sexual history.
Men seek out information about women's sexual reputation. Psychological alertness guards men against
deception by women about two of the most reproductively important considerations for a man in a
permanent mate -- her reproductive value and the likelihood that this value will be channeled
exclusively to him.
A shroud of secrecy surrounds extramarital sex, despite the multitude of studies on the subject.
The question on this subject caused more people to decline to participate in Alfred Kinsey's study
of sex than did any other question, and more people refused to answer it than any other question.
The statistics on the incidence of extramarital sex must therefore be regarded as conservative and
the actual incidence of affairs might at least 10% higher than reported.
It has been said that "monogamy is the Western custom of one wife and any number of mistresses."
The main point is not that men inevitably have more affairs than women or that infidelity is
invariably expressed in men's behavior. Rather, men's sexual psychology disposes them to seek sexual
variety, and many men tend to seek extramarital sex when the costs and risks are low. Some married
women also seek short-term sex, including extramarital sex, but their desires, fantasies, and
motivations for this form of sex are less intense on average than are men's. Mark Twain observed
that "many men are goats and can't help committing adultery when they get a chance; whereas there
are numbers of men who, by temperament, can keep their purity and let an opportunity go by if the
woman lacks in attractiveness." for significan percentage of men extramarital sex remains a large
component of desires throughout life.
In the Kinsey report on the lifetime incidence of extramarital coitus from age sixteen through
age sixty, affairs by husbands surpass those by wives at every age. Fully 37% of married
men in the youngest age bracket of sixteen to twenty report at least one affair, in contrast to a
mere 6% of comparably aged wives. The incidence of affairs by husbands remains relatively constant
over the years, with only a slight downward trend in the later years. Instead, affairs make up
a significant proportion of the men's sexual outlets at every age throughout their life.
Extramarital sex comprises about a fifth of these men's sexual outlets between ages sixteen and
thirty-five. For men who engage in extramarital sex with companions and prostitutes, these forms of
sex become increasingly important with age and occur at the expense of sex with their wives, which
becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of their total. Given our knowledge of men's evolved sexual
psychology, it is likely that the increase in the importance of extramarital sex for these men
results from boredom at repeating sex with the same partner or from a wife's decreasing sexual
attractiveness to the husband as a result of her increasing age.
Men's patterns of extramarital sex differ from those of women. More men who are happily married
can engage in extramarital sex without emotional involvement and without the feeling that their
marriages are unsatisfactory. On average, men engage in sex outside their marriage both more often
and more consistently than women over their lifetime. In one study, 48% of American men
express a desire to engage in extramarital sex; the comparable figure for women is only 5%. In
another study of marital happiness among 769 American men and 770 American women, 72% of men, but
only 27% of women, admit that they sometimes experience a desire for extramarital intercourse. A
study of working-class Germans reveals similar tendencies: 46% of married men but only 6% of married
women acknowledge that they would take advantage of a casual sexual opportunity with someone
attractive if it was provided.
The incidence of extramarital sex by women shows a marked trend with age. As men's intense mate
guarding lessens with age, middle aged women become less constrained by their husbands in their
sexual behavior with other men. Reliable information on extramarital affairs is difficult to
come by. But from what we know, the behavior is rare among the youngest wives, being acknowledged by
only 6% of wives at ages sixteen to twenty and about 9% of them at ages twenty-one to twenty-five.
The incidence of extramarital affairs goes up to 14% of women at ages twenty-six to thirty and
hits a peak of 17% of women between ages thirty-one and forty. After the late thirties and
early forties, extramarital sex by women declines steadily, acknowledged by 6% of women at ages
fifty-one to fifty-five and only 4% of them at ages fifty-six to sixty. Thus, there is a curvilinear
relationship between age and affairs for women: affairs are low when women are both most and least
reproductively valuable, but high toward the end of their reproductive years.
For women happiness in marriage is a strong correlating factor: in one study only 33% of women
who have affairs believe that their marriages are happy, whereas 56% of men who have extramarital
sex consider their marriages to be happy. The fact that women who have affairs are more likely to be
unhappy in their marriages and more likely to be emotionally involved with the extramarital partner
suggests that they may be using their affairs for the purpose of changing mates. Fully 72% of
women but only 51% of men are motivated by emotional commitment or long-term love rather than sexual
desires in their extramarital dalliances. But another study found that men who have affairs are
twice as likely as women to think of the involvement as purely sexual, devoid of emotional
attachments.
Conflicts in marriage that experience "love triangle" situation include:
Attitudes are negative
Frequent unresolved misunderstandings and arguments occur
Morale is low
Spouses do not like working to/spending time together
Spouses do not feel they are making a contribution
Spouses feel they are not respected or valued
Spouses feel unsafe
Spouse are talking about other behind his/her back
Tension is high
Another factor in many instances of infidelity it that "monogamous marriage" as an
institution
contradicts neoliberal ideology and can't be not properly adjusted to neoliberal society, which
commodify everything including love and views marriage as a contract entered by two individuals
within some virtual "marketplace" when both individuals agree on the "price", with "tying the knot"
as a final compromise. Among the most typical issues that cause such a conflict we can list the following:
Neoliberal culture of "wolf-eat-wolf" individualism and narcissism.
In this context infidelity is viewed not as betrayal of trust, which in reality it is, but as an
attempt of self-fulfillment.
Excessive, infused by Hollywood and romantic novels unrealistic expectations.
Hollywood provides a very idealized and
romanticized view of love. to the extent that a question arise "Is not Hollywood-style romantic love,
in reality, a flavor of masochism ? "
As relationships develop, persons become very sensitive to the
potential for loss. Ironically, this may be more salient in relationships when stability is not
firmly established (dating) than it is later in relationships when passion is blunted and commitment
is well entrenched. This paradox might be due to the fact that most individuals realize that, in
general, dating relationships are unstable. Most premarital relationships are terminated prior to
marriage, and divorce rates in first two years of marriage are reported to be high. Furthermore,
persons are told in the popular media that extramarital relationships are common. Accordingly, even
when there is no clear evidence of extramarital relationships, some persons will display, to
varying degrees, the following qualities: worrying, vigilance, suspiciousness, mistrust, snooping,
testing the relationship, and attempting to control the partner's behavior. which are all summarized
under the term of jealousy. Also called suspicious jealousy and we prefer this term
to distinguish it from reactive (after the fact) jealousy.
Suspicious jealousy represents a rather consistent pattern of behaviors and feelings, and it is
most prevalent among individuals with low self-esteem who are relatively dependent upon and insecure
about their relationships. Jealousy over minor events may be construed as a sign of love, and it
forewarns other spouse of possible consequences, if an extramarital relationship were
perpetrated. In movie
Shall We Dance the wife hired detective to find out where her husband spends nights.
Although suspicious jealousy usually occurs in the absence of clear, unequivocal signs of
extramarital involvement (see , there may be circumstantial evidence to support such jealousy. Minor
events, such as watching the partner engage in an animated discussion with someone of the opposite
sex, the partner being late, and telephone calls that are wrong numbers can result in worrying,
agitation, and apprehension. Intensity depends of types of specific activities. for example in the
spouse's absence spending an evening at an opposite-sex married friend's home and going
to a movie with that couple are more acceptable then having dinner in a secluded place, dancing with
somebody else spouse without the other spouse present, spending type in a secluded cabin, and
petting.
Suspicious jealousy is not necessarily unhealthy jealousy. When there
is a pattern of minor incidents suggesting that the partner might be involved with someone else,
vigilance to determine what is happening may be a prudent response that reflects reasonable concern
and good strategies to cope with the situation. Furthermore, emotional reactions to these events may
forewarn the partner of what will happen if them are serious transgressions and thereby serve the
role of preventing extramarital involvements.
On the other hand, suspicious jealousy may be self-defeating and may
negatively affect the person's self-esteem. In its most extreme forms, suspicious jealousy may be
associated with paranoid personality disorder. Furthermore, chronic suspiciousness and mistrust that
fails to abate in the absence of actual major jealousy-evoking events can disrupt the relationship.
Attempts to control the partner's behavior and deter that which the person had no intention of doing
anyway may create a cycle of reactance, resentment, counteraccusation, counterthreat, and
provocation. Finally, continually protesting minor transgressions in an attempt to warn the partner
of one's resolve may seriously attenuate relationship outcomes.
A dependent individual in a premarital relationship will not only be
relatively more jealous: Occasionally, it seems, such a person will intentionally induce jealousy in
the partner. The most frequent reasons for doing so were to test the relationship (e.g., "to see if
he still cared") and to increase specific rewards (e.g., "wanting more attention"). White's study
also showed that females were more likely than males to induce jealousy, particularly females who
thought they were relatively more involved in the relationship than their partners. This is more
typical for dating period. During this period induction of jealousy took the form of exaggerating or
discussing an attraction to someone else, flirting, and actually dating others.
Traditional marriage is a legal, social, economic, and emotional contract. It is also a contract
for sexual fidelity. However, history indicates that the sanctity of this bonding has always been
tenuous, even prior to the religious prohibitions most clearly seen in the Judeo-Christian creed
(paradoxically Romantic love, which serves as the basis for marriage in our Western culture, was the
feeling reserved for one's mistress in medieval Europe during the period of arranged marriages )
The intensity of reactive jealousy also serves as a protest and a punishment to the transgressing
partner. . Such a response might prevent subsequent incidents and preserve the relationship.
However, fervent and vicious reactions can antagonize the partner and destroy the relationship.
Jealousy seems, in part, to serve as the glue that helps maintain the couple as a couple. On the
other hand, it can be the explosive force that destroys the couple and alienates the persons from
each other. Whatever the consequences, jealousy will reliably surface whenever there are sexual
affairs that violate norms of exclusivity in intimate relationships.
Disclosure of an affair creates the need for the offending person to explain the
relationship to the spouse. Both justifications and excuses are used to explain affairs.
Justifications are aimed at protecting one's self-image through accepting responsibility but
attenuating the negative consequences (e.g., "there is nothing wrong with an occasional affair when
the loyalty to the marriage remains intact"). Excuses acknowledge the negative consequences but deny
personal responsibility for the event (e.g., "I was just drunk and depressed"). Atwater found that,
for women, justifications were more frequent than excuses. The most frequently mentioned
justifications for affairs were, in descending frequency: dissatisfaction with the relationship,
boredom, revenge, anger or jealousy, being unsure of the relationship, and variety. Females were
more likely than males to mention relationship dissatisfaction as a reason, whereas males were more
likely than females to mention lack of communication and sexual incompatibility. The most frequently
mentioned reaction were, in descending order: terminate the relationship, confront and find out the
reason, talk it over, consider terminating the relationship, and work to improve the relationship.
Females were more likely than males to indicate that they would discuss the problem with the
partner. The most common justification was self-fulfillment. This is consistent with Glass and
Wright's ( 1985) conclusion that women's extramarital affairs were more oriented toward emotional
issues, whereas for men, affairs were more sexually oriented. Hupka, Jung, and Silverthorn ( 1987)
showed that, in addition to justifications and excuses, apologies (e.g., "I don't know what got into
me") were also used to explain affairs, when the intent was to maintain the relationship.
Extramarital relations may result not only from general marital processes that influence
satisfaction but also from specific behaviors by the partner. Buunk ( 1982) found a strong
correlation between inclinations toward extramarital relations and the readiness to tolerate the
behavior in the spouse. Such reciprocity may take the form of revenge ("You did it so I'll do it")
or inducement ("I'll let you do it so that I can do it").
Much depends on relative dependency of the partner in the relationship. Relative dependency
refers to the degree to which one is more or less dependent upon the relationship, compared to the
partner. The less dependent person in a couple is assumed to have more rewarding activities outside
the present relationship, more attractive alternative relationships, and therefore has more power in
the relationship. The frequency and intensity of jealousy were found to be greater to the degree
that a person was attracted to the other person, to the degree that a person was dependent upon the
relationship, and to the degree that a person was more involved than the partner
Here are six things I believe everyone can do in order to minimize the risk of infidelity:
Do The Work It Takes To Know Yourself As A Sexual Person.
Read books, take a workshop, talk to a counselor. Study your sexuality as you would any other
subject you were trying to master. Increase your own awareness about what you like and don’t like;
what you fantasize about; how you like to be touched and where; what you would like to try.
Communicate To Your Partner Who You Are Sexually.
Don’t assume that they know! Have an honest conversation at a time when you both feel relaxed
and close. If a tool would facilitate the conversation or if you need some structure around it, take
a questionnaire together and compare answers.
Ask Questions And Listen To Who They Are As A Sexual Person.
Don’t assume that you know! Unless you have asked them and they feel safe in answering, you probably
don’t know all of it. Keep in mind, it may be difficult for your partner to share their sexual desires
and fantasies with you if they are not used to talking about sex or if they are fearful that their
answers will hurt or offend you. Make sure that when you do ask, you are ready for whatever the answers
may be. Do your best to be encouraging and supportive.
Keep An Open Mind And Heart. Be Willing To Try New Things Together.
Try not to judge! In the realm of sexuality, almost anything goes (I say “almost” because the
one caveat is that “anything” must be consensual). People’s sexual desires and expressions are hugely
varied, and you should avoid making assumptions about what they mean as it is unique to each individual.
Many people fantasize about things they are actually not interested in trying in real life or are
only willing to try within the safety of their relationship.
Instead Of Distracting Yourself And Avoiding The Problem, Try To Remain Present And Engaged.
Affairs are distractions, and people distract themselves when they are bored or unhappy. An affair
is a “quick fix” with a long-term consequence, even if not discovered. Do due diligence in your personal
work. You owe it to yourself and to your partner.
Be Honest: Honest With Yourself And Honest With Your Partner.
Honesty early on (before an affair) about your concerns can create an opening for a new level
of intimacy. It can be hard to talk about the fact that you are unhappy with the sex in your relationship
or that you are finding yourself attracted to another person. Too many couples avoid the topic of
sex, especially when it has been a long period of time since partners have had sex because the subject
feels too tense and overwhelming. Honesty after an affair will demonstrate accountability and remorse.
Many partners who “discover” an affair say that the discovery and the deception were the worst part.
So what happens when an infidelity has taken place? The bottom line is that some couples are able
to make it through an affair and some aren’t. Those who do make it through tend to possess two qualities:
a genuine commitment to the relationship and a willingness to show remorse and accountability on
the part of the person who has acted outside of the implicit and explicit relationship agreements.
Also necessary is a willingness to forgive (this may take some time) by the person who feels betrayed.
For the person who had the affair, a first stance when faced with the discovery of the truth and
the potential loss of their relationship may be defensiveness or blame, masking their true feelings
of guilt, shame, and fear. This partner MUST acknowledge that it was their choice and their choice
alone to have an affair, and that nothing, including a lack of sex or disconnection from their partner,
justifies their betrayal. This partner can expect to be in for some rough times ahead. A betrayed
partner will most likely want details; many details, ALL details, and be terrified of new information
being discovered, leaving them in a locked place of terror, anger, and hurt. I believe that it is
best to honor their request for information as it is the first step to rebuilding trust. They will
also tend to question all aspects of what they believed to be true for the relationship, looking
back over time with a view now clouded by the idea that what they believed to be truth in one area
of their relationship was not truth, and so surely there are other areas in which similarly they
were living a lie. Perhaps that even the whole relationship and who their partner presented themselves
as being is a lie.
A couples counselor will be helpful in navigating these very difficult conversations. Both partners
can also benefit from individual therapy to have a space that they can share their feelings without
filter. Books such as After the Affair: Healing the Pain and Rebuilding Trust When a Partner
Has Been Unfaithful by
Janis Abrahms Spring, PhD,
can also help couples navigate this trespass and gain comfort from hearing the stories of those who
have been through a similar ordeal, as well as knowledge about what their partner may be feeling.
Ultimately, it is rarely the act of sex outside of a relationship that makes or breaks a couple’s
ability to survive an infidelity. It is the meaning we attach to the act and the way we proceed with
the information once it has been made known.
"... Band said he had no idea about Epstein's sex crimes back then but got enough bad vibes that he advised Clinton to end the relationship. But Clinton continued to socialize with Epstein and take his money. In 2006 Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton made more than two dozen trips on Epstein's jet around this time, Epstein's flight logs show. In January 2003, according to Band, Clinton visited Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little St. James. Band said it was one of the few trips he declined to go on in his time with Clinton. - Vanity Fair ..."
"... Chelsea Clinton had a relationship with Epstein and his alleged co-conspirator in an underage sex trafficking ring, Ghislaine Maxwell. ..."
"... Chelsea had ties to Epstein and Maxwell, Band said; he showed me a photo of Bill and Chelsea posing with Epstein and Maxwell at the King of Morocco's wedding. Chelsea remained friends with Maxwell for years after the press revealed Maxwell was a close associate of Epstein's. For instance, Chelsea invited Maxwell to her 2010 wedding at the Brooke Astor estate in Rhinebeck, New York, after Epstein had pleaded guilty in Florida to procuring sex from a minor. - Vanity Fair ..."
"... "Ghislaine had access to yachts and nice homes. Chelsea needed that ," said Band. ..."
"... Thanks again to WikiLeaks, we also know that Band was soliciting donations for Clinton through his PR and investment firm, Teneo in an sordid example of "pay for play" which most of the mainstream media refused to cover - which he worried about in an email to John Podesta, saying: " If this story gets out, we are screwed ." ..."
"... In 2011, Band says he instructed Bill Clinton's staffers to ban Maxwell 'from all Clintonworld events' to try and drive a wedge between Chelsea and Ghislaine . ..."
Bill Clinton's former top aide and
Chelsea Clinton nemesis Doug Band has told
Vanity Fair that former
President Bill Clinton did visit Jeffrey Epstein's infamous "pedo island" in January 2003, and that he was unable to push Epstein
out of Clinton's orbit since they flew to Africa together in 2002 aboard the the pedophile's (Epstein's) private 727, dubbed the
"Lolita Express."
Band said he had no idea about Epstein's sex crimes back then but got enough bad vibes that he advised Clinton to end the relationship. But Clinton continued to socialize with Epstein and take his money. In 2006 Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton made more than two dozen trips on Epstein's jet around this time, Epstein's flight logs show. In January 2003, according
to Band, Clinton visited Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little St. James. Band said it was one of the few trips he declined
to go on in his time with Clinton. -
Vanity Fair
Band - who revealed the Clinton Foundation's
'for-profit' activity and accused Chelsea Clinton of tapping Foundation funds to
pay for her wedding (known only because of WikiLeaks) - also says Chelsea Clinton had a relationship with Epstein and his alleged
co-conspirator in an underage sex trafficking ring, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Chelsea had ties to Epstein and Maxwell, Band said; he showed me a photo of Bill and Chelsea posing with Epstein and Maxwell
at the King of Morocco's wedding. Chelsea remained friends with Maxwell for years after the press revealed Maxwell was a close
associate of Epstein's. For instance, Chelsea invited Maxwell to her 2010 wedding at the Brooke Astor estate in Rhinebeck, New
York, after Epstein had pleaded guilty in Florida to procuring sex from a minor. -
Vanity Fair
"Ghislaine had access to yachts and nice homes. Chelsea needed that ," said Band.
Band notably created the
now-defunct
Clinton Global Initiative, which has helped to raise $74 billion for Clinton global charities, according to
Newsmax . Thanks again
to WikiLeaks, we also know that Band was
soliciting donations for Clinton through his PR and investment firm, Teneo in an sordid example of "pay for play" which most
of the mainstream media refused to cover - which he worried about in an email to John Podesta, saying: "
If this
story gets out, we are screwed ."
In response to Band's claims about Chelsea, a family spokesperson said that " Chelsea was on friendly terms with Maxwell because
of a mutual friend (Gateway computer founder Ted Waitt) and only took one yacht trip with Maxwell in 2009: "It wasn't until 2015
that Chelsea became aware of the horrific allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell and she hopes that all the victims find justice."
In 2011, Band says he instructed Bill Clinton's staffers to ban Maxwell 'from all Clintonworld events' to try and drive a wedge
between Chelsea and Ghislaine .
"I knew in telling everyone to stop including Ghislaine that Chelsea and her father would be very angry. It made it harder for
them to justify being close to her," said Band.
"... High-earning older couples also may have more complicated financial situations than younger couples, with both partners sometimes owning multiple 401(k)s, pensions and IRAs, making it hard to split everything equitably. And increasingly, divorcing clients own annuities, which are challenging to divide, says Jeff Kostis, president of JK Financial Planning, in Chicago, and a divorce financial planner. Every annuity contract can be different, and in some cases, couples may need to trade off other assets to avoid cashing out an annuity and losing much of its value. ..."
"... Some couples are tempted to simply split plans themselves. Or at the end of a long mediation session, with retirement plans last on the list, a couple may simply agree to a 50-50 split. But it's not that clear cut. ..."
For older couples who decide to split up, divorce can look very different than it might have in their younger years. Children
often are grown and out of the house, so child support and custody aren't an issue. And breakups after long marriages can sometimes
seem amicable rather than contentious; partners simply grow apart and decide to go their separate ways.
But with gray divorce on the rise -- the divorce rate for adults over 50 has doubled since the 1990s, according to the Pew Research
Center -- both partners need to understand how to correctly split up retirement plans and other assets. One partner may offer to
be generous, but that's not necessarily helpful. You need to follow specific rules for dividing 401(k) plans and IRAs, or one partner
could take an unnecessary financial hit or face an unexpected tax bill. And the closer you are to retirement, the more crucial it
is to get it right. "You can't afford to make mistakes," says Diane Pappas, a divorce financial analyst and owner of Solutions for
Divorce, in Boston.
High-earning older couples also may have more complicated financial situations than younger couples, with both partners sometimes
owning multiple 401(k)s, pensions and IRAs, making it hard to split everything equitably. And increasingly, divorcing clients own
annuities, which are challenging to divide, says Jeff Kostis, president of JK Financial Planning, in Chicago, and a divorce financial
planner. Every annuity contract can be different, and in some cases, couples may need to trade off other assets to avoid cashing
out an annuity and losing much of its value.
If you're facing a gray divorce, start by accepting that regardless of what agreement gets hammered out with your estranged spouse,
your finances are going to take a hit, Pappas says. Be realistic: You had one household, with a set amount of income. You're splitting
that into two households, on the same amount of income. "Something has to give," she says.
You'll also need to accept that retirement plans are among the assets you'll need to divide. Partners who hold retirement plans
don't always understand this, says Peggy Tracy, owner of Priority Planning, a tax preparation and financial services practice, in
Wheaton, Ill. "They're shocked they have to share it," she says. "They feel they are entitled to all the money." She has to explain
that yearly contributions to a 401(k), for example, came from a couple's mutual income, and a partner is entitled to a share.
Divide a Plan
Some couples are tempted to simply split plans themselves. Or at the end of a long mediation session, with retirement plans last
on the list, a couple may simply agree to a 50-50 split. But it's not that clear cut.
For both 401(k) plans and pensions,
you'll need a qualified domestic relations order, which is a judicial decree recognizing a divorcing spouse's right to receive all
or a portion of the account owner's qualified plan, says Colleen Carcone, a director of wealth planning strategies at TIAA, in Boston.
The QDRO is submitted to the plan administrator. A portion of the plan can then be transferred to the divorcing spouse's name.
When you split a 401(k) plan with a QDRO, you get a one-time divorce-related break. If you take some of the cash out, perhaps
for a down payment on a house, you will owe taxes on the distribution but not the 10% penalty for taking an early withdrawal under
age 59½. If you roll the money immediately into your own newly established IRA, you won't owe taxes or a penalty.
Before splitting a 401(k), be sure to check a partner's paystub to ensure he or she doesn't have an outstanding loan that's being
repaid through paycheck deductions, Tracy says. And change your beneficiaries, if you don't want your ex-spouse named for your plan.
For employer pensions, be aware that each employer has different rules on how or whether the pension can be split, Tracy says.
Plus, you'll need a professional to determine its value before you can divide it, a process that can take two or three months. Until
you have that information, don't set terms for splitting the pension, she says.
QDROs don't apply to IRAs . Division
of IRAs should be detailed in a divorce decree or separation agreement. The agreement then has to be submitted to the IRA custodian.
"You just can't sign a napkin over drinks," says Dave Stolz, a certified public accountant and financial planner, in Tacoma, Wash.
Understand the tax rules for splitting an IRA to avoid unexpected penalties. You can't take a one-time penalty-free distribution
from an IRA because of a divorce, Pappas says. Take some cash out and you will owe taxes on the distribution, plus the 10% early-withdrawal
penalty if you're under 59½. But if the money is rolled directly to an IRA, there is no penalty or tax.
All retirement plans aren't equal. A partner receiving traditional 401(k) assets will owe taxes on any distributions, so it's
not equivalent to getting the same dollar amount of Roth IRA assets. Roth IRAs are funded with after-tax contributions. Planners
usually separate Roth IRAs from other retirement assets and split them in half, says Tracy.
If your finances are especially complicated, you might consider a collaborative divorce. Each partner typically hires his or her
own attorney, but they jointly use a financial planner and coach. The goal is to divide the finances to best meet each partner's
goals, Kostis says. Sometimes that may mean unequal divisions of individual assets such as 401(k) accounts or cash accounts, so one
person has a more secure retirement and the other has cash to purchase a house.
For example, Social Security
benefits can't be included as a marital asset, by law, and the actual benefit can't be divided. A higher-earning spouse will have
a bigger benefit than a spouse who may have worked part-time to care for children. The higher earner might agree to provide monthly
support payments for a certain period of time to make up the difference, Kostis says. Or the couple might choose to trade off other
assets, perhaps from an investment account. "You set your own rules," Kostis says.
In recently unsealed court documents involving dead child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein
and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman named Virginia Giuffre, who publicly
accused Epstein of sex trafficking, said that she once saw former Democratic President Bill
Clinton on Epstein's island with "two young girls" from New York.
In the questioning by lawyer Jack Scarola, Guiffre was asked, "Do you have any
recollection of Jeffrey Epstein's specifically telling you that 'Bill Clinton owes me
favors?'"
"Yes, I do," Guiffre answered. "It was a laugh though. He would laugh it off. You know, I
remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here [on Epstein's island] kind of thing,
and he laughed it off and said well he owes me favors."
Interesting extract from Xymphora's July 31 blog entry...
Tweet (trappedpatriot):
"So they screwed up bigtime on the redactions for the Ghislaine Maxwell release today.
You can literally copy and paste the redacted pages into notepad and read them. Check out
document #143 for a great example. #Epstein #Maxwell"
The trick works (I'd like to think it is not a mistake but some direct action by a
court employee who is tired of all the lies). From document #143 (a deposition of Maxwell
where her lawyer instructs her not to answer most, but not all, questions:
...
I can wait for the Official Version but I'd be interested to hear if any of MoA's resident
sleuths have found the copy/paste assertion to be true?
It looks like they highlighted what was to be redacted in adobe instead of scanning
redacted documents manually.
Somebody screwed up? Intentionally? Mistrial for Maxwell?
Looks like Clinton "dicking (underage) blondes." I am shocked!
Trump is looking clean and I would have already guessed it with his foray into the porn
industry w/ Stormy Daniels. Whereas with paedophiles, it is about power and domination, when
you are into a chick like Daniels, you are staying simple and "keeping your cart wheel in
worn ruts." (Tao Te Ching)
Newly unsealed files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking case imply that former US President Bill Clinton visited the
investor's private island along with "young girls," and that the FBI knew well about the minors' abuse.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
President Donald Trump also made an appearance in the unsealed papers. However, an associate of Epstein, Juan Alessi, said in
an interview that Trump "never" stayed overnight while visiting Epstein's Palm Beach estate, and that he did not receive any
"massages" there, as "he's got his own spa." An alleged victim also maintained that while Trump and Epstein were
"good friends," Trump made no attempts to "flirt" with her.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
President Donald Trump also made an appearance in the unsealed papers. However, an associate of Epstein, Juan Alessi, said in
an interview that Trump "never" stayed overnight while visiting Epstein's Palm Beach estate, and that he did not receive any
"massages" there, as "he's got his own spa." An alleged victim also maintained that while Trump and Epstein were
"good friends," Trump made no attempts to "flirt" with her.
Despite repeatedly insisting he had no ties to Epstein's sex-trafficking ring, legal scholar and former Harvard Law School professor
Alan Dershowitz is directly accused in the documents of having "sexual relations" with an underage girl. He is also said to
have witnessed "the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators," and would later
help to negotiate an undisclosed immunity deal for himself during Epstein's first criminal case.
More than 1,000 pages of documents from Giuffre's civil defamation case had previously been released in August 2019, indicating
that a long list of wealthy and powerful figures regularly spent time with Epstein at his lavish properties. One day after that trove
was unsealed, Epstein was found hanging in his Manhattan prison cell, dead from an apparent suicide after being charged with sex
trafficking and imprisoned some weeks previously.
Maxwell was arrested and charged with procuring minors for sexual abuse earlier this month, after keeping a low profile in the
period following Epstein's death. She has pleaded not guilty to six criminal counts and remains in custody without bail, after prosecutors
had labeled her an "extreme" flight risk.
But how about using an Android phone as a GPS tracker? It may not be the most reliable option, and it does comes with some not-so-insignificant
drawbacks, but it can get the job done if you're desperate. Here's how to turn your Android phone into a GPS tracker.
Note: These instructions are based on a Samsung Galaxy S8 running Android 8.0 Oreo, but the steps should be relatively similar
for most Android devices.
Tracking With Native Android Features
Most Android devices released in 2014 or later have a built-in feature called Find My Device (formerly called Find My Android).
This service constantly pings your device's location back to Google's servers so that
Google knows where
your device is . You can then use Google's web interface to see where your device is at any given time. You'll need a Google
account to use this feature.
How to Enable Find My Device on Android
Navigate to your device's Settings .
Tap on Lock screen and security .
Tap on Other security settings . (This step may be unnecessary depending on your particular device and Android version.)
Tap on Device admin apps . (This step may be called Device Administrators depending on your particular device and Android
version.)
Tap Find My Device .
Tap Activate .
Note: In order to activate this service, you'll need to allow four permissions: 1) the ability to erase all data, 2) the ability
to change your screen unlock password, 3) the ability to lock the screen, and 4) the ability to turn off functions on the lock screen.
Advertisement
The nice thing about Find My Device is that it's not just a tracker -- it lets you control the device from afar in the above-mentioned
ways. Learn more in our
overview of Find My Device .
How to Use Find My Device on Android
Once enabled, all you have to do is launch a web browser, navigate to the
Find My Device dashboard , and sign into your Google account
(the same one associated with your device).
Once you're logged in, select the device you want to locate, click the Locate button for said device, and it'll show its last
known location and how long ago it was last spotted. It's fairly accurate in my experience, but I live in an urban environment; it
can be off by up to 20 meters in areas with poor GPS visibility.
Tracking With Third-Party Android Apps
If you don't like Find My Device for whatever reason, you can always resort to one of the many third-party alternatives available
on the Google Play Store. These apps are easy to install and you don't really have to do anything beyond creating an account to use
them.
There are two that we recommend:
1. Lookout : Lookout is an all-in-one
security solution where device tracking is just one of its many features. As such, it might be too bloated if device tracking is
the only feature you're interested in. But if your device currently lacks a good antivirus app, you might as well use this one and
kill two birds with one stone.
2. Prey : In practical usage, Prey is very
similar to Find My Device. Its one big advantage is availability across multiple other platforms, including Windows, Mac, Linux,
and iPhone, so you can track ALL of your devices from anywhere.
Once your device is set up as trackable, whether using Find My Device or a third-party app, there's only thing left to do: attach
the device to the person or object that you want
to track . Obviously, this is much easier said than done.
Want to know how to track a car with a cell phone?
The easiest and most effective option is to use a magnetic car mount . Most two-piece kits come with a magnetic insert (that you
place inside your device case) and a magnetic base (that you attach to whatever you want to mount). With a good model, the magnetic
force should be strong enough for your phone to "snap" onto the base and stay there securely.
Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the
item for any reason in new and unused condition and get a full refund: no shipping
charges
NEVER WORRY OR WONDER AGAIN: Make sure people get where they're going, or where they say
they're going. Get alerted if they go too far. Monitor drivers, speed, safety and logistics
for businesses. Keep employees and spouses honest. And never lose your valuable possessions
or assets again.
PUT IT ANYWHERE: The tiny, lightweight Prime Tracking GPS fits and conceals easily in
strollers, vehicles, backpacks or pockets. So small, it's virtually undetectable.
TRACK ANYWHERE IN NORTH AMERICA FROM ANYWHERE, ANYTIME: Easily and privately track any
location in the U.S., Mexico and Canada from your computer, tablet, or phone. Works on
multiple devices and networks, wherever there is cellular service.
GET INFORMATION INSTANTLY: State-of-the-art 4G LTE technology means you get location,
movement and direction information as it happens, updated every 10 seconds in our smartphone
app or desktop interface.
MONITOR AFFORDABLY: Just $25 /month, or $20 / month for 6 months. Cancel anytime, no
contracts or activation fees. SIM Card INCLUDED.
Cesar Hawn , Reviewed in the United States on January 30, 2019
I'm always working late so my mom with an alzheimer's disease is left at home. Sometimes
she went outside, and buy food and things. One time, I got home like almost 12 midnight and
my mom isn't at home! I found her sitting at the bus station around 3 am. Thank you so much
for this tracker as I can now monitor my mother's location!!
Tina
A. , Reviewed in the United States on June 25, 2019
This tracker works fine but the reporting is not very good. I used to have this same type
of tracker that I purchased from Americaloc but I misplaced it so I thought I would try this
one because the device looked the same but was much cheaper. You get what you pay for! The
reporting features was so much better with the Americaloc GL300W! Reporting is great and very
precise!
Janet
Lord , Reviewed in the United States on February 1, 2019
This is the second tracking device I purchased and this product by far is the most
accurate and reliable. Battery lasted for 10 days which is good because my other tracker only
lasts 4-5 days. Subscription is also very cheap compared to its uses and the option to cancel
it any time.
I've been using GPS trackers to track my (quite expensive) electric bike - just in case it
gets stolen plus to see my routes after I'm done riding. I built it into my bike to where
it's powered by the main bike battery. You can also power it with your car battery with a
DC-DC converter - 12v-to-5v - or just take apart any usb car charger and wire it yourself. I
think that's really the cheapest way because those things only cost like $1-$2 at auto shops
(all it needs is a 5v input). I have another, very similar name-brand tracker (SpyTec) that I
can compare this one too so I'll list out the good differences and the bad differences (Pros
and Cons) below but before you see the cons, I should mention that I still think this GPS
tracker is the way to go:
Pros:
---- Cheaper in the long run: The device is the same price as the SpyTec GPS tracker BUT...
the service is cheaper (for "faster" updates). SpyTec is $25/month updating location every 60
seconds. This one is $20/month (with a 6-month payment deal) for 10 second updates.
---- Seems well-built. Battery ran for well over a week before I decided to recharge (was
down to around 30%).
---- Device appears to be water-tight, just like my other tracker - which is great :)
---- This one has a (usable) app! SpyTec does not.
---- Can export travel logs to
Cons:
---- About 150% larger than the SpyTec GPS tracker. This could be due to a larger battery or
just different electronics. Though it has the same battery life as the SpyTec.
---- Appears to only work in the US and Canada, where the SpyTec tracker works worldwide (as
long as you call them and let them know you're traveling).
---- Not nearly as much info on the site. The SpyTec gives start/stop info for every GPS
update. This one just shows a solid line. Website is not as user-friendly.
---- No text updates, only emails. This just means when the vehicle goes over the speed limit
OR leaves a geofenced area, it will send an email instead of a text. I do miss getting texts
from my SpyTec GPS but I'm willing to sacrifice that for the lower monthly fee of this
one.
---- Limited notifications. This one only has geofencing and speed alerts where SpyTec has
Geofencing, speed, ignition on, ignition off, tow alert (I LOVE THIS ONE, I wish
PrimeTracking had this alert), function key and low battery alert.
---- Shows speed in mph but distance in km. Can't find a way to switch distance to miles. Not
a huge con but I wish I could change it.
---- Less tracking options than SpyTec.
NOTE: By default, the device is set to only update every 60 seconds. In order to switch it
to 10-second updates, you have to either contact support and have them do it for you or do it
yourself by following these instructions:
"To access the Upload interval setting; Visit PrimeTracking.Net > Click more under your
tracker to the left > Click Upload Interval > to set the 10 second interval enter 10
into each of the four boxes and click save > if the tracker is online and the settings is
saved, you will get a notification that says "Command saved" otherwise you will get one that
says "please make device online first"."
Overall though, I think this GPS tracker is ALMOST 5 stars. It's almost there. If they
added a few features to their site (like tow alerts, the ability to pick an update point to
see information [instead of having to click "play" and then "pause" at the point you want to
see] and text alerts), I'd say 5 stars all the way. It just needs some work on the
website/tracking side of things. If their site gets updated with a more user-friendly UI and
some additional options, I'll come back and give it 5 stars. Other than those things though,
this GPS unit really does work quite well. And at a great subscription price. Good for
tracking a stolen car, your kids or a significant other that you suspect of cheating.
BTW: You can see more info on their website: MyPrimeTracking.com and actually track your
device on their other site: PrimeTracking.net
Verified my (now ex) girlfriend was cheating. Sucks but it's better than never knowing the truth. The tracker was incredibly
easy to set up. Charge lasted longer than what other reviews stated (mine is still 55% after just over a week). The best feature
by far is the Geofence; I would get text alerts whenever my ex arrived or left the dude's apartment complex. I placed the tracker
under her vehicle using the
Spy Tec M2 Waterproof Weatherproof Magnetic Case for STI GL300 / GX350 Real-Time GPS Trackers which I also recommend.
Since the job is done, I submitted a form on their website to cancel the service. If they continue to charge my card (as other
reviews warned of) I'll be sure to change this review to a one-star.
UPDATE: They confirmed my cancellation request within 24 hours. Locating the cancellation form was as easy as typing "spytec
gps cancellation" in my search bar. I would 10/10 recommend this product to anyone suspecting of infidelity.
DickDastardly , Reviewed in the United States on August 30, 2017
Used this to track my ex-wife. Suspected her of cheating and sure enough caught her visiting her boytoy during the day when
I was at work. I'm divorced now and can laugh about it, but at the time watching the Spytech screen and seeing her every move
was traumatic, but I had to know
"... Far from being the work of a single political party, intelligence agency or country, the power structure revealed by the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal enterprise that is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power, wealth and control. ..."
"... According to one U.S. investigator with substantial knowledge of BCCI's activities, some BCCI officials have acknowledged that some of the females provided some members of the Al-Nahyan family [one of the ruling families in the UAE] were young girls who had not yet reached puberty, and in certain cases, were physically injured by the experience. The official said that former BCCI officials had told him that BCCI also provided males to homosexual VIPs." ..."
"... BCCI was largely brought into the United States business community through the efforts of Jackson Stephens and Bert Lance, former budget director for Jimmy Carter, who assisted with BCCI's acquisition of First American Bank. The law firm involved in this effort was Arkansas' Rose Law Firm and it involved several of the firm's lawyers, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Webster Hubbell and C.J. Giroir. Also involved in the effort was Clark Clifford, former Secretary of Defense under Lyndon B. Johnson, and Kamal Adham, former director general of Saudi intelligence. ..."
"... The late journalist Michael Ruppert asserted that this "bugged software" was none other than the Promis software, which both U.S. and Israeli intelligence had bugged in order to spy on intelligence and which had been marketed in part by Robert Maxwell, father of Jeffrey Epstein's madam, Ghislaine Maxwell. Ruppert cited Systematics as "a primary developer of Promis for financial intelligence use." Promis had originally been leased by Inslaw Inc., a small software company founded by Bill Hamilton, to the Department of Justice -- which later stole it from Inslaw, forcing it to declare bankruptcy. ..."
"... Systematics also had a subsidiary in Israel that, according to a former Israeli intelligence officer, was operated by contractors for the Mossad and sold software to banks and telecommunications companies. According to Richardson's letter, that Israeli subsidiary of Systematics also had a Massachusetts-based front company, which was partially owned by a former U.S. intelligence official. ..."
"... Two partners in the Rose Law Firm who would later serve in the Clinton administration, Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell, acquired significant financial interests in Systematics through ownership in Alltel, which purchased Systematics in the early 1990s. The Hamiltons also provide considerable evidence that Foster's distress prior to his death in 1993 appears to have been related to concerns about litigation involving Systematics and the on-going litigation over Promis' theft. ..."
"... Casolaro had been investigating an international crime syndicate he termed " the Octopus " at the time of his death in 1991. Casolaro believed that this "Octopus" involved powerful individuals in the private and public sectors as well as the criminal underworld and that they were collectively responsible for some of the biggest scandals of the 1980s, including Iran-Contra, BCCI and the theft of the Promis software. ..."
"... Two days after arriving in Martinsburg, Casolaro was found dead in his hotel room and his briefcase full of his research notes and evidence was missing. His death was ruled a suicide. ..."
"... Speculation only grew following the FBI investigation , given that the FBI lied to Congress, pressured its own agents not to question whether it was a suicide and lost 90 percent of its files related to Casolaro's death -- among other glaring inconsistencies. ..."
"... Ostrovsky, in his #1 New York Times bestseller " By Way of Deception ," notes that Khashoggi had been recruited by the Mossad years before and that his private jet had been fitted in Israel. In relation to Iran-Contra, Ostrovsky claims that it was a $5 million bridge loan that Khashoggi provided that helped to overcome the lack of trust between Israel and Iran during the initial arms deals in the early 1980s, and thus his participation was critical to the success of the scheme. ..."
"... One of Epstein's clients after leaving Bear Stearns, per Ward's sources, was the CIA/Mossad-linked Khashoggi at the very time that Khashoggi was involved in Iran-Contra, an operation involving both U.S. and Israeli intelligence. British journalist Nigel Rosser reported in January 2001 in the Evening Standard that Epstein had claimed that he was also working for the CIA during this same time period. ..."
"... Since Epstein's arrest, records of Rosser's article have been scrubbed from British newspaper archives, including the Evening Standard 's own. However, MintPress independently confirmed with Bob Fitrakis, whom Rosser had interviewed for the article in question, that the article did allege that Epstein used to claim he worked for the CIA. In addition, other reports from the time period cited excerpts of Rosser's article, including the reference to Epstein's past claims of involvement with the CIA. ..."
"... Though Epstein denied past connections to the CIA at the time Rosser's article was published, it is worth mentioning that Robert Maxwell -- father of Ghislaine Maxwell and long-time Mossad operative -- also vehemently denied his now well-documented links to Israeli intelligence until his death. Furthermore, as will be shown later in this article, Epstein and his only known billionaire "client," Leslie Wexner, would later forge a business relationship with the CIA front company Southern Air Transport and play a major role in the airline's relocation to Columbus, Ohio in the mid-1990s. During that period, two prominent Ohio officials believed that both Epstein and Wexner were working with the CIA, according to Ohio-based journalist Bob Fitrakis. ..."
"... Furthermore, there is the additional fact that BCCI trafficked underage girls for sex as a means of obtaining favors from and gaining leverage over powerful individuals, something in which Epstein would later become deeply involved. As was shown in Part II of this series, several individuals who were running either sexual blackmail operations involving minors or child trafficking operations were connected to CIA front companies like BCCI, other organizations connected to the Iran-Contra scandal, and several individuals close to the Reagan White House. ..."
"... The CIA director at the time, Bill Casey, was a close friend of Roy Cohn, who also ran the sexual blackmail operation involving underage boys out of Manhattan's Plaza Hotel, described in Part I of this series. According to Cohn's long-time secretary Christine Seymour, Casey was one of Cohn's most frequent callers. ..."
"... [T]he CIA may have used B.C.C.I. as more than an undercover banker: U.S. agents collaborated with the black network in several operations, according to a B.C.C.I. black-network "officer" who is now a secret U.S. government witness. Sources have told investigators that B.C.C.I. worked closely with Israel's spy agencies and other Western intelligence groups as well, especially in arms deals ." (emphasis added) ..."
"... Later iterations of that arms deal were allegedly brokered with the involvement of Prince Charles of the British royal family, and corruption investigations into Al Yamamah were later shut down by the efforts of Tony Blair as well as Prince Andrew. Leese is said to have spoken of Epstein's "genius" and lack of morals when he introduced him to Steve Hoffenberg of Tower Financial, and soon after that introduction Hoffenberg hired Epstein. ..."
"... Two years after BCCI's fraud-driven collapse, Tower Financial imploded in 1993 in what is still considered to be one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history. Hoffenberg later asserted in court that Epstein had been intimately involved in Tower's shady financial practices and had called Epstein the "architect of the scam." However, by the time Tower Financial had collapsed, Epstein was no longer working for the company. Despite Hoffenberg's testimony and abundant evidence regarding Epstein's role in the scheme, Epstein's name was mysteriously dropped from the case. ..."
"... It is likely that Epstein's conspicuous cultivation and support of prominent scientists was in fact camouflage to help cover his real role as a covert operative specializing in blackmail. Comments by some scientists who attended his soirees indicate that Epstein was scientifically an ignoramus and was unserious in scientific discussions. ..."
"... The Mena story was an open secret in Arkansas. Paul Greenberg (who bestowed the monicker "Slick Willie" upon The Boy Wonder) wrote extensively upon this subject. There have been rumors–never confirmed– that Clinton may have been recruited by Spook Inc. as early as his undergrad days at G-Town (it's still not clear how Clinton, a relatively unknown American college graduate, could gain entry into the USSR in the summer of '69 for a "vacation" at a time when our relations with that country were as low as they ever were). ..."
"... What con man does not claim to be a secret agent? ..."
"... Epstein also claimed to be a blackmailer, He promoted himself as freelance secret agent, acting for governments or malefactors whichever paid most, when he was trying to get a journalist to write a book about him in the eighties. Last year Epstein told a NYT journalist that he had compromising material on top tech magnates (this was probably Elon Musk) ..."
"... There was another interview around the same time in which Epstein "rambled" about the big tech people he knew to business reporters at his mansion. Every reporter who was around him decided he was full of it. ..."
"... Going on like this, Epstein would have been disposed of by his own organisation .. if it actually existed. The Mafia kill people for far less ..."
"... Wexner was one of five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States. many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties to the Lansky crime syndicate. Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual blackmail operations and was deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad. ..."
"... I don't buy a word of this. Too much emphasis on sex trafficking, the meaningless description underage and the so-called victims. For some reason everyone believed the story that Epstein was some kind of pervert. Only children trust the Government when it says sex crime, WMD, ISIS or UFO. ..."
Far from being the work of a single political party, intelligence agency or country, the
power structure revealed by the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power, wealth
and control.
On August 10th, and for several days after, speculation swirled after it was announced that
Jeffrey Epstein had been found dead in his cell. His cause of death has officially been ruled
suicide by hanging.
Epstein, the billionaire pedophile and sex trafficker with a myriad of connections to the
rich and powerful in the United States and several other countries, had told those close to him
that he had feared for his life prior to his sudden "suicide," the Washington Post
reported, while his defense lawyers claimed that he had planned to cooperate with federal
authorities.
Following the controversial conclusion by the New York Medical Examiner that Epstein's death
was a suicide -- a conclusion contested by Epstein's attornies as well as by independent
forensic pathologists, given the apparent evidence pointing towards strangulation -- corporate
media coverage of the Epstein case has slowed to a trickle, save for sensationalist stories
about his alleged co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and new salacious details of his past. Gone
from corporate media are any hints of the larger scandal, revolving around the admission that
Epstein had "belonged to intelligence."
In this four-part series, " The Jeffrey Epstein Scandal:
Too Big to Fail ," MintPress has revealed that Epstein's activities -- a sexual
blackmail operation involving minors and connected to intelligence agencies -- was one of many
such operations that have taken place for decades, developing from the nexus forged between the
CIA, organized crime and Israeli intelligence shortly after World War II.
As Part
II of this series revealed, these sexual blackmail operations proliferated during the
Iran-Contra affair, which involved this same dark alliance between U.S./Israeli intelligence
and organized crime. Though this series has thus far largely focused on the ties of Republican
officials to those operations and associated crimes, the final installment of this series will
focus on Democratic politicians, namely the Clinton family, and their ties to this same network
as well as Jeffrey Epstein.
The Clintons' own involvement in Iran-Contra revolved around the covert activities at
Arkansas' Mena Airport, which involved the CIA front company Southern Air Transport and
occurred while Clinton was governor. Just a few years into the Clinton presidential
administration, Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein would play a major role in Southern Air
Transport's relocation to Columbus, Ohio, leading to concerns among top Ohio officials that
both men were not only working with the CIA, but that Wexner's company, The Limited, sought to
use the CIA-linked airline for smuggling.
During that same period of time, Epstein had already forged close ties to important Clinton
White House officials and prominent Clinton donors like Lynn Forester de Rothschild and made
several personal visits to the official presidential residence.
Some of these ties appear related to Epstein's shady financial activities, particularly
involving currency markets and offshore tax havens -- activities he began to perfect while
working for prominent Iran-Contra figures in the early 1980s, several of whom were tied to the
CIA-linked bank Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and had known relationships
with Israeli intelligence, namely the Mossad. The nature of Epstein's work for these
individuals and other evidence strongly suggests that Epstein himself had a relationship with
BCCI after leaving Bear Stearns and prior to the bank's collapse in 1991.
Of particular importance are Epstein's relationship to the Clinton Foundation and the
alleged role of Epstein's Virgin Islands-based hedge fund and the Clinton Foundation in money
laundering activity, a relationship still under investigation by MintPress .
It is this tale of intrigue that fully reveals the extent to which this decades-old alliance
between organized crime, the CIA, and Israeli intelligence has corrupted and influenced
politicians of both political parties, both through the use of sexual blackmail and through
other means of coercion.
Far from being the work of a single intelligence agency or a single country, the power
structure revealed by this network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that transcends nationality and is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit
of ever more power, wealth and control. Existing for decades and willing to use any means
necessary to cover its tracks, this criminal racket has become so integrated into the levers of
power, in the United States and well beyond, that it is truly too big to fail.
When one thinks back to the now-famous Iran-Contra scandal, names like Ronald Reagan, Oliver
North and Barry Seal comes to mind, but former President Bill Clinton also played an outsized
role in the scandal -- using his home state of Arkansas, where he was then serving as governor,
as a sort of rallying point for the CIA's U.S.-side of the Central American operation.
In fact, during Clinton's reign as governor a small town called Mena, nestled in the Ozark
Mountains west of Arkansas' capital Little Rock, would be propelled into the national spotlight
as a hub for drug and arms smuggling and the training of CIA-backed far-right militias.
Under the close watch of the CIA, then led by William Casey, the Mena Intermountain Regional
Airport was used to stockpile
and deliver arms and ammunition to the Nicaraguan Contras. The arms were sometimes exchanged
for cocaine from South American cartels, which would then be sent back to Mena and used to fund
the covert CIA operation.
Though efforts have been made to dismiss Clinton's role in the scandal, his direct
intervention in the Contras' attempts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua
suggests Clinton had some sort of personal stake in the efforts and was unlikely aloof to the
major smuggling operation taking place in his state while he had been governor. In fact, while
governor, Clinton split with many other state governments in
sending a contingency of the Arkansas National Guard to Honduras to train the Nicaraguan
Contras on how to overthrow their Sandinista government. Clinton would also discuss his
first-hand knowledge of the operation with now-Trump administration Attorney General William
Barr.
Much of this channeling of both weapons and drugs was carried out by notorious drug smuggler
and alleged CIA/DEA operative Barry Seal. According to the book Whiteout: the CIA,
Drugs and the Press by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair:
A federal investigation aided by the Arkansas State Police established that Barry Seal, a
drug dealer working for the Medellin cartel as well as with the C.I.A. and the D.E.A., had
his planes retrofitted at Mena for drug drops, trained pilots there and laundered his profits
partly through financial institutions in Arkansas. Seal, at this time was in close contact
with [Oliver] North, who acknowledged the relationship in his memoir. These were the years in
which North was constructing his covert supply lines for the contras."
Seal was known to use aircraft that belonged to the company Southern Air Transport and he
also employed flight crews that worked for that same company. Southern Air Transport, formerly
Air America, was once directly owned by the CIA and today is remembered for being a CIA front
during Iran-Contra. Less known is the relationship between the CIA-linked airline and Leslie
Wexner and his then-close associate Jeffrey Epstein, which will be discussed in detail later in
this report.
Seal seemed to always operate with much less than six degrees of separation from Clinton
while the latter served as governor. In his 1999 confessional expose, Cross-fire: Witness
in the Clinton Investigation, former Arkansas policeman turned personal driver
and security guard for Bill Clinton, L.D. Brown, recounts how Clinton encouraged him to seek
out a post at the CIA. Clinton allegedly went so far as to edit the essay Brown wrote for this
employment application. The essay topic was drug smuggling in Central America. Upon receiving
his application, the CIA put Brown in touch with none other than Barry Seal. Seal would later
be gunned down in 1986 while serving six-months probation for drug-smuggling charges.
Seal was not the only affiliate of Oliver North running a Contra-connected operation in
Arkansas. Terry Reed, who had worked for North since 1983, claimed to have been put in touch
with Seal by North and established a base just 10 miles north of Mena -- in Nella, Arkansas --
where "Nicaraguan Contras and other recruits from Latin American were trained in resupply
missions, night landings, precision paradrops and similar maneuvers," according to Cockburn and
St. Clair. Reed further asserted that drug money was being laundered through Arkansas financial
institutions.
After Clinton's half-brother Roger was busted for cocaine smuggling (Clinton would later
pardon him while president) the CIA sought to move Contra operations out of Arkansas, hoping to
put a damper on the increasingly public and sloppy Arkansas-based operation. According to Terry
Reed in his book Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA , co-written with John Cummings, a hushed
meeting was held in a bunker at Camp Robinson in North Little Rock, Arkansas. During the
meeting, William Barr, who represented himself as the emissary of then-CIA Director Bill Casey
told Clinton:
The deal we made was to launder our money through your bond business but what we didn't
plan on was you and your n****r here start taking yourselves seriously and purposely
shrinking our laundry."
Barr chastised Clinton for his sloppy handling of the delicate operation and his
half-brother's very public fall from grace. He would later tell Clinton,
according to Reed ,
Bill, you are Mr. Casey's fair-haired boy You and your state have been our greatest asset.
Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you're
No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job that you've always wanted. You and guys like
you are the fathers of the new government. We are the new covenant."
Attempts to investigate Clinton's role in the Mena operations and more broadly in the
Iran-Contra affair were allegedly axed by Clinton's own confidantes, who consistently denied he
played a role in the scandal. According to the Wall Street Journal , former IRS
investigator William Duncan teamed with Arkansas State Police Investigator Russell Welch in
what became a decade-long battle to bring the matter to light. In fact, of the nine separate
state and federal probes into the affair, all failed.
Duncan would later say of the investigations, "[They] were interfered with and covered up,
and the justice system was subverted," and a 1992 memo from Duncan to high-ranking members of
the attorney general's staff notes that Duncan was instructed "to remove all files concerning
the Mena investigation from the attorney general's office." The attorney general, serving under
George H. W. Bush, at that time was William Barr, who is
currently attorney general under Trump.
Another Clinton connection to the CIA and the Iran-Contra affair runs through the family's
connection to Arkansas financier Jackson Stephens and the CIA-linked Bank of
Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which critics nicknamed the "Bank of Crooks and
Criminals International." Stephens was among the richest people in Arkansas and was also a
major donor and backer of Ronald
Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill
Clinton . He also played a key role in the rise of
Walmart .
Jackson Stephens and other members of the Stephens family bankrolled
Bill Clinton's rise to political prominence , contributing large sums of money to both
Clinton's gubernatorial and his later presidential campaigns. In addition, Worthen Bank, which
was majority-owned by Stephens, provided Clinton's first presidential campaign a $3.5 million
line of credit. In addition, Stephens' many businesses were frequently represented by the Rose
Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton was a partner.
A redacted
FBI report from 1998 describes Stephens as having "lengthy and continuing ties to the
Clinton administration and associates" and also discusses allegations that Stephens has been
involved in the "illegal handling of campaign contributions to the Democratic National
Party."
BCCI had originally been founded by a group of bankers from Pakistan, though Newsweeklater reported
that CIA officials appeared to have been involved in the bank's founding and that BCCI founder
Agha Hasan Abedi had been encouraged by the CIA to found the bank after "the agency realized
that an international bank could provide valuable cover for intelligence operations." CIA
documents that later surfaced during congressional hearings on the bank's activities and
related scandals stated
that BCCI was directly involved in "money laundering, narco-financing, gunrunning and
holding large sums of money for terrorist groups."
Evidence in the case against BCCI shows
cocaine seized from a warehouse and suitcases full of cash to be laundered. Photo | FLMD
District Court
Though BCCI was known for its CIA links, Catherine Austin Fitts -- former Assistant
Secretary for Housing–Federal Housing Commissioner at HUD during the George H. W. Bush
administration, and investment banker with the firms Hamilton Securities Group and Dillon, Read
& Co. -- believes that those links went well beyond the CIA. Fitts -- who was placed on the
board of the BCCI subsidiary First American Bank following BCCI's collapse -- told
MintPress that, after reading through troves of documents regarding the bank's
activities prior to its implosion, it was clear to her that there was "no way" its clandestine
activities were carried on without the full knowledge of the Federal Reserve, specifically the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the White House.
BCCI also played a key role in the
Iran-Contra affair and accounts of the bank were used to send payoffs to individuals linked to
the scheme. Adnan Khashoggi, a key figure and intermediary in the scandal, used one BCCI
account to move more than $20 million related to illegal arms sales and BCCI created fake
documentation, including checks signed by Oliver North, allowing the sale to go forward. The
bank later, when its activities subsequently came under congressional scrutiny, claimed it had
no records of these transactions.
In addition, BCCI appears to have been involved in the sex trafficking of underage girls,
including girls that had not yet reached puberty. According to the report entitled " The BCCI Affair ," by
then-U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Hank Brown (R-CO), BCCI officials were alleged to have
obtained leverage with powerful individuals, including prominent members of the ruling families
of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), by providing them with young virgins.
According to one U.S. investigator with substantial knowledge of BCCI's activities, some
BCCI officials have acknowledged that some of the females provided some members of the
Al-Nahyan family [one of the ruling families in the UAE] were young girls who had not yet
reached puberty, and in certain cases, were physically injured by the experience. The
official said that former BCCI officials had told him that BCCI also provided males to
homosexual VIPs."
BCCI was largely brought into the United States business community through the efforts of
Jackson Stephens and Bert Lance, former budget director for Jimmy Carter, who assisted with
BCCI's acquisition of First American Bank. The law firm
involved in this effort was Arkansas' Rose Law Firm and it involved several of the firm's
lawyers, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Webster Hubbell and C.J. Giroir. Also involved in
the effort was Clark Clifford, former Secretary of Defense under Lyndon B. Johnson, and Kamal
Adham, former director general of Saudi intelligence.
One of the men added to the BCCI board after the acquisition of First American Bank was
Robert Keith Gray, whom Newsweek
described as often having "boasted of his close relationship with the CIA's William Casey;
Gray used to say that before taking on a foreign client, he would clear it with Casey." As was
discussed in Part
II of this series, Gray was also an expert in homosexual blackmail operations for the CIA
and was reported to have collaborated with Roy Cohn in those activities. Some of Gray's clients
at the powerful PR firm he led, Hill & Knowlton, included BCCI clients and Mossad-linked
individuals, such as Adnan Khashoggi and Marc Rich.
While the Rose Law Firm was assisting BCCI's entrance into the American financial system, it
also represented the Stephens-owned financial services company, Stephens Inc., as well as
the data-processing company Systematics Inc., which Stephens acquired in the late 1960s.
According to James Norman in his book The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century , Systematics was "a
primary vehicle or front company for the National Security Agency in the 1980s and early 1990s
to market and implant bugged software in the world's major money-center banks and
clearinghouses as part of the Reagan/Bush 'follow the money' effort to break the Soviets."
The late journalist Michael Ruppert
asserted that this "bugged software" was none other than the Promis software, which both
U.S. and Israeli intelligence had bugged in order to spy on intelligence and which had been
marketed in part by Robert Maxwell, father of Jeffrey Epstein's madam, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Ruppert cited Systematics as "a primary developer of Promis for financial intelligence use."
Promis had originally been leased by Inslaw Inc., a small software company founded by Bill
Hamilton, to the Department of Justice -- which later stole it from Inslaw, forcing it to
declare bankruptcy.
According to a 1995
document sent on behalf of Inslaw's founders to then-independent Counsel Ken Starr that
asked him to review Inslaw's case, Systematics had "covertly implanted [software] into the
computers of its bank customers" that allowed "allied intelligence agencies surreptitiously to
track and monitor the flow of money through the banking system" and had done so at "the behest
of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its partner in Israeli intelligence." Inslaw
also stated that the software was used by these same intelligence agencies in the "laundering
of money, especially drug profits."
Systematics also had a subsidiary in Israel that, according to a former Israeli intelligence
officer, was operated by
contractors for the Mossad and sold software to banks and telecommunications companies.
According to Richardson's letter, that Israeli subsidiary of Systematics also had a
Massachusetts-based front company, which was partially owned by a former U.S. intelligence
official.
Two partners in the Rose Law Firm who would later serve in the Clinton administration, Vince
Foster and Webster Hubbell, acquired
significant financial interests in Systematics through ownership in Alltel, which purchased
Systematics in the early 1990s. The Hamiltons also provide considerable evidence that Foster's
distress prior to his death in 1993 appears to have been related to concerns about litigation
involving Systematics and the on-going litigation over Promis' theft.
BCCI itself was known to employ the Promis software after its theft by the DOJ; and one of
its subsidiaries, First American Bank, also " filtered PROMIS money
" -- i.e., laundered the money generated from the sale of the stolen Promis software --
according to the late journalist Danny Casolaro.
Casolaro had been investigating an international crime syndicate he termed " the
Octopus " at the time of his death in 1991. Casolaro believed that this "Octopus" involved
powerful individuals in the private and public sectors as well as the criminal underworld and
that they were collectively responsible for some of the biggest scandals of the 1980s,
including Iran-Contra, BCCI and the theft of the Promis software.
Casolaro had told friends and family that he was close to concluding his investigation and
several people close to him had seen documents involving money transfers involving BCCI and the
World Bank to people involved in these scandals, such as Earl Brian and Adnan Khashoggi.
Casolaro went to Martinsburg, Virginia to meet with some sources to get the final piece of the
puzzle and "bring back the head of the Octopus." Two days after arriving in Martinsburg, Casolaro was found dead in his hotel room and his
briefcase full of his research notes and evidence was missing. His death was ruled a
suicide.
Crime scene photos show deep lacerations in Casolaro's arms
Many, including Casolaro's family, do not believe that Casolaro committed suicide. A week
before his death, Casolaro told his brother he had been receiving death threats and the manner
in which he died, deep slashes in his arms, was not consistent with Casolaro's well-known
squeamishness around even minor amounts of blood. Speculation only grew following the
FBI investigation , given that the FBI lied to Congress, pressured its own agents not to
question whether it was a suicide and lost 90 percent of its files related to Casolaro's death
-- among other glaring inconsistencies.
In a 1994
letter provided to MintPress by Inslaw Inc., Inslaw lawyer Charles Work told
then-Assistant Attorney General John Dwyer that one of Inslaw's confidential sources in
government had stated that Casolaro had been injected with a substance that deadened his nerves
from the neck down, explaining the apparent lack of struggle and that the substance used had
come from the U.S. Army inventory. The person who had arranged Casolaro's final meeting before
his death was a U.S. military intelligence officer named Joseph Cuellar.
The same year that Casolaro died, there were several other suspicious deaths involving
people directly connected to the Promis scandal or involved in Casolaro's investigation of "the
Octopus" -- including Alan Standorf , one of
Casolaro's sources;
Robert Maxwell , father of Ghislaine Maxwell, Mossad operative, and salesman of the bugged
Promis software; and
John Tower -- the former Texas senator who
assisted Maxwell in selling the bugged Promis software to the Los Alamos
laboratories.
While the role Arkansas played in Iran-Contra is one aspect of the scandal that is often
overlooked, so to is the key role played by Israeli intelligence-linked arms dealers and
smugglers who would later be connected to powerful individuals in the Mega Group and Jeffrey
Epstein, such as Marc Rich and Adnan Khashoggi.
One of the key players in the Iran-Contra affair was Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi,
uncle of the slain Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. One lesser known fact
about Adnan Khashoggi is that, at the time of his Iran-Contra dealings, he was working for the
Israeli Mossad, according to former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky.
Ostrovsky, in his #1 New York Times bestseller " By Way of Deception ," notes that
Khashoggi had been recruited by the Mossad years before and that his private jet had been
fitted in Israel. In relation to Iran-Contra, Ostrovsky claims that it was a $5 million
bridge loan that Khashoggi provided that helped to overcome the lack of trust between Israel
and Iran during the initial arms deals in the early 1980s, and thus his participation was
critical to the success of the scheme.
According to journalist Vicky Ward ,
Adnan Khashoggi was a client of Jeffrey Epstein's in the early 1980s, not long after Epstein's
departure from Bear Stearns in 1981. The reason Epstein left the bank remains murky. Though
some former Bear Stearns employees claim he was fired, others -- including Epstein himself --
claimed that he resigned of his own volition.
Ward suggests that Epstein may have left the bank owing to a Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading in a case that involved a tender offer
placed by the Seagrams corporation for St. Joe Minerals Corp. Seagrams owner Edgar Bronfman,
son of Meyer Lansky associate Samuel Bronfman and member of the Mega Group, had tipped off
several investors and bankers of the coming tender offer. Epstein resigned from Bear Stearns
the day after the SEC opened the case and later claimed he had left the company as a result of
a relatively minor "Reg D" violation and rumors that he had an "illicit affair with a
secretary."
The SEC never brought any charges against anyone at Bear Stearns for insider trading in
St. Joe, but its questioning seems to indicate that it was skeptical of Epstein's answers.
Some sources have wondered why, if he was such a big producer at Bear Stearns, he would have
given it up over a mere $2,500 fine."
Regardless of the exact reason for Epstein's sudden departure, it was immediately after he
left the bank that "the details [of Epstein's work history] recede into shadow. A few of the
handful of current friends who have known him since the early 1980s recall that he used to tell
them he was a "bounty hunter," recovering lost or stolen money for the government or for very
rich people. He has a license to carry a firearm."
Writing
in Salon , a former friend of Epstein's, Jesse Kornbluth, also stated that Epstein
had claimed to be a "bounty hunter" for the rich and powerful:
When we met in 1986, Epstein's double identity intrigued me -- he said he didn't just
manage money for clients with mega-fortunes, he was also a high-level bounty hunter .
Sometimes, he told me, he worked for governments to recover money looted by African
dictators. Other times those dictators hired him to help them hide their stolen money
." (emphasis added)
One of Epstein's clients after leaving Bear Stearns, per Ward's sources, was the
CIA/Mossad-linked Khashoggi at the very time that Khashoggi was involved in Iran-Contra, an
operation involving both U.S. and Israeli intelligence. British journalist Nigel Rosser
reported in January 2001 in the Evening Standard that Epstein had claimed that he was
also working for the CIA during this same time period.
Since Epstein's arrest, records of Rosser's article have been scrubbed from British
newspaper archives, including the Evening Standard 's own. However, MintPress
independently confirmed with Bob Fitrakis, whom Rosser had interviewed for the article in
question, that the article did allege that Epstein used to claim he worked for the CIA. In
addition, other reports from the time period cited excerpts of Rosser's article, including the
reference to Epstein's past claims of involvement with the CIA.
Specifically, Rosser's article had included the following passage:
He [Epstein] has a license to carry a concealed weapon, once claimed to have worked for
the CIA, although he now denies it – and owns properties all over America. Once he
arrived at the London home of a British arms dealer bringing a gift – a New York
police-issue pump-action riot gun. 'God knows how he got it into the country,' a friend
said."
Though Epstein denied past connections to the CIA at the time Rosser's article was
published, it is worth mentioning that Robert Maxwell -- father of Ghislaine Maxwell and
long-time Mossad operative -- also vehemently denied his now well-documented links to Israeli
intelligence until his death. Furthermore, as will be shown later in this article, Epstein and
his only known billionaire "client," Leslie Wexner, would later forge a business relationship
with the CIA front company Southern Air Transport and play a major role in the airline's
relocation to Columbus, Ohio in the mid-1990s. During that period, two prominent Ohio officials
believed that both Epstein and Wexner were working with the CIA, according to Ohio-based
journalist Bob Fitrakis.
Past claims and evidence of Epstein's involvement with the CIA, coupled with his time as a
"shadowy" financial fixer for double-asset Khashoggi, strongly suggest that, whatever Epstein
was doing for Khashoggi during this time, it likely involved BCCI. According to " The BCCI Affair "
report, Khashoggi "acted as the middleman for five Iranian arms deals for the United States,
financing a number of them through BCCI" and "served as the 'banker' for arms shipments as the
undercover scheme developed." The report continued:
Khashoggi and [another Iran-Contra arms dealer Manucher] Ghorbanifer performed a central
role for the U.S. government in connection with the Iran-Contra affair in operations that
involved the direct participation of CIA personnel [and both Khashoggi and Ghorbanifer]
banked at BCCI's offices in Monte Carlo and, for both, BCCI's services were essential as a
means of providing short-term credit for sales from the U.S. through Israel to Iran."
Saudi arms deale Adnan Khashoggi arrives at Manhatten Federal Court, New York,
April 4, 1990. Photo | AP
This connection is even more likely given the fact that Bear Stearns -- Epstein's previous
employer right up until he became a financial fixer for Khashoggi and other powerful people --
also worked directly with BCCI during this period. Indeed, Bear Stearns
served as a broker to BCCI, a fact that remained hidden until a lengthy court battle in the
U.K. concluded in 2011 and forced the government's "Sandstorm Report" about BCCI's activities
to unredact the names of Bear Stearns and other institutions, individuals and countries that
had done business with the CIA-linked bank.
Furthermore, there is the additional fact that BCCI trafficked underage girls for sex as a
means of obtaining favors from and gaining leverage over powerful individuals, something in
which Epstein would later become deeply involved. As was shown in Part
II of this series, several individuals who were running either sexual blackmail operations
involving minors or child trafficking operations were connected to CIA front companies like
BCCI, other organizations connected to the Iran-Contra scandal, and several individuals close
to the Reagan White House.
The CIA director at the time, Bill Casey, was a close friend of Roy Cohn, who also ran the
sexual blackmail operation involving underage boys out of Manhattan's Plaza Hotel, described in
Part
I of this series. According to Cohn's long-time secretary Christine Seymour, Casey was one
of Cohn's most frequent callers.
Another fact that further suggests that Epstein had connections to BCCI is that Epstein was
known to have been close to other arms dealers of the period and BCCI was frequently used
specifically for covert arms deals. After the bank's collapse in 1991, an article in
Time magazine entitled "BCCI: The Dirtiest Bank of All" noted the following:
[T]he CIA may have used B.C.C.I. as more than an undercover banker: U.S. agents
collaborated with the black network in several operations, according to a B.C.C.I.
black-network "officer" who is now a secret U.S. government witness. Sources have told
investigators that B.C.C.I. worked closely with Israel's spy agencies and other Western
intelligence groups as well, especially in arms deals ." (emphasis added)
One of the arms dealers that Epstein apparently knew quite well was the British arms dealer
Sir Douglas Leese. Leese was involved in brokering the first of a series of controversial
British arms deals that
involved Khashoggi , known as the Al Yamamah Deal and allegedly involving bribery of
members of the Saudi royal family and top Saudi officials. In addition to Khashoggi, several of
those officials and royal family members had deep ties to BCCI.
Later iterations of that arms deal were allegedly brokered with the involvement of Prince
Charles of the British royal family, and corruption investigations into Al Yamamah were later
shut down by the efforts of Tony Blair as well as Prince Andrew. Leese is said to
have spoken of Epstein's "genius" and lack of morals when he introduced him to Steve
Hoffenberg of Tower Financial, and soon after that introduction Hoffenberg hired Epstein.
Two years after BCCI's fraud-driven collapse, Tower Financial imploded in 1993 in what is
still considered to be one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history. Hoffenberg
later asserted in court that Epstein had been intimately involved in Tower's shady
financial practices and had called Epstein the "architect of the scam." However, by the time
Tower Financial had collapsed, Epstein was no longer working for the company. Despite
Hoffenberg's testimony and abundant evidence regarding Epstein's role in the scheme, Epstein's
name was mysteriously dropped from the case.
Given that Epstein allegedly received his "sweetheart deal" in 2008 as a result of having
"belonged to intelligence," Epstein's activities in the 1980s and early 1990s suggest that his
ability to avoid charges in relation to the Tower Financial Ponzi scheme may have been for
similar reasons.
Though Hoffenberg claims that he met Epstein through Leese, Epstein himself claimed that
he had met the convicted fraudster through John Mitchell, former attorney general under Richard
Nixon.
As was noted in Part
II of this series, Mitchell was a "friend" of disgraced Washington lobbyist Craig Spence,
according to Spence before his fall from grace. Spence, for much of the 1980s, ran a sexual
blackmail operation in D.C. involving underage boys and had taken some of those "call boys" on
midnight tours of the White House that he said had been arranged by then-National Security
Adviser Donald Gregg. Spence, after his trafficking and exploitation of minors was exposed,
died under mysterious circumstances. His death was quickly labeled a suicide, not unlike
Jeffrey Epstein's.
While the state of Arkansas became a hub for CIA activity during the Reagan years and the
Iran-Contra scandal, another state appeared to take its place in the 1990s -- Ohio. Just as
Arkansas oligarch Jackson Stephens helped attract the CIA to his home state during Iran-Contra,
it was also an Ohio oligarch and his close associate that helped attract the CIA to the Buckeye
State. Those men were Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein, respectively.
In
Part III of this series, MintPress detailed Wexner's alleged ties to organized crime
and his links to the still unsolved homicide of Columbus, Ohio lawyer Arthur Shapiro. Shapiro,
who was representing Wexner's company "The Limited" at the time of his death, was set to
testify before a grand jury about tax evasion and his involvement with "questionable tax
shelters." Columbus police described the Shapiro murder as "a Mafia 'hit'" and a suppressed
police report implicated Wexner and his business associates as being involved in or benefiting
from Shapiro's death, and as having links to prominent New York-based crime syndicates.
However, Wexner and The Limited also appear to have had a relationship with the CIA. In
1995, Southern Air Transport (SAT) -- a well-known front company for the CIA --
relocated from Miami, Florida to Columbus, Ohio. First founded in the late 1940s, SAT from
1960 until 1973 was
directly owned by the CIA, which sought to use the company as a cover for covert
operations. After 1973, the company was placed in private hands, although all of its subsequent
owners would have CIA ties, including James Bastian, a former lawyer for the CIA, who owned SAT
at the time of its relocation to Ohio.
SAT was intimately involved in the Iran-Contra affair, having been used to funnel
weapons and drugs to and from the Nicaraguan Contras under the guise of delivering
"humanitarian aid," while also sending American weapons to Israel that were then sold to Iran
in violation of the U.S. arms embargo. In 1986 alone, SAT
transported from Texas to Israel 90 tons of TOW anti-tank missiles, which were then sold to
Iran by Israel and Mossad-linked intermediaries like Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.
Even though the airline's CIA links were well known, Leslie Wexner's company, The Limited,
sought to coax SAT to relocate its headquarters from Miami, Florida to Columbus, Ohio, a move
that was realized in 1995. When Edmund James, president of James and Donohew Development
Services,
told the Columbus Dispatch in March 1995 that SAT was relocating to Columbus'
Rickenbacker airfield, he stated that "Southern Air's new presence at Rickenbacker begins in
April with two regularly scheduled 747 cargo flights a week from Hong Kong," citing SAT
President William Langton. "By fall, that could increase to four a week. Negotiations are
underway for flights out of Rickenbacker to the Far East Much of the Hong Kong-to-Rickenbacker
cargo will be for The Limited," Wexner's clothing company. "This is a big story for central
Ohio. It's huge, actually," James said at the time.
The day following the press conference, Brian Clancy, working as a cargo analyst with
MergeGlobal Inc.,
told the Journal of Commerce that the reason for SAT's relocation to Ohio was
largely the result of the lucrative Hong Kong-to-Columbus route that SAT would run for Wexner's
company. Clancy specifically stated that the fact that "[The] Limited Inc., the nation's
largest retailer, is based in Columbus undoubtedly contributed in large part to Southern Air's
decision."
According to documents obtained by journalist Bob Fitrakis from the
Rickenbacker Port Authority, Ohio's government also tried to sweeten the deal to bring SAT to
Columbus in order to please powerful Ohio businessmen like Wexner. Orchestrated by Governor
George Voinovich's then-Chief of Staff Paul Mifsud, the Rickenbacker Port Authority and the
Ohio Department of Development created a package of several financial incentives, funded by
Ohio taxpayers, to lure the airline to relocate to Ohio. The Journal of Commercedescribed the
"generous package of incentives from the state of Ohio" as "including a 75 percent credit
against its corporate tax liability for the next 10 years, a $5 million low-interest loan, and
a $400,000 job-training grant."In 1996, then-SAT spokesman David Sweet had told Fitrakis that the CIA-linked airline had
only moved to Columbus because "the deal [put together by the development department] was too
good to turn down."
Though SAT had promised Ohio's government that it would create 300 jobs in three years, it
quickly laid off numerous workers and failed to construct the maintenance facility it had
promised, even though it had already accepted $3.5 million in taxpayer funds for that and other
projects. As the company's financial problems mounted, Ohio's government declined to recoup the
millions in dollars it loaned the company, even after it was alleged that $32 million in the
bank account of Mary Bastian, the wife of SAT's owner and former CIA lawyer James Bastian,
were actually company funds . On October 1, 1998, SAT filed for bankruptcy. It was the very
same day that the CIA's Inspector General had published a comprehensive report on the airline's
illicit involvement in drug trafficking.
Furthermore, Fitrakis noted that in addition to Wexner the other main figures who were key in securing
SAT's relocation to Ohio were Alan D. Fiers Jr., a former chief of the CIA Central American
Task Force, and retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord, head of air logistics for SAT's
covert action in Laos between 1966 and 1968, while the company was still known as Air America.
Secord was also the air logistics coordinator in the illegal Contra resupply network for Oliver
North during Iran-Contra. Fiers was one of the key individuals involved in Iran-Contra who was
later pardoned by George H.W. Bush with the assistance of then-Attorney General Bill Barr. Barr
-- currently serving as attorney general in the Trump administration, and top of the chain of
DOJ command in the investigation of Epstein's death in prison -- has refused to recuse himself
from the investigation into Epstein's network and his recent death.
Despite the involvement of these CIA-linked men, as well as the organized crime-linked
Leslie Wexner, the then-president of SAT
told the Columbus Dispatch that the airline was "no longer connected to the
CIA."
Notably, It was during this same time that Epstein exerted substantial control over Wexner's
finances; and, according to Fitrakis and his extensive reporting on Wexner from this period, it
was Epstein who orchestrated logistics for Wexner's business operations, including The Limited.
As was revealed in the Arthur Shapiro murder file and in ties between SAT and The Limited, much
of The Limited's logistics involved figures and companies connected to organized crime and U.S.
intelligence. It is also important to note that SAT was well-known for being a CIA front
company prior to the efforts of Wexner et al. to bring the airline to Columbus, and that, a few
years prior, Epstein himself had previously worked for intelligence-linked figures also
involved in Iran-Contra, such as Adnan Khashoggi.
In addition, during this time period, Epstein had already begun to live in the now infamous
New York penthouse that had first been purchased by Wexner in 1989. Wexner had apparently
installed CCTV and recording equipment in an odd bathroom in the home after his purchase, and
never lived in the home, as was noted in
Part III of this series.
In an exclusive interview, Bob Fitrakis told MintPress that Epstein and Wexner's
involvement with SAT's relocation to Ohio had caused suspicion among some prominent state and
local officials that the two were working with U.S. intelligence. Fitrakis specifically stated
that then-Ohio Inspector General David Strutz and then-Sheriff of Franklin County Earl Smith
had personally told him that they believed that both Epstein and Wexner had ties to the CIA.
These claims further corroborate what was first reported by Nigel Rosser in the Evening
Standard that Epstein had claimed to have worked for the CIA in the past.
Fitrakis also told MintPress that Strutz had referred to SAT's route between Hong
Kong and Columbus on behalf of Wexner's company The Limited as "the Meyer Lansky run," as he
believed that Wexner's association with SAT was related to his ties to elements of organized
crime that were connected to the Lansky-created National Crime Syndicate. In addition,
Catherine Austin Fitts -- the former investment banker and government official, who has
extensively investigated the intersection of organized crime, black markets, Wall Street and
the government in the U.S. economy -- was told by an ex-CIA employee that Wexner was one of
five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States.
As this series has noted in previous reports, Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual blackmail
operations and was deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad. Furthermore,
many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties to the
Lansky crime syndicate.
Another shadowy figure with connections to the Mega Group, Mossad, U.S. intelligence and
organized crime is the "fugitive financier" Marc Rich, whose pardon during the last days of the
Clinton White House is both well-known and still mired in controversy years after the fact.
Marc Rich was a commodities trader and hedge fund manager best known for founding the
commodity trading and mining giant Glencore and for doing business with numerous dictatorships,
often in violation of sanctions. He worked particularly closely with Israel and, according to
Haaretz :
In the years after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the ensuing global Arab oil embargo, a
period when nobody wanted to sell oil to Israel, for almost 20 years Rich was the main source
of the country's oil and energy needs."
It was that trading on Israel's behalf that would ultimately lead to Rich being charged in
1983 for violating the U.S. oil embargo on Iran by selling Iranian oil to Israel. Rich was also
charged with tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering and several other crimes.
Haaretz
also noted that Rich's businesses were "a source of funding for secret financial
arrangements" and that "his worldwide offices, according to several reliable sources,
frequently served Mossad agents, with his consent." Rich had more direct ties to the Mossad as
well. For instance, his foundation -- the Rich Foundation -- was run by the former Mossad agent
Avner Azulay. Rich was also friendly with prominent Israel politicians, including former Prime
Ministers Menachem Begin and Ehud Barak, and was
a frequent provider of "services" for Israeli intelligence, services he freely
volunteered.
Marc Rich, right, is pictured with Israel's Shimon Peres in a photo from Mark
Daneil Ammann's "The King of Oil."
According to Rich's biographer, Daniel Ammann, Rich also fed information to U.S.
intelligence but declined to give specifics. "He did not want to tell with whom he cooperated
within the U.S. authorities or which branch of the U.S. government he supplied with
intelligence," Ammann said in an interview with the Daily
Beast .
One clue as to the nature of Rich's relationship to U.S. intelligence is his apparent ties
to BCCI. "The BCCI Affair" report mentions Rich as a person to investigate in relation to the
bank and states :
BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980s amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover,
Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involv[ement] in U.S.
guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's
relationship with BCCI requires further investigation."
Rich was also deeply tied to the Mega Group, as he was one of the main donors to the
Birthright Israel charity along with Mega Group co-founder Charles Bronfman and Mega Group
member Michael Steinhardt. Steinhardt was particularly close to Rich, first meeting the
commodities trader in the 1970s and
then managing $3 million for Rich, Rich's then-wife Denise, and Rich's father-in-law from
the early 1980s to the mid-1990s through his hedge fund. In the late 1990s, Steinhardt would
enlist other Mega Group members, such as Edgar Bronfman, in the effort to settle the criminal
charges against Rich, which eventually came to pass with Clinton's controversial pardon in
2001. Steinhardt claimed to have
come up with the idea of a presidential pardon for Rich in late 2000.
Rich's pardon was controversial for several reasons, and many mainstream outlets asserted
that it "reeked of payoff." As
the New York Post noted in 2016, in the run-up to the presidential pardon the
financier's ex-wife Denise had donated $450,000 to the fledgling Clinton Library and "over $1
million to Democratic campaigns in the Clinton era." In addition, Rich had hired high-powered
lawyers with links to powerful individuals in both the Democratic and Republican parties as
well as the Clinton White House, including Jack Quinn, who has previously served as general
counsel to the Clinton administration and as former chief of staff to Vice President Al
Gore.
However, per
Clinton's own words and other supporting evidence, the main reason behind the Rich pardon
was the heavy lobbying from Israeli intelligence, Israeli politicians and members of the Mega
Group like Steinhardt, with the donations from Denise Rich and Quinn's access to the president
likely sweetening the deal.
Among the most ardent
lobbyists for Rich's pardon were then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former Prime
Minister Shimon Peres, then-Mayor of Jerusalem Ehud Olmert, then-former Foreign Minister Shlomo
Ben-Ami and former Director of the Mossad Shabtai Shavit. According to Haaretz , Barak was so adamant that Clinton pardon Marc Rich that he was heard
shouting at the president on at least one occasion. Former adviser to Barak, Eldad Yaniv,
claimed that Barak had shouted that the pardon was "important Not only from the financial
aspect, but also because he helped the Mossad in more than one instance."
The Israel lobbying effort had considerable help from Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt
as well as Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which was at the time heavily funded
by Mega Group members, including Ronald Lauder and Edgar Bronfman.
There has been speculation for years that Clinton's decision to pardon Rich may have been
the result of "leverage" or blackmail that Israel had acquired on the then-president's
activities. As was noted in
Part III of this report, the Mossad-linked "Mega" spy scandal broke in 1997, whereby
Israeli intelligence had been targeting Clinton's effort to broker a peace agreement between
Israel and Palestine and had sought to go to "Mega," likely a reference to the Mega Group, to
obtain a sensitive document.
In addition, Israel is known to have acquired phone conversations between Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky before their affair was made public. Author Daniel Halper -- relying on on-the-record
interviews with former officials and hundreds of pages of documents compiled in the event that
Lewinsky took legal action against Clinton -- determined
that Benjamin Netanyahu told Clinton that he had obtained recordings of the sexually-tinged
phone conversations during the Wye Plantation talks between Israel and Palestine in 1998.
Netanyahu attempted to use this information to get Clinton to pardon convicted Israeli spy
Jonathan Pollard. Clinton considered pardoning Pollard but decided against it after CIA
Director George Tenet threatened to resign if the pardon was given.
Investigative journalist and author Gordon Thomas had
made similar claims years prior and asserted that the Mossad had obtained some 30 hours of
phone-sex conversations between Lewinsky and Clinton and used them as leverage. In addition,
a
report in Insight magazine in May 2000 claimed that Israeli intelligence had
"penetrated four White House telephone lines and was able to relay real-time conversations on
those lines from a remote site outside the White House directly to Israel for listening and
recording."
Those phone taps apparently went well beyond the White House, as revealed by a December 2001
investigative report by Carl Cameron for FOX News . According to
Cameron's report :
[Israeli telecommunications company Amdocs] helped Bell Atlantic install new telephone
lines in the White House in 1997 [and] a senior-level employee of Amdocs had a separate T1
data phone line installed from his base outside of St. Louis that was connected directly to
Israel
[I]nvestigators are looking into whether the owner of the T1 line had a 'real time'
capacity to intercept phone calls from both the White House and other government offices
around Washington, and sustained the line for some time, sources said. Sources familiar with
the investigation say FBI agents on the case sought an arrest warrant for the St. Louis
employee but [Clinton] Justice Department officials quashed it."
[Both Amdocs and Verint Inc. (formerly Comverse Infosys)] are based in Israel –
having arisen to prominence from that country's cornering of the information technology
market – and are heavily funded by the Israeli government, with connections to the
Israeli military and Israeli intelligence
The companies' operations, sources suggest, have been infiltrated by freelance spies
exploiting encrypted trapdoors in Verint/Amdocs technology and gathering data on Americans
for transfer to Israeli intelligence and other willing customers (particularly organized
crime)."
Given the extent of phone tapping of the U.S. government by Israeli intelligence-linked
companies and Netanyahu's previous use of intercepted phone calls to pressure Clinton to pardon
Jonathan Pollard, it is entirely reasonable to speculate that some other trove of intercepted
communications could have been used to push Clinton to pardon Rich in the final hours of his
presidency.
Also notable is the fact that several figures who heavily lobbied Clinton over the Rich
pardon had ties to Epstein, who also had ties to Israeli intelligence and Israeli
intelligence-linked tech companies, as discussed in
Part III of this series. For example, Ehud Barak, a close friend and business associate of
Epstein, and Shimon Peres, who introduced Barak to Epstein, were the major players in convincing Clinton to
pardon Marc Rich.
Furthermore, as will be shown in a subsequent section of this report, Jeffrey Epstein had
developed ties with the Clinton administration beginning in 1993 and those ties expanded,
particularly in 1996, when Epstein's intelligence-linked sexual blackmail operation was
underway. Clinton would later fly on Epstein's infamous private jet, nicknamed the "Lolita
Express," and Epstein would later donate to the Clinton Foundation and claim to have played
a key role in the creation of the Clinton Global Initiative.
In addition to the role of figures close to Epstein in securing Rich's pardon, Epstein
himself appeared to share some level of connection with Rich's former business partners. For
instance, Felix Posen -- who ran Rich's London operations for years and
whom Forbes described as "the architect of Rich's immensely profitable but suddenly
very controversial business with the Soviet Union" -- appears in
Epstein's book of contacts . In addition, Epstein's offshore structured investment vehicle
(SIV), Liquid Funding, has the same attorney and director as several Glencore entities :
Alex Erskine of the law firm
Appleby.
The significance of that connection, however, is unclear, given that Erskine was connected to a total of
274 offshore entities at the time of the "Paradise Papers" leak in 2014. Catherine Austin Fitts
told MintPress that it could suggest that Epstein's Liquid Funding -- 40 percent of
which
had been owned by Bear Stearns , and which may have received
a "secret" bail-out from the Federal Reserve -- is part of the same shadow economy
"syndicate" as Glencore.
This possibility merits further investigation, given that Glencore is partially
owned by British financier Nathaniel Rothschild, whose father, Jacob Rothschild, is on the
board of advisers of Genie Energy, which includes Michael Steinhardt as well as several alleged
associates of Epstein, such as Bill Richardson and Larry Summers. In addition, Nathaniel
Rothschild's cousin by marriage, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, is a long-time associate of
Jeffrey Epstein with considerable ties to the New York City "Roy Cohn machine." Marc Rich had
long-standing ties to the Rothschild family, going back to
the early 1970s when he began commodity trading at Philipp Brothers.
After Epstein's arrests first in 2007 and then again last month, numerous media reports
emerged detailing the links between Epstein and Clinton, with most asserting that they had met
not long after Clinton left office in 2001 and, as recently mentioned, issued the controversial
pardon of Marc Rich.
Those reports claimed that the Epstein-Clinton relationship had been facilitated by
Epstein's long-time girlfriend and alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell. However, documents obtained
from the Clinton presidential library have revealed that the ties between Epstein and Clinton
date back years earlier and were facilitated by powerful individuals who have largely evaded
scrutiny in connection with the Epstein case.
One major player who has been largely overlooked in bringing Epstein and the Clintons
together is Lynn Forester de Rothschild. Notably, Forester de Rothschild has long been
connected to neoconservative Reagan era officials -- the Lewis Rosenstiel/Roy Cohn network
described in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, as well as the Mega Group, which was detailed in
Part 3 of this series.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild became involved in the world of Democratic Party politics in the
late 1970s when she
worked on the 1976 campaign of hawkish Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) alongside
now-notorious neoconservatives like
Elliott Abrams , who would go on to play an important role in the Iran-Contra affair during
the Reagan era and later serve in the State Department under Trump. She was also introduced to
her second husband, Evelyn de Rothschild, by Henry Kissinger at a Bilderberg conference.
Several of the individuals connected to the Mega Group and the Mossad-linked media mogul Robert
Maxwell -- including Mark Palmer, Max Fisher and John Lehman -- were one-time aides or advisers
to Henry Kissinger.
Before marrying into the Rothschild family in 2000, Lynn
had previously been married to Andrew Stein, a major figure in New York Democratic
politics, with whom she had two sons. Andrew's brother, James Finkelstein, married Cathy Frank,
the granddaughter of Lewis Rosenstiel, the mob-linked businessman who ran a sexual blackmail
operation exploiting underage boys, as was discussed in Part 1 of this series. Rosenstiel's
protege Roy Cohn
was the lawyer for Cathy Frank and James Finkelstein and it was at their behest that Cohn
attempted to trick a nearly comatose Rosenstiel to into naming Cohn, Frank and Finkelstein the
executors and trustees of his estate, valued at $75 million (more than $334 million in today's
dollars).
According to the
New Yorker , Lynn Forester de Rothschild requested "financial help" from none other
than Jeffrey Epstein in 1993 during her divorce from Andrew Stein.
As far as Forester de Rothschild's ties to the Mega Group go, she is currently on the
board of directors of Estee Lauder companies, which was founded and is still owned by the
family of Ronald Lauder -- a member of the Mega Group, a former Reagan official, a family
friend of Roy Cohn, and the alleged source of Jeffrey Epstein's now-infamous Austrian passport.
In addition, Forester de Rothschild also partnered with Matthew
Bronfman -- son of Mega Group member Edgar Bronfman and grandson of Samuel Bronfman, who had
close ties to Meyer Lansky -- in creating the investment advisory firm Bronfman E.L. Rothschild
LP.
It is unclear when Lynn Forester de Rothschild first met Jeffrey Epstein, but she was one of
his leading advocates and had the ear of then-President Bill Clinton in the early 1990s,
speaking to Clinton specifically about Epstein during her "fifteen seconds of access" with the
president and also introducing Epstein to lawyer Alan Dershowitz in 1996.
Living History by
Hilary Clinton Book Party Hosted Lynn Forester and Evelyn De Rothschild pose with Bill and
Hilary Clinton at the Kensington Palace in London. Photo | Alan Davidson
Forester de Rothschild is a long-time associate of the Clintons and has been a major donor
to both Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1992. Their ties were so close that Forester de
Rothschild spent the first night of her honeymoon at the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House
while Clinton was president. Furthermore, a leaked email between Forester de Rothschild and
Hillary Clinton saw Clinton
request "penance" from Forester de Rothschild for asking Tony Blair to accompany Clinton on
official business while she was secretary of state, preventing Blair from making a planned
social visit to Forester de Rothschild's home in Aspen, Colorado. Humbly requesting forgiveness
is not something Hillary Clinton is known for, given that her former bodyguard once said she
could "make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi."
In 1995, Forester de Rothschild, then a member of Clinton's National Information
Infrastructure Advisory Council, wrote the following to then-President Clinton:
Dear Mr. President: It was a pleasure to see you recently at Senator Kennedy's house.
There was too much to discuss and too little time. Using my fifteen seconds of access to
discuss Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization, I neglected to talk to you about a topic
near and dear to my heart. Namely, affirmative action and the future."
Forester de Rothschild then states that she had been asked to prepare a memo on behalf of
George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton communications director and currently a broadcast
journalist with ABC News . Stephanopoulos attended a
dinner party hosted by Epstein at his now infamous Manhattan townhouse in 2010 after
Epstein's release from prison for soliciting sex from a minor.
While it is unknown what Forester de Rothschild discussed with Clinton regarding Epstein and
currency stabilization, a potential lead may lie in the links of both Forester de Rothschild
and Epstein to Deutsche Bank. Journalist Vicky Ward reported in 2003 that
Epstein boasted of "skill at playing the currency markets 'with very large sums of money'" and
he appears to have done much of this through his long-standing relationship with Deutsche
Bank.
[Epstein] appears to have been doing business and trading currencies through Deutsche Bank
until just a few months ago, according to two people familiar with his business activities.
But as the possibility of federal charges loomed, the bank ended its client relationship with
Mr. Epstein. It is not clear what the value of those accounts was at the time they were
closed."
In the case of Forester de Rothschild, she served as an advisor
to the Deutsche Bank Microfinance Consortium for several years and is currently a board member
of the Alfred Herrhausen Society of International Dialogue of Deutsche Bank.
The same year that Forester de Rothschild made the above-noted comments to Bill Clinton
about Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein attended
another Clinton fundraiser , hosted by Ron Perelman at his personal home, that was very
exclusive, as the guest list included only 14 people.
Even before Forester de Rothschild's 1995 meeting with Clinton, Epstein was already an
established Clinton donor. Records obtained
by the Daily Beast revealed that Epstein had donated $10,000 to the White House
Historical Association and attended a Clinton donor reception alongside Ghislaine Maxwell as
early as 1993.
The Daily Beast suggests that Bill Clinton's long-time friend from his college days,
A. Paul Prosperi, was the facilitator of that early relationship, as Prosperi had a
decades-long relationship with Epstein and even visited Epstein at least 20 times while he was
in jail in 2008. Prosperi was intimately involved with the 1993 fundraiser for the White House
Historical Association noted above.
The relationship between Epstein and Clinton would continue well after Clinton left office
in 2001, a fact well-documented by Bill Clinton's now-infamous flights on Epstein's (recently
sold) private jet -- often referred to as the "Lolita Express." Clinton flew on the Lolita
Express no less than
26 times in the early 2000s according to flight logs. On some of those flights, Clinton was
accompanied by his Secret Service detail but he was unaccompanied on other flights.
Arguably the most infamous flight taken by Clinton on Epstein's jet was
a lengthy trip to Africa, where actor Kevin Spacey, who has also been accused of
raping minors ; Ghislaine Maxwell; and Ron Burkle, a billionaire friend of Clinton's who
has
been accused of soliciting the services of "super-high-end call girls," were also present.
Clinton specifically requested that Epstein make his jet available for the trip well in
advance, with Doug Band as the intermediary. President Donald Trump, also a friend of Epstein,
is said to have flown on the plane but appears
only once on flight logs.
In addition to flights, an Epstein-run foundation
gave $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation according to the 2006 filing tax return of Epstein's
former charity, the C.O.U.Q. Foundation. Notably, Epstein's lawyers, Alan Dershowitz among
them,
claimed in 2007 that Epstein had been "part of the original group that conceived the
Clinton Global Initiative, which is described as a project 'bringing together a community of
global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world's most
pressing challenges.'"
Before the associations between Epstein and the Clinton White House in the early 1990s were
made public, Ghislaine Maxwell was thought to
have been the bridge between Epstein and the Clinton family because of her close
relationship to the family. However, the close relationship between Maxwell and the Clintons
appears to have developed in the 2000s, with Politico
reporting that it began after Bill Clinton left office. Clinton associate Doug Band was
also reportedly friendly to Maxwell, appearing at an exclusive dinner party she hosted at her
residence in New York in 2005. Maxwell later became particularly close to Chelsea Clinton,
vacationing with Chelsea in 2009 and attending her wedding a year later. Maxwell was also
associated with the Clinton Global Initiative at least up until 2013.
Other close Clinton associates and officials in the early 1990s also had notable
relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, including Mark Middleton, who was a special assistant to
Clinton Chief of Staff Mack McClarty beginning in 1993, and met with Epstein on
at least three occasions in the White House during the early Clinton years. In addition,
White House social secretary under Clinton, Ann Stock,
appears in Epstein's "little black book" as does Doug
Band , once referred to by New
York Magazine as "Bill Clinton's bag carrier, body man, fixer, and all-purpose
gatekeeper." Band also appears several times in the flight logs of Epstein's private jet.
Epstein was also
associated with both Bill Richardson, former ambassador to the UN and former secretary of
energy under Clinton, and Larry Summers, secretary of the treasury under Clinton. Both
Richardson and Summers sit on the advisory board of controversial energy company Genie Energy,
alongside CIA director under Clinton, James Woolsey; Roy Cohn associate and media mogul, Rupert
Murdoch; Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt; and Lord Jacob Rothschild. Genie Energy is
controversial primarily for its exclusive rights to drill in the Israeli-occupied Golan
Heights. Bill Richardson also has ties to Lynn Forester de Rothschild as she was on the
Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board while
Richardson was secretary of energy.
Bill Richardson appears to be among the Clinton era officials closest to Jeffrey Epstein,
having
personally visited Epstein's New Mexico ranch and been the recipient of Epstein donations
of $50,000 to his 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial campaigns. Richardson gave Epstein's donation in
2006 to charity after allegations against Epstein were made public. Richardson was also accused
in recently released court documents of engaging in sex with Epstein's underage victims, an
allegation that he has denied.
In 1990, Danny Casolaro began his fateful one-year investigation of "the Octopus," an
investigation that played no small role in his untimely death. Shortly after he was found
lifeless in a hotel bathtub, Casolaro's friend Lynn Knowles was threatened and told the following : "What
Danny Casolaro was investigating is a business Anyone who asks too many questions will end up
dead."
Nearly thirty years later, that same "Octopus" and its "business" remains with us and has
become ever more wrapped around the levers of power -- particularly in the worlds of
government, finance and intelligence.
This MintPress investigative series has endeavored to show the nature of this network
and how the world of "the Octopus" is the same world in which Jeffrey Epstein and his
predecessors -- Craig Spence, Edwin Wilson and Roy Cohn among them -- operated and profited. It
is a world where all that matters is the constant drive to accumulate ever more wealth and ever
more power and to keep the racket going at all costs.
While this network has long been able to ensure its success through the use of sexual
blackmail, often acquired by the unconscionable exploitation of children, it has also been a
driving force behind many other ills that plague our world and it goes far beyond human and
child trafficking. Indeed, many of the figures in this same sordid web have played a major role
in the illicit drug and weapons trades, the expansion of for-profit prisons, and the endless
wars that have claimed an untold number of lives across the world, all the while enriching many
of these same individuals.
the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal enterprise that is
willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power, wealth and
control.
Another aspect of this Mossad honey pot op being run by Epstein is this: How many of
those teenage girls, due to being plied by alcohol and drugs so they could perform for dirty
old men, how many of them broke down mentally and either committed suicide or were killed off
to hide the evidence?
My guess is that there's an underwater burial spot near Epstein's Orgy Island or maybe
they're buried under yards and yards of concrete, thanks to Epstein buying and moving that
concrete truck to that island.
As for the Rose Law firm in Arkansas, at the same time Hillary was working there, one of
her co-workers was Johnathan Pollard, the Israeli spy that did a tremendous amount of damage
to our intelligence apparatus, even getting spies killed who he helped expose.
Hillary's Secrets
Most progressives tend to think of the sordid topic of Vince Foster's death as the
exclusive domain of the Rush Limbaugh right wing radio circuit. But did you know that
Vince Foster, Hillary Clinton, and Jonathan Pollard were all simultaneously partners at
Rose Law Firm? Yes, that Jonathan Pollard, the unrepentant spy for Israel, arrested and
sentenced to life in 1986 for espionage . Did you know that Vince Foster was under CIA
scrutiny for the exact same crime at the time of his "suicide" in 1993?
Why is it that many of these kind of incidents always involve our friend and
special ally, Israel?
Spectacular job of reporting, that the large majority of Americans will never see, as the MSM
is too busy serving the needs of the CIA and Israel, and not interested in reporting actual
news.
Whitney, is it more likely that Epstein was killed by the Clintons or Trump? It would be
helpful to have a short paragraph giving the thrust of your thinking.
What we have not been told yet regarding the Epstein scandal is exactly what political and
monetary favors were provided to whom as a result of this sick, sadistic, satanic cult of
predators.
The motive must have been for political favors, and not merely sums of cash, would be my
guess. Yes, Epstein benefitted from the cash, but if Epstein was acting on behalf of the
Mossad, it was apparently for policy control.
So who were the individuals that were threatenning politicians with exposure for not
enacting, or for enacting specific policies, and precisely which policies and businesses
would be financially rewarded is what has not yet been disclosed and what I think that
everyone would like to know.
With Epstein dead, we don't know if we will ever find out. Obviously, many people in the
surveillance state know exactly who these individual policy threatenners were, and which
policies were demanded and have remained silent on these issues.
It is likely that Epstein's conspicuous cultivation and support of prominent scientists was
in fact camouflage to help cover his real role as a covert operative specializing in
blackmail. Comments by some scientists who attended his soirees indicate that Epstein was
scientifically an ignoramus and was unserious in scientific discussions.
Around '83, I was living Beaufort Gardens, Knightsbridge. Only a few steps away from the big
building occupied by the BCCI at 171-175 Brompton Road. It was purpose-built for the bank. I
was without a job. Enjoying myself the way one used to be able to do in one of the smartest
areas of London.
My friends and I could not help noticing the smart Mercedes saloons gliding into the
underground parking lot of the BCCI every morning. The guys driving seemed to be all
Pakistanis. I passed on foot past their imposing building several times every day for almost
a year. But I never saw a customer entering into their banking hall. I was bewildered. My
finances were non-existent and I envied these bankers. I just could not work out what sort of
scam was going on. It was all so obvious to anyone remotely streetwise.
The Mena story was an open secret in Arkansas. Paul Greenberg (who bestowed the monicker
"Slick Willie" upon The Boy Wonder) wrote extensively upon this subject. There have been
rumors–never confirmed– that Clinton may have been recruited by Spook Inc. as
early as his undergrad days at G-Town (it's still not clear how Clinton, a relatively unknown
American college graduate, could gain entry into the USSR in the summer of '69 for a
"vacation" at a time when our relations with that country were as low as they ever were).
Netanyahu's son says Barak has a drinking problem.
Epstein used to claim he worked for the CIA
What con man does not claim to be a secret agent?
Gone from corporate media are any hints of the larger scandal, revolving around the
admission that Epstein had "belonged to intelligence."
Hearsay, and the person supposed to have said it refused to discuss it, probably because
it was a lie intended to explain why he gave Epstein a soft plea deal, and he fears being
required to testify about it on oath.
Epstein also claimed to be a blackmailer, He promoted himself as freelance secret agent,
acting for governments or malefactors whichever paid most, when he was trying to get a
journalist to write a book about him in the eighties. Last year Epstein told a NYT journalist
that he had compromising material on top tech magnates (this was probably Elon Musk)
The Day Jeffrey Epstein Told Me He Had Dirt on Powerful People https://www.nytimes.com ›
2019/08/12 › business › jeffrey-epstein-interview
12 Aug 2019 – I went to Mr. Epstein's Manhattan mansion to talk about Tesla. 16,
2018, I visited Jeffrey Epstein at his cavernous Manhattan mansion. . .
There was another interview around the same time in which Epstein "rambled" about the big
tech people he knew to business reporters at his mansion. Every reporter who was around him
decided he was full of it.
Going on like this, Epstein would have been disposed of by his own organisation .. if it
actually existed. The Mafia kill people for far less
Far from being the work of a single intelligence agency or a single country, the power
structure revealed by this network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that transcends nationality and is willing to use and abuse children in the
pursuit of ever more power, wealth and control. Existing for decades and willing to use any
means necessary to cover its tracks
@BannedHipster The "deciders" of the US foreign and internal politics:
Wexner was one of five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States.
many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties to the
Lansky crime syndicate. Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual blackmail operations and was
deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad.
Criminal, ignorant, deviant. The face of the US highest echelons of power.
The tawdry sleaziness of both Clintons has been apparent for many years to anyone who would
spend ten minutes to check. Yet the media have glossed over all that and promoted Hilary for
president. She has millions of fans and has been relentlessly promoted as the second coming,
making one wonder as to how stupid are Americans anyway? There's a connection between
mafia-like criminality, intelligence services and the supposed legitimate aboveground
government. There's plenty of money to be had for all playing the game with the bulk of the
American people being the cash cow that can be milked.
They'll never give up living like
kings and queens; anybody threatening that gets suicided or otherwise dies young. They'll
take us all to the brink of Armageddon with other countries rather than lose their positions.
Some commenters have theorized Epstein is alive and living incognito elsewhere. This is
doubtful.
It's like the mafia: when someone becomes a liability he's got to go. They're not
going to take any chances. Epstein became the weak link and so had to be shut up permanently.
I don't buy a word of this. Too much emphasis on sex trafficking, the meaningless description
underage and the so-called victims. For some reason everyone believed the story that Epstein
was some kind of pervert. Only children trust the Government when it says sex crime, WMD,
ISIS or UFO.
Christians burned people at the stake. I suppose lots of children in the USA
would support the Government if they decided to start burning people at the stake for sex.
Think of the children!
However, my first try did not go quite so well - mixed results.
I entered: Epstein did not commit suicide
The project outputted this:
"The news of his death brought back memories of Epstein's death at the hands of a
27-year-old lawyer in 1998, when Michael Milken, who was then a top hedge fund manager, was
convicted of insider trading and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Milken, who was convicted of trading on information that the hedge fund firm Galleon Group
would acquire an Italian airline and put it on a stock exchange, was also said to have paid
Epstein $450,000 to have sex with an underage girl.
Epstein has never been charged in the case.
The scandal has also caused many to question whether the Clintons' political career might
have been ruined had they lived in Washington D.C. and Epstein was their friend."
The book is very graphic and discusses Epstein's sexual encounters with many of the
young girls that he had brought to America.
According to the book, the girls were given drugs and alcohol and then abused by
Epstein's friend and masseuse Ghislaine Maxwell.
Of course, Bill Clinton never had Epstein locked up and there's no book called "Lolita"
about Epstein -- this is the AI making things up. But the text is quite convincing until you
start fact-checking it, isn't it? Also, the example shows that the AI is not propagandistic.
It's the way you choose the starting words that produces pro-Empire or pro-truth results.
"Nice guy(Bill Clinton) uhhh got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the
famous island with Jeffrey Epstein lot of problems."
-Donald Trump at 2015 CPAC conference
How does the Candidate Trump knew in 2015 that, "Nice guy(Bill Clinton) uhhh got a lot of
problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein lot of
problems."?
What does the above tell us about Candidate Trump and his foreknowledge to things to
come?
"... on the Lolita Express; was it really beyond him to order a hit? ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Are the Elites the arch villains from the comic books, probably not, but then again many of them operate corporations that cause suffering to economically deprived populations all over the world. ..."
"... Why is this surprising? Aristocrats have always behaved this way. ..."
"... The sexual abuse of children and kids in their early teens is a very democratic crime. While physical abuse and neglect are linked to lower-income parents, sexual abuse occurs in all strata of society. It is not confined to the elites or to money changers. Nor to Jews, if that is what you are implying. ..."
"... Unconcerned about negative consequences, these people have become increasingly brazen. They certainly know that the laws that apply to you and me do not apply to them. ..."
"... In the words of George Carlin, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it." I stopped reading after the first two para's on this, tone is exactly the same as the sneering disdain from the empire's various MSM propaganda arms aimed at those "not in the club." ..."
"... 1) Either our intelligence agencies knew what was going on with Epstein and did nothing to stop him. Or... ..."
"... 2) They had no clue .. ..."
"... Occam's Razor says Possibility No. 1 is more likely to be the truth. But what would such a truth tell us? ..."
"... "What I am saying is that Epstein's direct testimony – AND ONLY EPSTEIN'S DIRECT TESTIMONY – had the potential to create a Common Knowledge moment that could bring down – not just specific sociopathic oligarchs like Mob Boss Donald or Mob Boss Bill or Mob Boss Andrew if they were the specific targets of that testimony – but the entire Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy. ..."
"... One strongly suspects that Ghislaine Maxwell knows just as much as Epstein did. Her participation was just as important to the operation of this "trafficking" ring. She was the lead recruiter, handled logistics, "grooming" and also was Epstein's "in" to many of his VIP associates (who were really clients). If witness accounts are accurate, she was also a participant in a good number of these depraved, criminal acts. ..."
"... The fact she has not been charged is quite the tell about our system of "justice." ..."
"... This is a dangerous slope. People once bowed to the elites because there was a principle of enforcement called nobless oblige. Society felt that elites had to be held to a higher standard because they carried greater responsibilities and burdens for society and the welfare of the national good. ..."
"... Since the 1960s nobless oblige has been downgraded to sound bites and photo ops for publicity and marketing. The elites have all but abandoned their responsibilities to support religion, to support education (except to indocrinate), to support tradition and society and the national good. The elites have become inward looking, inbred and narcissistic with little to no outward focus except in a marxist totalitarian vein of thought which serves their interest, indulges their hungers, preserves their wealth and power. ..."
"... My point was that as popolo minuti transform into popolo grossi in terms of access to power, they tend to start to transform into them in terms of moral character as well. (Inequality of) power corrupts, and absolute (inequality of) power corrupts absolutely. Thus, it seems that the over-representation of psychopaths in positions of power is because the psychopathy is acquired (and plenty of studies show drastic declines in empathy with even a little priming for power), rather than because it is easier for psychopaths to rise to the top. The worst of the popolo grossi tend to be hereditary. ..."
"... I think we're a lot closer to 1789 France than we want to believe. Read some Chris Hedges to see how the socialists see the current situation. Here's an example. https://www.commondreams.or... ..."
"... "given that all available evidence points to gross negligence on the part of the jail." How is gross negligence different from deliberate negligence? ..."
In our tense populist moment, Jeffrey Epstein's crimes land like a grenade. •
August 15, 2019
Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in Cambridge, MA on 9/8/04. (Photo by Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images) Hands up, those of you who
made a Fort Marcy Park joke last Saturday. Anyone? Surely there were a few. Fort Marcy Park was the Washington, D.C. woodland where
White House attorney Vince Foster was found dead in 1993, and while his demise was repeatedly ruled a suicide, certain conservatives
spent years afterwards hallucinating that the Clintons had him killed. Now, a quarter century later, both right and left are back
in conspiracy mode. Mere hours after pedo-to-the-stars Jeffrey Epstein was reported to have killed himself, the hash tag #ClintonBodyCount
began circulating on Twitter, followed closely by #TrumpBodyCount. Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had been associates of Epstein's;
both, the thinking went, might have been desperate for him not to take the stand.
It is wrong, of course, to publicly speculate that Epstein was whacked, given that all available evidence points to gross negligence
on the part of the jail. But can you really blame people? Twenty-five years ago, if you'd said that a roll call of America's elites,
everyone from a former president to the most famous lawyer in the country, would be implicated in a sex trafficking ring masterminded
by an enigmatic Wall Street financier who was also a member
of the Trilateral Commission , you would have been laughed into the darkest corner of the local subway platform (next to the
guy holding the "Vatican Hides Pedophiles" sign, presumably). Today, you'd be reading AP copy. Validate an improbable conspiracy
theory, and you grant license to all the related improbable conspiracy theories: Bill Clinton flew dozens of times on the Lolita Express; was it really beyond him to order a hit?
And if we know one thing about the Epstein story, it's that everything about it is utterly improbable. Epstein stands credibly
accused of assembling a
veritable underage harem . One of his victims, Virginia Guiffre, has already
implicated Prince Andrew
, the third-born of Queen Elizabeth II, and a picture has since emerged showing the royal with his arm around the then-teenager's
waist. Guiffre says she was also
ordered
to have sex with , among others, a "foreign president," a "well-known prime minister," and a "large hotel chain owner." Such
an open secret was all this perversion that the current president of the United States
made cheeky reference to it back in 2002. So invincible
did Epstein think himself that he discussed underage sex openly, telling a New York Times reporter that laws against pedophilia
were a
"cultural aberration."
That Epstein looked to other cultures to rationalize his behavior is nothing new -- Oscar Wilde wrapped his similar predilections
in lofty talk about the Greek ideal. What is different is that rather than being hunted and exposed by the powerful, as Wilde was,
Epstein was protected by them for decades. Even after he was convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute in 2008, he was sentenced
to only 18 months in prison, held in a
private
wing of the Palm Beach County stockade, and let out on generous "work release."
Study the Epstein case long enough and you end up at Alex Jones's favorite conclusion: they're all sons of bitches. Everyone who
was anyone seemed to be in on this, or at least acting at the behest of someone who was. The essence of the conspiratorial mindset
is that powerful shadowy forces are, first, capable of and engaged in the most dastardly skullduggery imaginable, and, second, in
cabal-like cooperation with each other across all levels of power. The Epstein case seems to affirm both planks. It makes our elites
seem like aliens, of a different culture, a different moral code, a different species -- how else could they have let slide what
none of us ever would? Mary Colum's remark to Ernest Hemingway, "The only difference between the rich and other people is that the
rich have more money," has rarely rang less true.
There's been for some time now a sense of drift between most Americans and their elites, driven by factors like income inequality,
geographic enclaving, and cultural differences. We are living in a populist moment, to be sure, an era when the usual purveyors of
class warfare sound more apt than they otherwise would. In such a fraught environment, the Epstein revelation lands like a grenade.
Not only are America's gentry hitching rides on the Acela while mumbling about deplorables -- so the feeling goes -- they're also
running cover for a Caligula who's preying on little Susie down the street. Suddenly the populist divide doesn't just run between
classes or races or regular toast versus avocado, but between ethical extremes, good and literal evil.
This is, of course, what most populists profess: the people as a group are wholesome, the elites as a group are venal, and the
former has to be vaulted over the latter in order for society to be made whole again. Yet Epstein's crimes are so wicked as to potentially
set this moral chasm ablaze like never before. That's why, though Trump may have associated with Epstein, he's unlikely to be damaged
by him: everything that's happened only confirms what he's been saying for years. In fact, you might view the Epstein fracas as a
dialectic between two of his former associates, Trump's throw-them-out populism versus Clinton's benevolent stewardship of society
by the smart set. And Trump won out.
Just as populisms aren't driven entirely by economic causes, so too are revolutions often about more than bread. Consider the
Russian Revolution, sparked at least in small part by the people's perception of Rasputin as a sexual deviant. Consider, too, the
French Revolution's rage against the profligate "Madame Déficit" Marie Antoinette. In such cases, the moral tends to get intertwined
with the economic; license is seen as enabling decadence while the people pray and starve. This can be a blind spot in traditional
conservative thinking. We rightly detest (most) revolutions and the tremors they cause, but we sometimes fail to notice that the
Jacobins have good reason to be angry and that the ruling classes they overthrow really are that loathsome.
America is nowhere near 1789 France, or armed revolution in general. But we are anxious, restive, hungry for justice. A republic
likes ours depends on the harmonious coexistence of its people and its elites, a matter that our Founders spent a good deal of time
worrying about. Now we have a hideous face f0r elite corruption, one that's enabled fever in the national mind and dehumanized those
around him. For those of us who prize stability and liberty in a polity, who think populism is always best in modest doses, the weeks
ahead may be reason for worry.
Because it seems there's only more to come. On Wednesday, another victim
came forward , alleging
that Epstein raped her when she was 14 after she turned down sex with him. That this carnal omega, this pathetic loser, this finger-sniffing
pervert from every teen comedy lurking outside the pretty girl's home longing for a piece of discarded lingerie was somehow elevated
into a Teflon-coated Wall Street sun god is beyond comprehension. My friend Michael Davis calls Epstein and company the
Hellfire Club , but
just how much will they torch on their way down?
When I started to see what was going on in this country, which was my journey, I was amazed to find out that there is sex trafficking
8 blocks from the White House and I learned of this in 2011. Lisa Ling did a great documentary on it. "Night time traffic greater
than the day time." Pimps attempting to recruit girls walking home from school. If you pay attention it is also a journey of
the food chain of Corporate America that supports this.
This is a Money Changer issue, that is about the closing of eyes from both parties. and please don't tell me this is not so.
I know better than that.
To be absolutely, clear there was speculation that Epstein was going to be assassinated weeks before it happened. For the most
part citizens aren't so much surprised, as disappointed that Justice is once again foiled.
Are the Elites the arch villains from the comic books, probably not, but then again many of them operate corporations that
cause suffering to economically deprived populations all over the world.
When the World's 26 richest people own as much as
poorest 50%, just how close do they seem to achieve a god like status when looking up from the bottom? Maybe that's one reason
that people are so angry when it seems that the most vulnerable among us, our children, are the victims of a limited number
of the Elites and their twisted and horrific appetites.
I personally doubt much will come of the Epstein affair it will most likely be just one more myth added to the tally of
injustice, and the people will have to bitterly swallow it whole. It will probably take many more cases like this being exposed
before the people actually have their fill, and decide to do something about it. In the meantime, prepare to see more of the
same by the laughing and mocking Elites
In this day and age, I doubt a reporter will touch this story, and if they did, the real story would never make it into
the Main Stream Media. And, most likely the reporter would be permanently black balled, and never work in Journalism again.
It's happened many times before, because it doesn't fit within the approved propaganda message.
Give the story a couple decades or more, and it may come out, but otherwise it will be handled as a whack-job Conspiracy
Theory.
The Fourth Estate is the only business that is protected by the Constitution, and yet it has been neutered, and those in
the Press, who were supposed to be the Watchdogs for the people, have become the Lapdogs of the Elites.
What passes as News today is formulaic programming, passed on from the Propagandist to the Media, both nationally
and locally.
Two Republican state senators and two New York City Policemen died violently within 72 hours ....
1. On June 4, former Arkansas Senator Linda Collins-Smith, 57, was found dead outside her home, her body unrecognizable
on discovery. Police are now investigating her death as a homicide. On June 5, the county prosecutor announced that the circuit
judge sealed the documents and statements obtained by police.
2. On June 5, Deputy Chief Steven Silks, 62, weeks away from retirement, was found in an unmarked police car with a gunshot
wound to the head. News reports reported indicate it seemed self-inflicted.
3. On June 5, former Oklahoma Sen. Jonathan Nichols, 53, was found shot dead in his home. Police have not announced whether
they are investigating a suicide or homicide..
4. On June 6, Detective Joseph Calabrese, 58, was found near his police car on a Brooklyn, NY beach, dead of a gunshot wound
in what one report called an apparent suicide.
RIP.
Many other Americans died violently this past week. Why link these four together?
The answer comes down to a dark suspicion and a few hard facts which suggest that one or more of these four deaths might
have had something to do with these individuals' work against pedophiles and human trafficking, or the official corruption
so often surrounding both.
The sexual abuse of children and kids in their early teens is a very democratic crime. While physical abuse and neglect are
linked to lower-income parents, sexual abuse occurs in all strata of society. It is not confined to the elites or to money
changers. Nor to Jews, if that is what you are implying.
Just about everyone in America has a family member who was sexually abused by someone who was usually not elite. Therefore,
I cannot get worked up about class issues because of Jeffrey Epstein.
What I can get worked up about are the way elites start wars for poor people to die in and the way poor people get cruel
sentences while the elite either walk or get the Epstein treatment--private wing, generous work release.
I agree. Young girls are trafficked in more circles than the elite. I don't understand the connection to any particular social
class. But better connected people do have better lawyers and can get away with more. Until like Mr. Epstein , they don't.
The true character of these people is starting to be revealed. This (lack of) character is not only displayed when these men
travel to Pedo Island, it's on display everywhere they go, in everything they do. Every organization they lead, or have anything
to do with, is likely rotten to the core.
Unconcerned about negative consequences, these people have become increasingly brazen. They certainly know that the laws
that apply to you and me do not apply to them.
If the system is so corrupt to have protected Epstein for decades, who else is being protected? Who else is getting away
with figurative rape in every department of government, or house of finance?
The sooner the public recognizes the "true face" of our elites and rulers the better. Left to their own devices,
these people - who think they have class but in reality are the worst kind of trash - can bring down a nation.
Literally no one I know thought this guy would make it to trial alive with the exception of me, as I still had some hope in
the system, and I was proven wrong. I've lost whatever remaining faith I had in the system.
In the words of George Carlin, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it." I stopped reading after the first two para's on this,
tone is exactly the same as the sneering disdain from the empire's various MSM propaganda arms aimed at those "not in the club."
1) Either our intelligence agencies knew what was going on with Epstein and did nothing to stop him. Or...
2) They had no clue ... which would mean our much vaunted intelligence community knew nothing about the travel habits of
the "ruling class" of the world, about Jeff Epstein's real activities, had received no tips, had no insiders, and were incapable
of "putting two and two together," etc. In short, Big Brother - with all its resources and intelligence and sources - with
capabilities that put the Gestapo or the KGB to shame - had no idea.
Occam's Razor says Possibility No. 1 is more likely to be the truth. But what would such a truth tell us?
The third possibility is that BigBrother was in on it and didn't object to sacrificing teenage girls to get compromising information
on people they wanted tp blackmail.
"What I am saying is that Epstein's direct testimony – AND ONLY EPSTEIN'S DIRECT TESTIMONY – had the potential to create a
Common Knowledge moment that could bring down – not just specific sociopathic oligarchs like Mob Boss Donald or Mob Boss Bill
or Mob Boss Andrew if they were the specific targets of that testimony – but the entire Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy.
Jeffrey Epstein was the Missionary to bring down the monsters behind the monster, to bring down the SYSTEM of monsters.
Jeffrey Epstein's books and records are not. The individual voices of Jeffrey Epstein's victims are not.
And that's what makes me angriest of all.
That while the individual victims of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes will maybe (maybe!) get some smattering of "justice" and recompense
from the show trial of a monster's estate, there will be no Justice served against the monsters behind the monster, that the
Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy that CREATED this Jeffrey Epstein and the next Jeffrey Epstein and the next and the next
will continue unabated. Untouched. Golden."
One strongly suspects that Ghislaine Maxwell knows just as much as Epstein did. Her participation was just as important to
the operation of this "trafficking" ring. She was the lead recruiter, handled logistics, "grooming" and also was Epstein's
"in" to many of his VIP associates (who were really clients). If witness accounts are accurate, she was also a participant
in a good number of these depraved, criminal acts.
The fact she has not been charged is quite the tell about our system of "justice."
Whether Epstein was killed or committed suicide I don't know. I would however like to know who these elites were who participated
in the rapes of these young girls. They are just as guilty as Epstein whether they knew the ages of these girls or not, it
was there responsibility to find out.
This is a dangerous slope. People once bowed to the elites because there was a principle of enforcement called nobless oblige.
Society felt that elites had to be held to a higher standard because they carried greater responsibilities and burdens for
society and the welfare of the national good.
Since the 1960s nobless oblige has been downgraded to sound bites and photo ops for publicity and marketing. The elites have
all but abandoned their responsibilities to support religion, to support education (except to indocrinate), to support tradition
and society and the national good. The elites have become inward looking, inbred and narcissistic with little to no outward
focus except in a marxist totalitarian vein of thought which serves their interest, indulges their hungers, preserves their
wealth and power.
What you are have been seeing since the 1960s is the veneer being pulled off the rich and powerful. I would say Nixon and
Princess Diana and Ted Kennedy did the most to pull down the veneer from the rich and powerful but it could be argued that
Nixon and Princess Diana and Ted Kennedy were accidental victims of circumstance. However Epstein's human trafficking of children
for sex and blackmail .... breaks the most because his crimes were no accident nor was he a victim of circumstance. Epstein
planned this and created an organization around it elevating his elitist crimes to a level no that I dont think anyone in modern
history can match.
I doubt that history's elites were ever any better. It's just that with far less transparency and access, it was much easier
for them to hide how awful they were. The 1960s was the start of mass media, and so the veneer started to crack.
I do think this COULD qualify as "the story of the century." That is, If the story was told in its entirety - all "names"
exposed.
If fully told, the swamp might, in fact, be "drained."
Now the people in said swamp have a strong incentive to protect their domain. Which is why so many of us are skeptical the
true story will ever be told.
If there was ever a time where brave and patriotic whistleblowers were needed ...
"This is, of course, what most populists profess: the people as a group are wholesome, the elites as a group are venal, and
the former has to be vaulted over the latter in order for society to be made whole again."
Sorry, but take a look at the average American. The so-called "people" are for the most part just as morally obtuse as the
"elites" but they carry the additional burden of being not only ignorant but also stupid. Just look around. Best recent example
of the utter stupidity of the American people: a recent survey shows they think 23% of the population is gay. Really.
But isn't the issue exactly that the "only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money" comment
is perfectly true?
The rich and powerful are us, but corrupted by riches and power. Many of them behave the way many of us would quickly start
to behave if we found ourselves in their shoes. If the gap in power between you and most other people is so huge that you can
do anything to them and get away with it, your morals stop applying to them because you start to view them as somewhat subhuman.
In this sense, I'm sure Epstein never even thought of raping the underage daughters of other elites.
Thus, the issue is stratospheric inequality of power (by whatever fungible measure you choose - money, political, religious,
social, etc). And we see it happen ALL the time throughout history and across geographies - as soon as the power gap is in
excess of social boundaries, as soon as there is a group of people you can do pretty much anything you want to and get away
with it, you start going a little crazy. Exploitation, rape, torture, murder, slavery - everything starts looking justified.
Then it's just a matter of degree, with tin-pot dictators on one end and Epstein somewhere in the middle.
Read Machiavelli. He observed that the popolo minuti (regular folks) just wished to be left alone by authorities whereas popolo
grossi (fat cats) were of a different psychological composition: they delighted in deception, were vain, greedy and hungry
for power.
Centuries later, studies of psychopaths reveal these creatures are different from regular humans at the brain level. The elites
are psychopathic (the key ones are) and no, they ain't like regular people. They are literally a different kind.
My point was that as popolo minuti transform into popolo grossi in terms of access to power, they tend to start to transform
into them in terms of moral character as well. (Inequality of) power corrupts, and absolute (inequality of) power corrupts
absolutely. Thus, it seems that the over-representation of psychopaths in positions of power is because the psychopathy is
acquired (and plenty of studies show drastic declines in empathy with even a little priming for power), rather than because
it is easier for psychopaths to rise to the top. The worst of the popolo grossi tend to be hereditary.
In my opinion, there is nothing so dangerous as to believe that evil people are a different breed from the rest of us. Instead,
they tend to simply be us, but in different circumstances. History tends to show that revolutions aimed at replacing the evil
people with better people end up with corrupted revolutionaries, rather than a fundamentally less abusive system.
"It reminds me of a well known speech by a defense counsel, who pleaded his client's poverty as an excuse of robbing and murdering
six of his victims, on the lines that "My client's poverty drove him to murder six people, everybody else would have done the
same!"
Outstanding article. However, I think we're a lot closer to 1789 France than we want to believe. Read some Chris Hedges to
see how the socialists see the current situation. Here's an example.
https://www.commondreams.or...
Elites, that is those with more wealth and/or power than the rest of the masses have always been this way. Remember how decadent
the European aristocracy was with their sport of "wenching"? that is going around in groups raping young peasant girls. Also,
there was the Hellfire Club which you can research if you want details. This scandal will get less and less coverage in the
MSM until it fades away like all the others involving the rich and powerful.
The Global "Elite" control our Ruling Class by means of blackmail. A person does not get raised to high truly influential positions
of power(Politicians, Judges, Hollywood, etc.) unless they have enough dirt on you to know that they can control you without
question. The most powerful form of blackmail that they have is ped0filia because it is THE most abhorrent crime that someone
can commit, so much so that even criminals in prison refuse to allow ped0 scumbags to be housed near them.
Trump has an obvious penchant for beautiful WOMEN not kids. He was helping and somewhat part of the "Elite" in that he was
joining in with them to buy politicians for influence but Trump neutralized that being over his head by openly admitting to
buying politicians. They thought it was safe to allow him to run because they thought it was a joke and he would never get
elected. They were wrong. In my opinion, they don't have enough dirt on him to get him to go along with their agenda of selling
out the USA to the highest bidder hence the all-out attacks on him.
The key to understanding the "Elite"/Ruling Class dynamic is not conflating the two and realizing that blackmail is the
main tool used by the one to keep the other under their control.
*Sorry about the Trump tangent above but it's absolutely ridiculous that people are trying to tie Trump to Epstein even
though Trump has been trying to bring national attention to the Epstein case FOR YEARS.
"given that all available evidence points to gross negligence on the part of the jail."
How is gross negligence different from deliberate negligence?
You can tell? And btw the WaPo just came out with news that broken
bones in Epstein's neck are more usual in cases of homicide.
I generally see anyone who belittles
'Conspiracy theorists' as part of an Establishment that uses 'incompetence' as the perennial excuse for everything that goes
wrong.
The old accusation, that you are a 'conspiracy theorist' (a term invented by the CIA after the Kennedy assassination) is holding
less and less weight. The irrational kooks now seem to be the people who think Epstein committed suicide. Jokes were everywhere
about how 'we were shocked to hear about the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein, next Tuesday' when a day later we hear, 'Jeffrey Epstein
committed suicide'.
By the way, this equivalence between Trump and Clinton is bogus, I believe. There isn't much evidence of any involvement
of Trump (some evidence to the contrary in fact), but there is a load of evidence suggesting 'Wild Bill' was availing himself.
Remember when Maxine Waters was labelled a kook for saying the CIA was bringing cocaine into her LA district? She was mocked
and ridiculed. Now we know she was right. You can't make this stuff up.
I'm sorry, but this case stinks to high heaven, and if you're ready to accept "gross negligence" as the explanation you're
likely to believe ANYTHING the authorities tell you. Epstein was either murdered, as the autopsy and reports of shrieking from
his cell indicate, or subbed out by intelligence services and replaced by a murdered homeless person who received plastic surgery.
Study the history of modern intelligence services: appearances are deceiving, and systemic disinformation is endemic to politics.
Careful public speculation, acknowledging where we're uncertain, is very much the responsible thing to do; otherwise there
is no hope of democratic accountability. The investigation we're being promised will be conducted by the exact same institution
-- the US Department of Justice -- that was responsible for keeping Epstein safe and securing his public testimony about his
criminal network. These are the people you want us to trust? Come on, a little critical reasoning, please!
The most ridiculous part is the idea that being rich and powerful gives you a predilection to turn a blind eye. My wife's family
turned a blind eye to a perverted uncle that molested multiple family members over decades. No one stood up, it would've been
a shame to them to admit it. How is this any different?
"... And according to the Beast , "Clinton also failed to mention the intimate 1995 fundraising dinner at the Palm Beach home of Revlon mogul Ron Perelman, where Clinton hobnobbed with the likes of Epstein, Don Johnson, and Jimmy Buffett. (Nearby, at Epstein's own Palm Beach mansion, the money man allegedly abused hundreds of underage girls.)" ..."
"... Meanwhile, Clinton's college friend A. Paul Prosperi visited Epstein at least 20 times while he was in the Palm Beach county jail after pleading guilty to procuring an underage prostitute in 2008. Prosperi was also present at a 1995 Perelman fundraiser at which both Clinton and Epstein were present. ..."
"... Over that same time period, a source with knowledge of the situation told The Daily Beast, Middleton met with Epstein in the White House at least three times . It is unclear what they discussed, or for how long. Middleton did not respond to repeated calls and emails for comment, or to a reporter who visited his home in Arkansas. ..."
Bill Clinton's attempts to distance himself from convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein have
taken yet another blow - after a
Daily Beast investigation reveals that the financier - who came highly recommended by Lynn
Forester de Rothschild - visited the Clinton White House multiple times .
As early as 1993, records show, Epstein donated $10,000 to the White House Historical
Association and attended a donors' reception hosted by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Around the
same time, according to a source familiar with the connection, Epstein visited presidential
aide Mark Middleton several times at the White House . Two years later, businesswoman Lynn
Forester de Rothschild wrote a personal letter to Clinton thanking him for their talk about
the financier . -
Daily Beast
On July 8, the former president sought to distance himself from Epstein, claiming that the
two crossed paths just six times beginning in 2002; "four flights on the billionaire's private
jet, a single trip to his Harlem office, and one "brief visit" to his New York apartment, all
with staff and security detail in tow," per the Beast .
"President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to
in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York,"
Clinton spokesperson, Angel Ureña, told the Beast. " Any suggestion to the contrary is
both factually inaccurate and irresponsible."
Clinton's denial flies in the face of flight logs from Epstein's now-sold 'Lolita Express'
727 jet at least
26 times .
When the president released his initial statement on Epstein, he did not explain the
multiple other trips he appears
to have taken on the financier's plane -- including one flight to Westchester with
Epstein, his alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell, and an "unnamed female." -
Daily Beast
And according to the Beast , "Clinton also failed to mention the intimate 1995 fundraising
dinner at the Palm Beach home of Revlon mogul Ron Perelman, where Clinton
hobnobbed with the likes of Epstein, Don Johnson, and Jimmy Buffett. (Nearby, at Epstein's
own Palm Beach mansion, the money man allegedly abused hundreds of underage girls.)"
While Politico claimed in a piece last week that the Clintons and Epstein connected through
Epstein's longtime confidant and alleged
procurer of young women - Ghislaine Maxwell, after Clinton left office, documents in
the Clinton Library attest to much earlier links .
In late September of 1993, Bill and Hillary Clinton hosted a reception for supporters who
had contributed to recent White House renovations. The nearly $400,000 overhaul -- which
included new gold draperies and a 13-color woven rug for the Oval Office -- was funded
entirely by donations to the White House Historical Association, a private organization that
helps preserve and promote the White House as a historical monument.
The reception took place at the White House residence from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m., according to
a copy of the president's daily schedule. White House Social Secretary Ann Stock -- who
appears in Epstein's
little black book of phone numbers -- was listed as the point of contact . According to
multiple attendees, the evening included an intimate tour of the newly refurbished residence,
followed by a receiving line with the president and first lady. Dessert was served in the
East Room, where the couple thanked everyone for attending and announced the Committee for
the Preservation of the White House.
Guests for the event , according to the invitation list, included the journalist and
philanthropist Barbara Goldsmith, heiress Jane Engelhard, political consultant Cynthia
Friedman, and " Mr Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell ." Epstein and Maxwell do not
appear on the 'regret list,' and there is a letter 'A' next to both of their names,
indicating they planned to attend . A press release from the event, put out by Hillary
Clinton's office, lists Epstein as a White House Historical Association donor. -
Daily Beast
Meanwhile, Clinton's college friend A. Paul Prosperi visited Epstein at least 20 times
while he was in the Palm Beach county jail after pleading guilty to procuring an underage
prostitute in 2008. Prosperi was also present at a 1995 Perelman fundraiser at which both
Clinton and Epstein were present.
Another Clinton connection with Epstein comes through White House aide Mark E. Middleton - a
friend of Clinton's from his beginnings in Arkansas who joined the administration in 1993 as
special assistant to Chief of Staff Mack McClarty (another Arkansas insider, per the Beast ).
Middleton would rise to the level of "Deputy to the Counselor" in 1994.
Over that same time period, a source with knowledge of the situation told The Daily
Beast, Middleton met with Epstein in the White House at least three times . It is unclear
what they discussed, or for how long. Middleton did not respond to repeated calls and emails
for comment, or to a reporter who visited his home in Arkansas.
Middleton and Epstein also appear to have shared a famous friend in common. Donald Trump
-- who once called Epstein a "terrific guy" -- sent Middleton a signed copy of his book , The
Art of the Deal , while the lawyer was working in the White House. The inscription read, " To
Mark -- Best wishes. Your mom is the best ."
Hobnobbing with businessmen like Epstein and Trump was part and parcel of Middleton's
White House job , according to a 1999 report from the House Committee on Government Reform.
("In the course of his duties, Middleton was in contact with many prominent business people
and contributors to the President," the report states.) But it also got the lawyer in trouble
with the administration once he left. -
Daily Beast
Rothschild letter
In 1995, Lynn Forester de Rothschild writes ""Dear Mr. President: It was a pleasure to see
you recently at Senator Kennedy's house. There was too much to discuss and too little time.
Using my fifteen seconds of access to discuss Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization, I
neglected to talk to you about a topic near and dear to my heart. Namely, affirmative action
and the future."
Of note, former Epstein attorney and pal Alan Dershowitz previously said that Forester de
Rothschild introduced him to Epstein at a party on Martha's Vineyard for Lord Rothschild in the
summer of 1996.
"He was feisty, he was utterly politically incorrect," said Dershowitz in a recent interview
with New York magazine. "He was interesting to be with."
Bill Clinton and that vicious evil **** of a wife Hillary have done more to **** this
country up and the entire world than any other human beings. No contest.
Remember when Harvey Weinstein was the "scum" of the moment? During these "15 minutes,"
director Quentin Tarantino acknowledged his regret in not exposing Weinstein. Basically, he
gave an interview where he admitted he knew what his producer friend had been doing - or must
have been doing - all these years, and yet Taratino did nothing. Taratino gets credit in my
book for acknowledging this. In other words, he COULD have done something to stop his
activities/crimes, but did not.
Compare and contrast Tarantino's "mea culpa" to the HUNDREDS of VIPs who must have known
what Epstein was doing - for decades. And remained silent and never considered going to
authorities.
Scores or hundreds of people COULD have stopped this, but did not.
This tells us much about our system and the "leaders" who rule us. Also about our
"watchdog" press corps, which had no interest in exposing this person or his operation.
Affirmative action? Ha! 1 year later Clinton signs into law permission for the Attorney
General to traffic in little kids without Judicial oversight;
SEC. 604. ASYLUM REFORM.
(a) Asylum Reform.--Section 208 (8 U.S.C. 1158) is amended to read as follows: ... (D) No
judicial review.--There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney
General under subparagraph (A)(v). ..." - excerpt from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/html/PLAW-104publ208.htm
Bill Richardson seems to be getting a pass so far on this story. While he has been
identified as being in Epstein's "black book" and receiving a couple of $50,000 campaign
donations from Epstein, what hasn't been mentioned is Richardson's key role as a Clinton
"fixer" and sycophant. Typically, he is identified only as a "former New Mexico
governor."
But prior to being elected governor of New Mexico, he served (if memory is correct) as the
U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under Bill Clinton. It was in this role that he "found" a job for
Monica Lewinsky, when Clinton had to move her out of the White House.
No telling what he did for Clinton before he was rewarded with this plum appointment.
I'm sure if a real investigation ever occurred we would learn that New Mexico leaders were
as "bought off" as the U.S. Virgin Island leaders had to be.
Epstein bought his 7,500 acre "ranch" from a former New Mexico governor. Richardson admits
he visited this place one time (yeah right). The "ranch" has no cattle and has its own air
strip. Hasn't anyone in this state, or this county, investigated what was going on at this
place?
But if Richardson and Clinton are both involved (and they are), we know they were both up
to no good, and we're trying to keep something secret.
" Clinton's college friend A. Paul Prosperi visited Epstein at least 20 times while
he was in the Palm Beach county jail . . ."
Just checking on Epstein's well-being and morale. A true humanitarian. There is no chance
that Mr. Prosperi was acting as a cut-out for the Clinton family. /S
Paul must have visited him at night since Epstein was hardly in his cell during the
daytime due to the allowance of liberal furloughs 6.5 days per week and "business trips" he
was allowed to take that lasted several days.
Virginia Roberts is on the record - in sworn affidavits - of saying she had sex with
Prince Andrew on three occasions. She even mention the places and time frames she was at
these places with Prince Andrew.
Can't reporters or investigators simply see if Prince Andrew was at these places at the
same time she was? Wouldn't this corroborate (or disprove/impeach) her story?
Absolutely not. "Journalists" have no time to check on the Prince Andrew story, or the
allegation that Bill Clinton flew with Epstein 26 times. They are too busy pursuing false
allegations against Trump and putting spin on Mueller's train-wreck testimony from
yesterday.
This story intimates that Bill Clinton and Jeff Epstein knew one another long before
Clinton says they knew one another. And were much closer to one another than we have been led
to believe.
And anyone who spent a lot of time with Epstein knew exactly what commodity/service
Epstein offered.
Even if Clinton never availed himself of the services offered by one of Epstein's girls,
he had to know exactly what business Epstein "trafficked" in. Of course, the notion that
Clinton never "sampled the product" is laughable.
The little voice inside my head , 7 minutes ago
link
The story also opens the door to a vast amount of connections previously unknown, you
could follow the people mentioned in the article and see what became of them and start
building a web... Many posts here are starting to do that. Hopeful
This was some real investigative journalism. All reporters had to do was check White House
records that show who attended what events. This story PROVES Clinton was lying if he indeed
said he didn't know Epstein until after he was out of office. This alone is grounds to
investigate him further. (Things he said in the past have now been proven to be lies -
Investigation 101).
Reporters then showed Clinton's long-time buddy (who ran his political campaign at
Georgetown) was also an associate of Epstein. And this person visited Epstein 20 times (!)
while Epstein was in jail (over a 13-month period).
These CAN'T be coincidences.
Anyway, most of these people will say "no comment" or will refuse to respond to requests
for comments. But this doesn't mean reporters can't find incriminating sources or stories
from other avenues.
For example, Vanity Fair reporters simply interviewed people who worked at the Virgin
Islands airport. They then asked these people: "Did you happen to see a large number of young
girls boarding or getting off Epstein's planes?"
Answer: Yes. Definitely. All the time.
I mean, what are we to make of this?
Why were so many young girls traveling to and from Epstein's island?
"... When scanning the news most days, I see a constant amplification of wedge issues by mass media, blue-check pundits and even many in the so-called alternative media. I see people increasingly being encouraged to demonize and dehumanize their fellow citizens. Anyone who voted for Trump is automatically a Nazi, likewise, anyone who supports Sanders is an anti-American communist. The reality is neither of these things is even remotely true, so why are people so quick to say them? ..."
"... The Epstein case shines a gigantic spotlight on just how twisted and sociopathic the highest echelons of U.S. society have become. This is exactly what happens when you fail to put wealthy and powerful super predators behind bars. They get more brazen, they get more demented and, ultimately, they destroy the very fabric that holds society together. We are in fact ruled by monsters. ..."
Perhaps, at long last, a serial rapist and pedophile may be brought to justice , more than a dozen years after he was first
charged with crimes that have brutalized countless girls and women. But what won't change is this: the cesspool of elites, many
of them in New York, who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to flourish with impunity.
For decades, important, influential, "serious" people attended Epstein's dinner parties, rode his private jet, and furthered
the fiction that he was some kind of genius hedge-fund billionaire. How do we explain why they looked the other way, or flattered
Epstein, even as they must have noticed he was often in the company of a young harem? Easy: They got something in exchange from
him , whether it was a free ride on that airborne "Lolita Express," some other form of monetary largesse, entrée into the extravagant
celebrity soirées he hosted at his townhouse, or, possibly and harrowingly, a pound or two of female flesh.
An honest assessment of the current state of American politics and society in general leaves little room for optimism regarding
the public's ability to accurately diagnose, much less tackle, our fundamental issues at a root level. A primary reason for this
state of affairs boils down to the ease with which the American public is divided against itself and conquered.
Though there are certain issues pretty much everyone can agree on, we simply aren't focusing our collective energy on them or
creating the mass movements necessary to address them. Things such as systemic bipartisan corruption, the institutionalization of
a two-tier justice system in which the wealthy and powerful are above the law, a broken economy that requires both parents to work
and still barely make ends meet, and a military-industrial complex consumed with profits and imperial aggression not national defense.
These are just a few of the many issues that should easily unite us against an entrenched power structure, but it is not happening.
At least not yet.
We currently find ourselves at a unique inflection point in American history. Though I agree with Charles Hugh Smith's assessment
that " Our Ruling
Elites Have No Idea How Much We Want to See Them All in Prison Jumpsuits, " we have yet to reach the point where the general
public is prepared to do something about it. I think there are several reasons for this, but the primary obstacle relates to how
easily the citizenry is divided and conquered. The mass media, largely owned and controlled by billionaires and their corporations,
is highly incentivized to keep the public divided against itself on trivial issues, or at best, on real problems that are merely
symptoms of bipartisan elitist plunder.
The key thing, from a plutocrat's point of view, is to make sure the public never takes a step back and sees the root of society's
problems. It isn't Trump or Obama, and it isn't the Republican or Democratic parties either. These individuals and political gangs
are just useful vehicles for elitist plunder. They help herd the rabble into comfortable little tribal boxes that results in made
for tv squabbling, while the true forces of power carry on with the business of societal pillaging behind the scenes.
You're encouraged to attach your identity to team Republican or team Democrat, but never unite as one voice against a bipartisan
crew of depraved, corrupt and unaccountable power players molding society from the top. While the average person living paycheck
to paycheck fashions themselves part of some biblical fight of good vs. evil by supporting team red or blue, the manipulative and
powerful at the top remain beyond such plebeian theater (though they certainly encourage it). These folks know only one team -- team
green. And their team keeps winning, by the way.
When scanning the news most days, I see a constant amplification of wedge issues by mass media, blue-check pundits and even
many in the so-called alternative media. I see people increasingly being encouraged to demonize and dehumanize their fellow citizens.
Anyone who voted for Trump is automatically a Nazi, likewise, anyone who supports Sanders is an anti-American communist. The reality
is neither of these things is even remotely true, so why are people so quick to say them?
Why is most of the anger in this country being directed at fellow powerless Americans versus upward at the power structure which
nurtured and continues to defend the current depraved status quo? I don't see any upside to actively encouraging one side of the
political discussion to dehumanize the other side, and I suggest we consciously cease engaging in such behavior. Absolutely nothing
good can come from it.
Which is partly why I've been so consumed by the Jeffrey Epstein case. For once, it allows us to focus our energy on the depraved
nature of the so-called American "elite," rather than pick fights with each other. How many random Trump or Sanders supporters do
you know who systematically molest children and then pass them off to their wealthy and powerful friends for purposes of blackmail?
The Epstein case shines a gigantic spotlight on just how twisted and sociopathic the highest echelons of U.S. society have
become. This is exactly what happens when you fail to put wealthy and powerful super predators behind bars. They get more brazen,
they get more demented and, ultimately, they destroy the very fabric that holds society together. We are in fact ruled by monsters.
Unfortunately, by being short-sighted, by fighting amongst ourselves, and by taking the easy route of punching down versus punching
up, we allow such cretins to continue to rape and pillage what remains of our civilization.
If we can truly get to the bottom of exactly what Epstein was up to, I suspect it has the potential to focus the general public
(beyond a few seconds) on the true nature of what's really going on and what makes the world tick. Revelations of such a nature could
provide the proverbial tipping point that's so desperately needed, but this is also why the odds of us actually getting the whole
story is quite low. There's simply too much at stake for those calling the shots.
* * *
Side note: I've been consistently updating my
Epstein twitter thread as I learn new information.
I suggest checking back in from time to time.
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. As such, there's no monetization for this site other than reader support. To make this
a successful, sustainable thing I ask you to consider the following options. You can become a
Patron . You can visit the
Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin
or send cash/check in the mail.
If we can truly get to the bottom of exactly what Epstein was up
1. We can't.
2. Epstein was in the business to set up people with kompromat material ...
3. ...and did it for someone else , it appears as he was protected from above for many years.
4. These " elses " won't allow that the support of the Americans to forever fight Israels wars gets shattered.
5. I expect operation diversion & coverup soon. My hunch is that they will pull a 9/11 hoax as a last resort if things get out
of hand fast.
6. They did it in the past, they will do it in the future.
7. Human lives don't matter to them.
Michael Krieger said: "It's sad and mind-boggling how easy it is to divide and conquer the American public. Manipulating the
masses in this country is trivial. The next few years will not be pretty".
Despite all the news of how the elites have manipulated the American public, it still goes on, unabated. Americans, for the
most part, are dumb and fat couch potatoes. They are not going to rise up against their elite masters, because they don't have
the wherewithal to do so. So, the show continues on, and the elites don't seem to have anything to worry about, and do as they
will.
If Americans were truly energetic about reigning in the abuses of the elites, they would have done so back in the 1870's, when
Mark Twain wrote about the Gilded Age Elites. Here it is, 149 years later, and nothing has changed in America today. The elites
still rule, and everyone else is an indentured servant. Of course, there are benefits for the elites to keep the American masses
dumbed down, and letting them lead couch potato life styles. Doing so, keeps them in power.
I suspect it was the CIA or FBI. But the goal was to keep Acosta from investigating Virginia Roberts' claims. If authorities
did this they would have had to investigate Prince Andrew.
If they found her to be truthful, they might even have to arrest Prince Andrew (can you imagine this happening?). Or at least
ask him to testify in a trial.
If the truth came out, this would humiliate the British nation, and Great Britain was (still is) one of America's most important
allies in the "war on terror" and all our other neocon initiatives.
Acosta was essentially told to "back off" Prince Andrew (not necessarily Epstein, who was best buddies with "Andy.")
This doesn't mean Israel intelligence was not involved in some way. It just means that American intelligence was involved,
or wanted to protect key people. Hell, they still do.
We can be almost certain that the exact same thing that happened with Acosta is happening right now. Some prosecutor is being
told to "back off. Don't go here. Focus only on Epstein and Epstein only."
This is why Ghislaine Maxwell has not been charged and will not be charged. This is why the FBI has not raided Pedo Island
or Pedo Ranch. This is why Epstein's four "co-accomplices" have not been charged.
Prosecutors have again been told that "intelligence" is saying that it's okay to do this (charge Epstein with sex crimes),
but NOT okay to do this (investigate and arrest any fellow predators).
It isn't just the elites and we need to stop pretending it is
"Child sex trafficking which is the buying and selling of women, young girls and boys for sex, some as young as 9 years old,
has become big business in America. It is the fastest growing business in organized crime and the second-most-lucrative commodity
traded illegally after drugs and guns.
Adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the United States.
It's not just young girls who are vulnerable to these predators, either.
According to a 2016 investigative report, "boys make up about 36% of children caught up in the U.S. sex industry (about 60% are
female and less than 5% are transgender males and females)."
Who buys a child for sex?
Otherwise, ordinary men from all walks of life. "They could be your co-worker, doctor, pastor or spouse."
If Epstein was muslin would this be a crime? Of course not it would be part of Muslim Culture. Look into the Abuse done to
young girls in the Rotherham abuse case. BTW I am no sticking up for Epstein but the ruling elites and certain minorities are
treated different from Joe and Jane Public
"The Epstein Case Is A Rare Opportunity To Focus "On The Depraved Nature Of America's Elite"
This IS a "rare opportunity' for Americans to do just this (focus on how deprived our elite leaders really are).
If Americans really started to do this, for an extended period of time, and got, you know, kind of pissed off about this state
of affairs, we might even throw all the bums out. We might really "drain the swamp."
So this is a BIG story. Potentially.
Of course, the Powers that Be are going to do everything they can to make sure Americans do NOT focus on this story for too
long. Or that the "narrative" is controlled. (For example by focusing only on Epstein, not his hundreds of depraved buddies and
corrupt institutions).
I've been posting for 10 days that there are "too many" of these people. And they are too powerful.
Seems to me if authorities went after one of the "johns," they would have to go after ALL of the "Johns." And this includes
Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, former senators, governors, CEOs, secretaries of the treasury, bankers, etc.
It's the massive numbers of possible offenders that is probably keeping all of these people "safe."
And I still think Prince Andrew is the biggest fish the authorities don't want to humiliate/charge.
Even more so than Clinton. Half the country would throw a party if Clinton was charged. But in the UK, 90 percent of British
citizens would be mortified and greatly embarrassed if one of their Princes was proven to have done all the things that have been
alleged he did.
"... The **** smell of all of this is simply overwhelming. He is not just a pedophile. He was and probably still is a Mossad agent whose purpose it was to entrap mainly US politicians and power bookers with the extremely compromising film evidence he was later found to be obtaining from the various elite junkets to his little island. ..."
Just posting this for posterity, as I've seen this information before:
"Bill Clinton was one of the most famous and frequent passengers on Epstein's "Lolita Express" and a guest on his private island.
When Roberts asked Epstein about Clinton's presence on the island, he simply laughed it off, and said, "Well, he owes me a favour."[37]
Epstein also donated money to the Clinton Foundation even after his conviction. In early 2015, a photo emerged showing Ghislaine
Maxwell at the wedding of Chelsea Clinton to Jewish investment banker Marc Mezvinsky in July 2010.
An annotated copy of the address book turned up in court proceedings after Epstein's former house manager Alfredo Rodriguez
tried to sell it in 2009. Rodriguez characterized it as containing the "Holy Grail" or "Golden Nugget" to unraveling Epstein's
child-sex network."[38] The book, which was eventually obtained by the FBI, listed well-known political figures such as Prince
Bandar of Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Henry Kissinger, Ehud Barak, John Kerry, David Rockefeller and
even Donald Trump."
So...Kraft goes down, and there are supposedly even more "interesting" names on the list of those who were serviced by those
toothless asian whores. Could this be part of some unreal blackmail scheme against Trump?? Or is this **** TRUE, and we have a
pedophile in our highest office??
I don't know what the truth is any more. Maybe someone smarter than me can make sense of this ****. I sure can't.
The **** smell of all of this is simply overwhelming. He is not just a pedophile. He was and probably still is a Mossad
agent whose purpose it was to entrap mainly US politicians and power bookers with the extremely compromising film evidence he
was later found to be obtaining from the various elite junkets to his little island.
He and his Israeli handlers simply have too much on too many people for Epstein to really pay for any of his crimes, which
crimes many spy agencies around the world engage in frequently. However, what should really piss Americans off is that Epstein
was doing his dirt mainly against Americans for Israel, and Israel was supposed to be a trusted friend and ally of the US, working
in close concert with US spy agencies and forces in destroying nations like Iraq and Syria and pulling off false flag operations
like 9/11.
"... A court filing in a civil case in Florida last week included new allegations against Jeffrey E. Epstein, a businessman who pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, and two other high-profile men: a member of the British Royal family and an American lawyer. ..."
"... About the royal: Some of you may argue that if there was an encounter, the Prince may have been unaware of the girl's age. He has people . People who make arrangements for him. One can see how such a fellow might hear the same knock on the door that Neil Bush once heard. Perhaps, upon opening the door, his first reaction was something other than "May I see your ID, Miss?" ..."
"... On Saturday, Mr. Dershowitz said he "categorically and unequivocally" denied all of the allegations. He said he would file disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who filed the motion, Bradley J. Edwards, a lawyer in Florida, and Paul G. Cassell, a former federal judge and a law professor at the University of Utah. ..."
"... The full court filing was published on Mondoweiss a couple of days ago. We learn that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age, and that she was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who seems to have been Jane Doe #3. ..."
Underaged sex with Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew...and Bill Clinton...? (If the claims are true, Hillary is OVER.)
Wow.
A court filing in a civil case in Florida last week included new allegations against Jeffrey E. Epstein, a businessman
who pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, and two other high-profile men: a member of the British Royal family and an American
lawyer.
The motion filed in United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida alleges that Mr. Epstein forced a teenage
girl to have sexual relations with several men, including Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, and Alan M. Dershowitz,
a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. Both men have denied the allegations.
Jeffrey Epstein is not just a businessman. He's a billionaire, and he has already been convicted of soliciting underaged prostitution.
About the royal: Some of you may argue that if there was an encounter, the Prince may have been unaware of the girl's age.
He has people . People who make arrangements for him. One can see how such a fellow might hear the same knock on the door
that Neil Bush once heard. Perhaps, upon opening the door, his first reaction was something other than "May I see your ID, Miss?"
That scenario seems plausible. However, as we shall see, that scenario is not what has been alleged.
We will get to the Prince in a bit. For now, let's focus on Dershowitz.
On Saturday, Mr. Dershowitz said he "categorically and unequivocally" denied all of the allegations. He said he would file
disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who filed the motion, Bradley J. Edwards, a lawyer in Florida, and Paul G. Cassell,
a former federal judge and a law professor at the University of Utah.
"They are lying deliberately, and I will not stop until they're disbarred," Mr. Dershowitz said in a phone interview.
The very predictability of that furious reaction means that no lawyer would have filed such charges against Dershowitz frivolously.
Cassell has an impressive resume. He's not a young go-getter out to make a name for himself.
I understand that there are a lot of women who have made iffy claims against famous people. But this case seems different. Epstein
has already pled guilty. Moreover, Dershowitz was part of Epstein's legal team.
The full court filing was published on
Mondoweiss a couple of days ago. We learn
that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age, and that she was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell,
daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who
seems to have been Jane Doe #3. Allegedly, the shot was taken by Epstein. (Note: In what follows, the term NPA refers
to non-prosecution agreement .)
Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred
to as a "sex slave." Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign
country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 and 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane
Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on Epstein's
private planes, and elsewhere.
Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful
people. Epstein's purposes in "lending" Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself
with them for business, personal, political and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law
Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual
relations with Dershowiz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Flroida but also on private planes, in New York,
New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz
was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators. Dershowitz would
later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Esptein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that
provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential
co-conspirators of Epstein." NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection
for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been
controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other memebers of Epstein's defense team) and the Government tried to keep
the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime
Victims' Rights Act.
There's a third named participant in these doings, one Jean Luc Brunel, a close Epstein friend and a scout for various modelling
agencies.
He would bring young girls (ranging from ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to
his friends, especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls "modeling" jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or impoverished
backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money.
The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to
the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation of Jane Doe #3's relationship with Epstein would have revealed the fact that
she had been trafficked throughout the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the Government secretly
negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any Federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of
Epstein and his co-conspirators. As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement from
Jane Doe #3 -- all in violation of her rights under the CVRA -- to avoid Jane Doe #3 from raising powerful objections to the NPA
that would have shed tremendous light on Epstein and other powerful individuals that would likely have prevented it from being
conlcuded in the secretive manner in which it was.
The document also mentions a Jane Doe #4, an impoverished sixteen year old who was told that she could make $300 by giving a "massage"
to an old man in Palm Beach.
This matter seems very serious. We have too many details, too many corroborating witnesses (in the form of four Jane Does). We
have a photo. We have reports of the existence of many, many more photos. The hugger-mugger involving the NPA seems downright ghastly
-- yet all too credible.
Frankly, I would not rule out the possibility that Epstein was working for an intelligence agency -- either Mossad or one of our
own. The Maxwell connection points to Mossad.
This whole business has "honeytrap" written all over it.
The Clinton connection.
The
Daily Mail discloses that one of Epstein's, er, protegees was a woman named Johanna Sjoberg. Since the story links her to Prince
Andrew, it is tempting suppose that she is the aforementioned Jane Doe #3. However, British newspapers have named another young woman,
Virginia Roberts.
Miss Sjoberg worked for Epstein for four years, often massaging him as he lay on a couch in his giant bathroom making phone calls
to friends such as Bill Clinton and Cate Blanchett.
He kept a little black book, containing the numbers of all his masseuses by a phone in the bathroom, she said. She left after
he started becoming 'more aggressive' in his demands that she 'do sexual things to him'.
She said she was aware that the girls recruited by Epstein and his acolytes were not paid just for massages but for 'sexual
favours'.
Virginia Roberts revealed that as a 17-year-old 'erotic masseuse', she was flown by Epstein to London to meet Prince Andrew,
Miss Sjoberg said: 'I'm not surprised he was sending girls abroad. I just did not think they were so young.'
The Prince strongly denies any claim of impropriety, of course.
What about Epstein and Clinton? Obviously, there is nothing wrong in taking a man's phone call, even a call from someone like
Epstein. However...
Bill Clinton was also named dozens of times in lawsuits against Epstein and was alleged to have flown on his private jet more
than 10 times.
Flight logs in lawsuits detailed that between 2002 and 2005 the former US President traveled around the world courtesy of his
friend and stopped at Epstein's Caribbean island Little St James where young girls were supposedly kept as sex slaves.
Clinton was deemed to be so close to Epstein that he was nearly deposed during the investigation into his paedophilia.
Before he was jailed Epstein's other acquaintances are said to have been former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak; former New
Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
Let's make the obvious point. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing against Bill Clinton, then Hillary's chances at the nomination
are over . A candidacy can withstand many things, but a statutory rape scandal involving one's spouse? No.
Over the years, the casually-dressed, globe-trotting financier, who was said to log more than 600 flying hours a year, has been
linked with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Manhattan-London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late
media titan Robert Maxwell.
Epstein reportedly flew Tucker and Spacey to Africa on his private jet as part of a charitable endeavour. Clinton, meanwhile,
flew on multiple occasions in the same plane to Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little St James, between 2002 and 2005 as
he developed his philanthropic post-presidential career. It would later be alleged in court that Epstein organised orgies on that
same private island in the US Virgin Islands.
Reports in the US media say many of the A-list names broke off any links with the former maths teacher after his arrest and conviction
in 2008 of having sex with an underage girl whom he had solicited. His arrest followed an 11-month undercover investigation at
a mansion in Florida's Palm Beach that Epstein owned.
In 2008, he pleaded guilty to a single charge of soliciting prostitution and was handed a 18-month jail sentence. He served
13 months in jail and was obliged to register as a sex offender. A 2011 report in the New York Post said that he celebrated his
release from jail and his return to a property he maintains in New York – a 45,000-sq-foot eight-storey mansion on East 71st Street
– with Prince Andrew.
The story goes on to give much useful information about Epstein's business dealings.
The financier, who was jailed for 18 months in 2008 after pleading guilty to solicitation for prostitution, kept a sickening stash
of images on a computer seized at his Palm Beach mansion in 2006.
The six-year-old papers, seen by the Sunday People, state: "Some of the photographs in the defendant's possession were taken
with hidden cameras set up in [Epstein's] home in Palm Beach.
"On the Day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in the defendant's
home.
"[He] may have taken lewd photographs of Jane Doe 102 with his hidden cameras and transported [them] to his other residences
and elsewhere."
Court papers also allege that Maxwell presented nude pictures of her she had taken herself to Epstein as a birthday present.
They add that Roberts' claims that she was forced to tell Epstein all about her sexual encounters so he could use the information
to "blackmail" the royal.
She further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful
business executives, foreign presidents, a well known Prime Minister, and other world leaders".
And now let's play our game: Who was that Prime Minister?
To- neeeeee...! If that's you, you're gonna have to say so many rosaries that even the Virgin Mary will get sick of hearing
your voice.
This scandal places our right-wing media in a bind. Obviously, the right-wingers will want to leap on anything that dirties the
Clinton name. On the other hand, anything that reeks of Mossad involvement is untouchable.
Trump attacked Hillary during 2016 elections campaign using change of Bill connection with Epstein. This was too dangerous move
if he himself was implicated.
Notable quotes:
"... Why would intelligence services want to make an intelligence op out of someone so sleasy and easily compromised? ..."
"... The wealthy class has defeated the poor class. What we are seeing now is a civil war in the wealthy class. The Epstein business is just one of the skirmishes in that civil war. ..."
"... Trump is fighting for his life and money. Lose the next election and spend the rest of both fighting imprisonment. What makes me think its time to remind people that the office of POTUS has teeth? ..."
"... "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," ..."
"... does not say he "worked for intelligence". It might just mean that "intelligence" made the deal with him in return for information and that they then estimated the fall out and cleaned up (ie took people that could be blackmailed out of sensitive positions). ..."
"... But as to the "why now" of Epstein, surely it is 2020. As for Barr being a CIA kid, that does give some pause, except he is working for Trump, and so presumably he is playing his part in the 2020 event. ..."
"... From what I have read and heard, Trump is not tainted by the Epstein story. The attempts of those on the left or whatever (I can't even call it the left anymore) to associate Trump with the Epstein story are very belabored. "Grabbing pussy" of adult women who cluster around is not the same as recruiting young girls and teenagers and running sex camps for grown-up boys such as Randy Andy, RAndy Bill, and other Randy boys. ..."
"... AFAIK Trump did not ride the Lolita Express. The rumors about raping a 13-year-old in Epstein's apartment will have to become more than rumor to harm Trump, no matter how much the left pushes an Epstein = Trump narrative. ..."
"... As they pushed the Weinstein = Trump narrative. I.e., whenever you see Weinstein's name, think "Trump." But I don't think that really worked except with the very ones who were pushing that equation in the first place. In other words, auto-suggestion. ..."
"... "...every good gamblers knows to hedge their bets. ..."
"... Defense Department computers are among the top distributors of child pornography. An untold number of Department of Defense (DOD) employees and contractors have subscriptions to child pornography websites, and the problem is apparently so pervasive it requires new technical solutions to address it. ..."
"... "Hundreds of DoD-affiliated individuals" were recently identified as suspects in child pornography cases, according to an investigation by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. ..."
"... Last year, an investigation by the National Criminal Justice Training Program found DOD computers were among the top networks nationwide for peer-to-peer sharing of pornographic images of minors. DOD's network ranked 19th out of 2,891 computer networks studied. ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNue92Gta3s 2014 Aerial drone video of Little St. James. The island is owned privately by Jeffrey Epstein and is located southeast of St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. ..."
Interesting post in that it raises many of the key issues and how they may fit together.
Generally agrees with my initial (or maybe secondary) impression that this is result of Trump triggering backmail clause by
failing to act as required by those running the show.
But, I have I think a better theory more fits the situation. Acosta (the human "sh*t-grenade) was hired because he knew stuff
and knew people who knew stuff. Trump was being blackmailed with Epstein affair - dems/cia/etc... It almost work, he almost attacked
Iran, was led to believe it could be done in a way that would not lead to war - likely by you-know-who.
He balked and called their "bluff". They were not bluffing. Problem for them is that Trump can maybe weather the sh*t-storm
they can bring - comey/brennan/clapper/et al... For now, I am inclined to side with Trump.
I don't know why but in spite of his lack of polish, he's brought some crude and interesting results.
Epstein was just a young "dirty old man". Trump is innocent - can anybody point to any incident where Trump committed a real felony,
not some breach of landlord regulations, For all the accusations of him being the capo di tutti capi, nothing has really stuck,
so he gives the impression of being a criminal but really isn't but it's good theatre. So my guess is that Trump told Barr to
go to it and bring Epstein in and bang him up for life. Reasons:
Trump was getting bored with Acosta
Epstein may drag down others - the Clintons being prime candiadates
This is a poke in the eye for Obama
Trump looks good when Epstein does the time he deserves
Meanwhile the anti-#resistance investigations role on and implicate Hillary for making false statements and Obama for trying
to fix the 2016 election.
Trump'll romp home in 2020. If Adelson, etc. tries to push another Republican candidate, Trump'll run as an independent and probably
still win. Trump now has his main "problems" by the balls.
'Appalled' does not suffice any longer. All this shit is more than a mentally healthy Human Being can bear - and in that fact
lies also a motive to bombard the population 24/7 with shit like that. Therefore it appears that this, too is part of an orchestrated
effort to rile up people against each other and destroy whatever peace still exists.
You could call it 'distraction' from insurmountable problems created by this specific sub-species of Homo Sapiens. But I am
not commenting about that.
I am as pissed as a decent person can get without losing its temper. But I am utterly disgusted that this childfucker Epstein
has soiled the name of one of my favorite Human Beings in history:
Brian Epstein - the one person that gave Humanity The Beatles.
I can not emphasize enough how effed up this is. There must be a court order to rename him into Jeffrey Childfucker, in order
to protect the name of one of the greatest music managers ever.
But I do concede to the fact, that this kind of damage might as well limited to people who know who The Beatles were.
The wealthy class has defeated the poor class. What we are seeing now is a civil war in the wealthy class. The Epstein business
is just one of the skirmishes in that civil war.
Today's CJR media feed focuses on Acosta and the 2007 plea deal without mentioning either Bush or Obama. Focus is still on Trump.
Of course Acosta is now a member of the Trump administration. But Trump was not in charge with this particular POS went down.
Trump is fighting for his life and money. Lose the next election and spend the rest of both fighting imprisonment. What makes
me think its time to remind people that the office of POTUS has teeth?
"I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone,"
does not say he "worked for intelligence". It might just mean that "intelligence" made the deal with him in return for
information and that they then estimated the fall out and cleaned up (ie took people that could be blackmailed out of sensitive
positions).
They don't care about the fall out any longer, so this now is allowed to blow up.
"The left is going wild thinking that this will "get Trump" but quite the opposite is happening. . .
Now this story will run into 2020 largely damaging democrats into the 2020 election. Trump's DOJ is running the operation."
That is my perception, although I am not a qualified observer.
But as to the "why now" of Epstein, surely it is 2020. As for Barr being a CIA kid, that does give some pause, except he
is working for Trump, and so presumably he is playing his part in the 2020 event.
From what I have read and heard, Trump is not tainted by the Epstein story. The attempts of those on the left or whatever
(I can't even call it the left anymore) to associate Trump with the Epstein story are very belabored. "Grabbing pussy" of adult
women who cluster around is not the same as recruiting young girls and teenagers and running sex camps for grown-up boys such
as Randy Andy, RAndy Bill, and other Randy boys.
To me the big question is why Dersh was part of the FOIA action to unseal the docs. If just appearing in a photo with Epstein
is enough for "the left" to try to hang Trump, the Dersh is in a lot more image trouble, with him name on the plane manifest.
Is Trump's name on the plane log? I don't think so. So, imagewise Dersh is going to take a big hit. And, by defending Trump
last summer as he did, he has now associated himself with both Trump and Epstein. Trump comes out clean. Dersh comes out Derty.
PS. Why is so much blacked out on the plane logs that have been published?
the Macow sounds "about right" to me, but only "about." I can very well imagine that Dersh is taking orders from the JSP, but
if he rode the Lolita Expres, he is in trouble.
AFAIK Trump did not ride the Lolita Express. The rumors about raping a 13-year-old in Epstein's apartment will have to
become more than rumor to harm Trump, no matter how much the left pushes an Epstein = Trump narrative.
As they pushed the Weinstein = Trump narrative. I.e., whenever you see Weinstein's name, think "Trump." But I don't think
that really worked except with the very ones who were pushing that equation in the first place. In other words, auto-suggestion.
O @110 sez: "...every good gamblers knows to hedge their bets.
You bet equally on both wrestlers in the ring? You don't make much profit that way. Much better to arrange who wins ahead of
time with the competitors and the referee and then just bet on the one everyone agrees to make the winner.
Sure, Trump was in on the fix, so even if he won the power elites still win, but that is true for all of the other contestants
in the primaries as well, with the possible exception of Sanders. The problem is that the power elites have very specific plans,
and those plans depended upon their tool in the White House being Clinton, not Trump. It isn't that Trump would be their enemy
or anything silly like that, but rather that a Trump victory would not resonate; would not synergize with the megatrends they
were manufacturing within the population.
On the contrary, the Trump victory introduced a societal forcing function that is 180° out of sync with the larger narrative
the power elites were trying to create. Trump was chosen to be the loser in the 2016 elections because his defeat would have had
the opposite effect, damping trends in society that the power elites wanted quashed and reinforcing the ones that they wanted
amplified. Hundreds of $billions in entertainment-base narrative generation that have been fed to the public since 2016, and had
been in the production pipeline from years prior, were supposed to be reflected in the real world by the victory of the first
woman president. Instead that media is being fed to the public while the top office in the world is occupied by an unrepentant
pussy grabber. The messaging is diametrically opposed and interferes with itself rather than reinforcing itself.
Sure, Trump is still the tool of the power elites, but he is not the tool they were planning on.
"I am trying to link Wexner with the Bronfman's (Seagrams Liquor Family) via a source other than the Mega Group (which may
not be credible, IDK)."
The existence of the Mega Group was revealed in the Wall Street Journal in 1998 under the headline 'Titans of Industry Join
Forces To Work for Jewish Philanthropy'. According to the Journal , it was founded in 1991 by Wexler and Charles Bronfman.
Membership included Edgar Bronfman, the chairman of the World Jewish Congress, Charles Bronfman, Edgar's brother and a top
executive of the family's flagship Seagrams Corp.; Leslie Wexler of Limited, Inc.; Charles Schusterman, chairman of Samson Investment
Co. of Tulsa, Oklahoma; Harvey "Bud" Meyerhoff, Baltimore real estate magnate; Laurence Tisch, chairman of Loews Corp.; Max Fisher,
the Detroit oil magnate and Republican Party powerhouse; bagel magnate Max Lender; Leonard Abramson, the founder of U.S. Healthcare;
and hedge-fund manager Michael Steinhardt.
One of its so-called 'philanthropic' projects entitled "Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communication Priorities 2003," was leaked
to Electronic Intifada.
"...when they met in the Edgar Bronfman mansion in Manhattan. The head of the World Jewish Congress hosted a meeting of
the fifty richest and most powerful Jews of the US and Canada. There was no press coverage, no limelight, just a few lines
in the newspapers. The gathered multibillionaires discussed the ways to achieve Jewish unity, and strengthen the Jewish identity
of American Jews, tersely reported Shlomo Shamir for Haaretz. They also agreed to launch a PR program under the Orwellian codename
of 'Truth' with the purpose of influencing American public opinion regarding Israeli policies.
The megabucks call themselves 'Mega group'. This name appeared in the media a couple of years ago, as a name for the secret
Israeli mole in the upper reaches of the US establishment. It came up in an overheard phone conversation, later denied by the
Israeli embassy in Washington, DC. The newshounds and spook watchers got it wrong. 'Mega' was not an agent, Mega was the boss."
Defense Department Computer Network Among Top Sharers of Child Pornography
Defense Department computers are among the top distributors of child pornography. An untold number of Department of Defense
(DOD) employees and contractors have subscriptions to child pornography websites, and the problem is apparently so pervasive it
requires new technical solutions to address it.
"Hundreds of DoD-affiliated individuals" were recently identified as suspects in child pornography cases, according to
an investigation by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
So far, authorities have only looked into about 20 percent of these cases. But already, they've found "several" individuals
"using their government devices to download or share said pornographic material."
Last year, an investigation by the National Criminal Justice Training Program found DOD computers were among the top networks
nationwide for peer-to-peer sharing of pornographic images of minors. DOD's network ranked 19th out of 2,891 computer networks
studied.
To prevent such widespread abuse going forward, the "End National Defense Network Abuse Act" would "crack down on this activity
by upgrading the training and technical capacity of military criminal investigative organizations to confront the misuse of DoD
computers, facilities, and equipment," according to a press release. It would also arrange for DOD authorities to work more closely
with civilian law enforcement on these cases.
"The notion that the Department of Defense's network and Pentagon-issued computers may be used to view, create, or circulate
such horrifying images is a shameful disgrace, and one we must fight head on," said Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D -- Va.), who co-sponsored
the bill with Rep. Mark Meadows (R -- N.C.).
A companion bill in the senate has been introduced by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R -- Alaska) and Brian Schatz (D -- Hawaii).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNue92Gta3s
2014 Aerial drone video of Little St. James. The island is owned privately by Jeffrey Epstein and is located southeast of St.
Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
"... If you haven't heard of him, Epstein's the super-sleazy Palm Beach billionaire who was busted some time back and convicted for conspiring to bring underage foreign girls to his estates in the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Or as his 2008 plea deal put it, to "knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution." ..."
"... I've previously written about Epstein's ties to Bill Clinton and to Donald Trump . Neither Clinton nor Trump look come out of it looking good, to put it mildly, but in this case Clinton looks a lot worse. ..."
"... "Flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled at least 10 times on Epstein's private jet, dubbed the 'Lolita Express,' by tabloids, and he is widely reported to have visited Little St. James, Epstein's private island in the US Virgin Islands," I've previously written. "That's where, according to attorneys for Epstein's victims, many of the worst crimes against minors were committed by Epstein and friends who traveled there with him." ..."
"... In a 2011 interview with her attorneys, Virginia Roberts, one of the teenagers preyed upon by Epstein, said he had told her he had "compromising" information on Bill Clinton and that the former president "owes me a favor." ..."
"... Oh yeah, and by the way Epstein donated to the Clinton Foundation and multiple Democratic Party causes before and after being convicted for pedophilia. ..."
"... Federal and state investigators amassed a mountain of evidence against Epstein, but in the end Black and his other attorneys were able to draft and negotiate a bizarre plea deal. The terms of the agreement, which was secret at the time, capped damages against Epstein - reportedly worth about $2 billion - to between $50,000 and $150,000, depending on what year he had abused the girl, an attorney with direct knowledge of the case told me. ..."
"... So why write about Epstein now? First, as just noted, this creep got off easy. Second, Page Six recently spotted Epstein on the Upper East Side with young Russian "playmates." ..."
"... He said that Karin had two departments, one that was legal and sent girls to New York and elsewhere, and an illegal side that recruited underage girls for Epstein and other global clients. "They lured young girls [to Orgy Island], mostly from small towns in Brazil and Eastern Europe – with the promise of a fat modeling contract," this person said. "They told them they'd go to the island and meet the head of the modeling agency. Instead, they were coerced into pleasuring Epstein, Brunel and their guests." ..."
"... This source said Epstein's entire sex procurement operation was laid out to him by a former Karin bookkeeper, a Cuban-American woman who worked for the modeling agency's Miami office during the relevant period. ..."
Before heading out for the weekend, let's discuss Jeffrey Epstein, America's best connected political pedophile, shall we?
If you haven't heard of him, Epstein's the super-sleazy Palm Beach billionaire who was busted some time back and convicted for
conspiring to bring underage foreign girls to his estates in the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Or as his 2008 plea deal
put it, to "knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage
in prostitution."
I've previously written about Epstein's ties to
Bill Clinton and to
Donald Trump . Neither Clinton nor Trump look come out of it looking good, to put it mildly, but in this case Clinton looks a
lot worse.
"Flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled at least 10 times on Epstein's private jet, dubbed the 'Lolita Express,' by tabloids,
and he is widely reported to have visited Little St. James, Epstein's private island in the US Virgin Islands," I've previously written.
"That's where, according to attorneys for Epstein's victims, many of the worst crimes against minors were committed by Epstein and
friends who traveled there with him."
In a 2011 interview with her attorneys, Virginia Roberts, one of the teenagers preyed upon by Epstein, said he had told her he
had "compromising" information on Bill Clinton and that the former president "owes me a favor."
Oh yeah, and by the way Epstein donated to the Clinton Foundation and multiple Democratic Party causes before and after being
convicted for pedophilia.
Lately, however, the party has reportedly shunned Epstein. Indeed, he's so toxic,
recently released emails show , that Team Obama rejected the idea of having Epstein's chief attorney, Roy Black, host a fundraiser.
Black, by the way, is perhaps best known for winning an acquittal for William Kennedy Smith for allegedly raping a Palm Beach teenager.
Following that trial Black married a juror in the case.
Federal and state investigators amassed a mountain of evidence against Epstein, but in the end Black and his other attorneys were
able to draft and negotiate a bizarre plea deal. The terms of the agreement, which was secret at the time, capped damages against
Epstein - reportedly worth about $2 billion - to between $50,000 and $150,000, depending on what year he had abused the girl, an
attorney with direct knowledge of the case told me.
The agreement also barred victims from seeking any future financial redress. Roberts and a number of other "Jane Does" - Epstein's
underage victims- are currently suing to overturn the settlement. A number of attorneys with ties to the Obama administration were
involved in negotiating the deal, which was highly criticized and never publicly explained. (The astonishing story of the "sweetheart"
plea deal is laid out in
this article in the Palm Beach Daily News.)
Third, James Patterson, the best-selling writer, is
authoring a book about Epstein
that's coming out in October. It's a great time to pile on.
Fourth, I've been looking into the Epstein affair for over a year. I've interviewed dozens of sources in Florida, including several
of the Miami-area lawyers for the Jane Does, and have a lot of material in my files.
Interviews with key sources, documents and previously published accounts show that Epstein's closest friends and collaborators
included Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of disgraced British newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell, and Frenchman Jean-Luc Brunel. The
latter ran a modeling agency called Karin, which is based in Paris but also has offices in New York, Miami, and Brazil.
Brunel, whose role in the Epstein case has been covered by Jezebel and others,
has a long and sordid record of abusing and pimping out young women. Back in 1988, 60 Minutes aired a segment that featured a dozen
models who said they had been sexually assaulted by Brunel.
Craig Pyes, an associate producer and chief investigator of the segment, said various witnesses told him that Brunel was "heavily
into cocaine and sex with young girls," and that he set-up parties for "his rich playboy friends" and invited girls to weekend parties
that "operated as meat markets for older men." Several models told 60 Minutes they had been drugged and raped by Brunel or his friends.
What's especially outrageous, attorneys tell me, is that neither Brunel nor Maxwell ever testified in Epstein's case. Both fled
the United States on the eve of their respective depositions with the flimsiest of excuses. (Page Six
recently reported
that Maxwell was finally going to be forced to testify in the ongoing Jane Doe trial, but I haven't been able to confirm that.)
Brunel lined up underage girls for Epstein's Virgin Islands hideaway through his modeling agency, several of the victims' attorneys
I interviewed said. A private investigator involved in the case backed those accounts.
He said that Karin had two departments, one that was legal and sent girls to New York and elsewhere, and an illegal side that
recruited underage girls for Epstein and other global clients. "They lured young girls [to Orgy Island], mostly from small towns
in Brazil and Eastern Europe – with the promise of a fat modeling contract," this person said. "They told them they'd go to the island
and meet the head of the modeling agency. Instead, they were coerced into pleasuring Epstein, Brunel and their guests."
This source said Epstein's entire sex procurement operation was laid out to him by a former Karin bookkeeper, a Cuban-American
woman who worked for the modeling agency's Miami office during the relevant period.
I've unsuccessfully tried to track this woman down. Anyone with information please email me at
[email protected].
I've reached out to Epstein, Brunel, Maxwell and Black on various occasions and never heard back from any of them.
Steve Pieczenik additional video on "Lolita express" HRottenC enabled/participated in pedophilia as well, more intel leaks to
come from US gov. insiders:
"... A blockbuster book detailing the exploits of the infamous billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein hits shelves on Monday. Sources close to the 63-year-old Brooklyn native have advised him to be "unreachable and out of the country" this weekend when the preliminary media blitz gets underway. ..."
"... Epstein is far deeper scum than a mere pedophile, while the Koch bros and Pence may have a truly fundamentalist moral streak. The period of time between now and the election could be very dangerous for Epstein. ..."
Lolita Express Monday - just another tequila sunrise:
A blockbuster book detailing the exploits of the infamous billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein hits shelves on Monday.
Sources close to the 63-year-old Brooklyn native have advised him to be "unreachable and out of the country" this weekend when
the preliminary media blitz gets underway.
"Filthy Rich," a collaborative effort between best-selling author James Patterson and investigator John Connolly, is set to
reopen old wounds for Epstein, who served 13 months in prison following a 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a teenage
girl.
Epstein has reportedly settled numerous similar cases out of court. The blockbuster book is also expected to further embarrass
celebs who once partied with Epstein.
An absolutely remarkable aspect of this "news" article is that while it mentions Trump as a celebrity who partied with Epstein,
the name "Bill Clinton" is entirely missing. That's despite documentary proof that "Bill" took 21 flights on the Lolita Express.
Just another MSM advertorial for Hyena Rodent Clinton.
Hey Jim, I've got a comment in moderation that touches on this. Specific to Epstein, I'll say the Koch brothers are as close
to the White House as they will ever get, and that Epstein was adamant about getting evidence about the people he serviced.
Epstein is far deeper scum than a mere pedophile, while the Koch bros and Pence may have a truly fundamentalist moral streak.
The period of time between now and the election could be very dangerous for Epstein.
Now that the Politics of Personal Destruction are in full play, certain parties had better hope that Epstein's settlements,
compelling his victims to silence in exchange for hush money, hold up.
After all, if one of them has already spent all her settlement money, she's effectively judgment proof in case she tells her
story in violation of the settlement.
As ol' Saddam Hussein used to say, " Anything is possible now, my brothers. "
Epstein issue and his connection to Clinton mafia was raised by press in 2016 but went nowhere.
The fact that Trump campaign targeted Clinton for his connection with Epstein means that Trump is probably was not involved as a client of
Epstein brothel with underage prostitutes for high ranking politicians .
Notable quotes:
"... Now Bill Clinton is back in the press and not for his controversial relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship with Epstein. In fact, flight records indicate that Bill would frequent the island paradise during the 2002 and 2005 era while Hillary, Bill's wife, was a Senator in New York. ..."
"... The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and that she recalled two young girls from New York who were always seen around the five-house compound but their personal back-stories were never revealed. ..."
"... Moreover, Epstein was invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010 amongst 400 other guests, demonstrating his close friendship with the Clinton family. ..."
"... To top it all off blue blood, "Prince Andrew was allegedly one of the house's visitors. On Friday, the Duke of York was named in a federal lawsuit filed against Epstein, whom the FBI once reportedly linked to 40 young women. Filed in 2008 in the Southern District of Florida, the $50 million lawsuit claimed Epstein had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls gained access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home and sexually assaulted these girls,"reported the Washington Post. ..."
Back in 2005 police conducted an 11 month-long undercover investigation into Epstein and his estate after the mother of a 14-year-old
girl went to police after suspecting her daughter was paid $300 for at least one sexual act on the island in which she was ordered
to strip, leaving on just her panties, while giving Epstein a massage.
Although police found tons of photos of young women on the island and even interviewed eyewitnesses, Epstein was hit with a mere
slap on the wrist after "pleading to a single charge of prostitution". Epstein later served 13-months of his 18-month service in
jail.
In 2008, Epstein was hit again, this time with a $50 million civil suit after another victim filed in federal court claiming that
she was "recruited" by Epstein to give him a "massage" but was essentially forced into having sexual intercourse with him for $200
which was payable upon completion. The women were coming out of the woodwork.
Now Bill Clinton is back in the press and not for his controversial relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship
with Epstein. In fact, flight records indicate that Bill would frequent the island paradise during the 2002 and 2005 era while Hillary,
Bill's wife, was a Senator in New York.
'I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me a favor,'
one unidentified woman said in the lawsuit, which was filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court.
The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and that she recalled two young girls from New York who were
always seen around the five-house compound but their personal back-stories were never revealed.
"At least one woman on the compound was there unwillingly," reported the Daily Mail in a recent article. The woman was allegedly
forced to have sex with "politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians" at the retreat. Just one of "more than 40 women" that have
come forth with claims against Epstein, showing the vast scale of the man's dark operations, which aren't limited only to Little
St. James.
Moreover, Epstein was invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010 amongst 400 other guests, demonstrating his close friendship
with the Clinton family.
To top it all off blue blood, "Prince Andrew was allegedly one of the house's visitors. On Friday, the Duke of York was named
in a federal lawsuit filed against Epstein, whom the FBI once reportedly linked to 40 young women. Filed in 2008 in the Southern
District of Florida, the $50 million lawsuit claimed Epstein had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls gained
access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home and sexually assaulted these girls,"reported the Washington
Post.
"... "I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors," Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. "There are six others,
whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity
with Mr. Epstein." ..."
"... Epstein agreed to a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of house arrest and the agreement to
pay dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse. .the U.S. Attorney's
Office promised not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein or his Named and Un-Named co-conspirators. ..."
"... His legal team? Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz. ..."
"... The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated immunized all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators
in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and any powerbrokers who may
have molested them." ..."
LOLITA EXPRESS...ORGY ISLAND...ELITE PEDOPHILE RING ?-2006
* George W Bush President: January 20, 2001 – Jan. 20, 2009
* Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General USA: Feb. 3, 2005–Sept. 17, 2007
* Michael Bernard Mukasey, AG. USA: Nov. 9, 2007 – Jan. 20, 2009
* Eric Holder, A G. USA: Feb. 3, 2009 – April 27, 2015
* Loretta Lynch, Attorney General USA: April 27, 2015 – Present
* Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana
* Epstein's Attorneys: Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz.
+ "He (Epstein) is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations."
+ Bill Clinton...26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express"
Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 is equipped with the necessary hardware for him to wake up, roll out of bed, and start trading.
+ Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually
service Epstein and his friends and acted as a "potential co-conspirator" in his crimes.
+ Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's former assistant Sarah Kellen -- have been repeatedly accused in court filings
of acting as pimps. Oxford-educated Maxwell, recently seen dining with Clinton at Nello's on Madison Avenue. Manhattan-London
G. Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously deceased media titan Robert Maxwell.
+ A new lawsuit has revealed how Clinton took multiple trips to Epstein's private island where he 'kept young women as sex
slaves'
+ Clinton was also apparently friends with a woman who collected naked pictures of underage girls for Epstein to choose from
+ Clinton invited her (pimp) to Chelsea's wedding
+ According to former child sex slave Virginia Roberts and a class action lawsuit against convicted billionaire pedophile Jeffrey
Epstein, former President Bill Clinton was present during sex parties involving up to twenty underage girls at Epstein's secluded
island in the Caribbean.
+ 20 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 said were sexually abused by Epstein, Palm Beach Police and FBI
+ 35 female minors sexually abused, Epstein settled lawsuits from more than 30 "Jane Doe" victims since 2008; the youngest
alleged victim was 12 years old at the time of her abuse.
..............................Source: FBI & Federal Prosecutors
+ flights on Epstein's planes 1997 to 2005, include Dershowitz (FOX NEWS, Harvard Law), former Treasury Secretary and Harvard
president Larry Summers, Naomi Campbell, and scientist Stephen Pinker.
+ In the most recent court documents, filed on December 30, Roberts further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful
men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister,
and other world leaders." Roberts said Epstein trafficked children to politicians, Wall Streeters and A- listers to curry favor,
advance his business, and for political influence.
The FIX
2015 Doc Release by Judge:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana wrote to Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz in a Sept. 19, 2007, email. "I will include our
standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight
for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge ... maybe we can set a time to meet, if
you want to meet 'off campus' somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present
or 'on call' as well."
"I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors," Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. "There are six
others, whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time
of their activity with Mr. Epstein."
In a December 2007 letter, the prosecutor acknowledges some notifications of alleged victims but says they were sent after
the U.S. Attorney's Office signed the plea deal and halted for most of the women at the request of Epstein's lawyers.
"Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement,"
Villafana wrote, again to Lefkowitz. "You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done."
On Sept. 24, 2007, in a deal shrouded in secrecy that left alleged victims shocked at its leniency,
Epstein agreed to a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of house arrest and the agreement
to pay dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse. .the U.S. Attorney's
Office promised not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein or his Named and Un-Named co-conspirators.
"In 2006 the FBI counted at least 40 underage girls who had been molested by Epstein. Authorities searched his Florida mansion
and found two computers containing child *********** and homemade video and photographs from cameras hidden in bedroom walls which
had been used to film sex acts. The case was airtight for many counts of sexual crimes but Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer
and the Justice Department stepped in and offered Epstein a plea deal. In 2008 Epstein pleaded guilty in a Florida court to one
count of soliciting underage girls for sex. His punishment was 13 months of "8 hour nights only" at a halfway house. No other
charges about raping underage girls nor running an underage sex trafficking ring were mentioned in the plea. His legal team?
Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz.
The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated immunized all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators
in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and any powerbrokers who
may have molested them."
Lately, Jeffrey Epstein's high-flying style has been drawing oohs and aahs: the bachelor financier lives in New York's largest
private residence, claims to take only billionaires as clients, and flies celebrities including Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey
on his Boeing 727. But pierce his air of mystery and the picture changes. Vicky Ward explores Epstein's investment career, his
ties to retail magnate Leslie Wexner, and his complicated past.
Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery
So how do termite grouping patterns fare as an investment strategy? Again, facts are hard to come by. A working day for Epstein
starts at 5 a.m., when he gets up and scours the world markets on his Bloomberg screen -- each of his houses, in New York, St.
Thomas, Palm Beach, and New Mexico, as well as the 727, is equipped with the necessary hardware for him to wake up, roll
"... The children in some of these poor third-world 'orphanages' aren't really orphans as we understand the term but are just from poor families who can't take care of them. ..."
"... That a person with the stature of being a former president would hang around with a low-life like Epstein is really telling. He flew perhaps twenty-seven times on Epstein's plane which makes him more than just a passing acquaintance. Birds of a feather flock together. ..."
"... If a country next to us, so similar to ours in many ways but with a fraction of our population, has so many that can be exposed at one time then how many could the US have? ..."
"... The Burning Platform has featured a series of posts over the last few weeks that provide a volume of evidence that is impossible to discount. ..."
"... I have no doubt whatsoever that child sex abuse, trafficking and even sex-related murder may well be hung around the necks of very, very famous persons, and the horrors so bad that those persons (if still alive) will not even make it to trial before they're hung from a street lamp. ..."
"... What is clear is that the contention that there is "no evidence", a contention that is asserted or implied in seemingly every mainstream media discussion, is flatly false. There is a vast array of pertinent evidence, much of it circumstantial, but much of it also suggesting something of the mindset of some of the central figures. Anyone who denies this is utterly oblivious, or a liar, or a fool. ..."
"... As to what the evidence establishes, that is a different question. If skilled and intelligent investigators fail to take it up, then motivated and fervent - if not entirely competent - inquirers will surely rise up in their stead. ..."
"... Watch for the "fake news" sources' standard method for dealing with a large set of serious allegations like these from the internet's "real news" sources. They will take the most absurd/least likely allegations and dispose of them. They will then unobtrusively fail to address harder to dismiss allegations. Instead they will argue to the effect that, some of these allegations are false so obviously all must be. ..."
"... The "truther" site Snopes once had a perfect example, since taken down, I suspect because it made the technique so obvious ..."
The children in some of these poor third-world 'orphanages' aren't really orphans as we understand the term but are just
from poor families who can't take care of them. These international adoptions are a business where everyone along the line
gets paid with the child being the commodity being sold to the end purchaser, people in the west seeking to adopt a child to make
themselves feel good. As in the mentioned case, the agencies move around from country to country where people are poor and desperate
and legal safeguards are weak. Although the end receivers seem to be mostly naive and well-meaning people there's no telling how
many aren't.
That a person with the stature of being a former president would hang around with a low-life like Epstein is really telling.
He flew perhaps twenty-seven times on Epstein's plane which makes him more than just a passing acquaintance. Birds of a feather
flock together.
The Canadians pulled in over three hundred people. If a country next to us, so similar to ours in many ways but with a
fraction of our population, has so many that can be exposed at one time then how many could the US have? Yet we hardly ever
hear much, just of a few lone wolves here and there. Look at how Sandusky got away with it for so many years. People didn't want
to know, turned a blind eye to it, because he was too valuable.
This entire bunch who hobnob with each other have a very creepy vibe. There's all these 'coincidences' that seem to gather
together in one place.
This 'story' is complete horseshit / random confirmation bias. Scan the full social media accounts of any group of 100+
people and you could find just as much 'evidence' if you were determined to do so. This is scary -- the day that any social
media post involving children that uses the word "chicken" anywhere in it counts as evidence of pedophilia is the day anyone
could be smeared.
Ron Unz should be ashamed of himself for giving this kind of unhinged paranoid fear-mongering space.
Do some of your own research on this topic and you will come to a different conclusion if you can get beyond your massive bias.
The Burning Platform has featured a series of posts over the last few weeks that provide a volume of evidence that is impossible
to discount.
Most people cannot accept something like this would be real because they cannot fathom the depths of evil that exist in this
world ..why, I don't know. You'd think the fact that many of the people implicated have also been the ones fully on board with
unprovoked wars that have killed, maimed and displaced millions of people, including children, would be evidence enough.
Kudos to Ron Unz for exposing more people to this tragic, disgusting, horrendous story.
Socionomic Theory documents that the public's appetite for scandals is low when stocks and high and high when stocks are low.
Case in point: The "news" about Enron was favorable all the way down, until the stock had lost way over 90%. Only then did
"news" about criminality and malfeasance gain traction.
This being the case, with stocks at All Time Highs after an astonishing 7 year vertical rally, pizzagate's very existence
here tells us that when the next bear market (in social mood, as revealed by stock prices) is in full swing, the level of
sociopathic, demonic behaviors emerging into public consciousness will be unimaginable.
I have no doubt whatsoever that child sex abuse, trafficking and even sex-related murder may well be hung around the necks
of very, very famous persons, and the horrors so bad that those persons (if still alive) will not even make it to trial before
they're hung from a street lamp.
Public disgust with those who ran (and run) the Federal Government will in all likelihood be so pervasive that it will undermine
the very political cohesion of the United States.
This is by far the best survey of this topic that I've read.
What is clear is that the contention that there is "no evidence", a contention that is asserted or implied in seemingly
every mainstream media discussion, is flatly false. There is a vast array of pertinent evidence, much of it circumstantial, but
much of it also suggesting something of the mindset of some of the central figures. Anyone who denies this is utterly oblivious,
or a liar, or a fool.
As to what the evidence establishes, that is a different question. If skilled and intelligent investigators fail to take
it up, then motivated and fervent - if not entirely competent - inquirers will surely rise up in their stead.
Watch for the "fake news" sources' standard method for dealing with a large set of serious allegations like these from
the internet's "real news" sources. They will take the most absurd/least likely allegations and dispose of them. They will then
unobtrusively fail to address harder to dismiss allegations. Instead they will argue to the effect that, some of these allegations
are false so obviously all must be.
The "truther" site Snopes once had a perfect example, since taken down, I suspect because it made the technique so obvious.
One popular right-wing internet site claimed to link 100 or so suspicious deaths to the Clintons. Snopes attacked the obviously
absurd linkages and was left with about twenty cases of persons who (1) were involved or rumored to be involved with nefarious
activities involving the Clintons; (2) were scheduled to testify against the Clintons or rumored to be brokering plea deals; and
(3) died under suspicious circumstances soon after. Snopes dismissed these with a comment to the effect that all public figures
had numbers of known associates die like this; let's just move on, folks; nothing to see here.
200 Words @MQ This 'story' is complete
horseshit / random confirmation bias. Scan the full social media accounts of any group of 100+ people and you could find just
as much 'evidence' if you were determined to do so. This is scary -- the day that any social media post involving children that
uses the word "chicken" anywhere in it counts as evidence of pedophilia is the day anyone could be smeared.
Ron Unz should be ashamed of himself for giving this kind of unhinged paranoid fear-mongering space.
In one of my many different careers I worked for a couple of years as an outside consultant to the FBI's ViCAP (now VICAP)
program. About the time I was thus delving the depths of human depravity - and they are far deeper than the more fortunate readers
of this are ever likely to learn - a scandal similar to this broke in Belgium, involving the highest levels of society, politics,
and the EU bureaucracy in criminal conspiracies to kidnap children, sexually violate them, torture them, and even use them in
the production of snuff films. A full investigation dead-ended after many suicides and suspicious deaths and disappearances. IMHO,
based on some experience with criminal conspiracies of this type, the mass of material presented here is a pretty overwhelming
indication that something very bad is happening. That the MSM ("fake new") sources are not paying more attentionto this is scandalous.
I'm not going to commit myself to the idea that this is going to be as huge as Rotherham was.
Sorry, but you are deluded if you believe Rotherham was "huge" in the media - even after the story broke, the English media
did its best to downplay and underreport it - when they did report it, especially the BBC, it was always in a professional monotone,
with no hint of outrage, or how disgusting and appalling all of it was, including/especially the behavior of the authorities -
however let the BNP or EDL protest in front of the court where some of the Paki scum were being tried, and there you saw and felt
media outrage - at this point, Rotherham has practically disappeared from the news - which is pretty sad because as everyone knows,
it was just the tip of the iceberg.
And as currently being framed and investigatively fleshed out, if Rotherham was "huge", then Pizzagate will be a scandal of
positively galactic dimension.
People will not let this go the way they did with the Jeffrey Epstein sleaze.
Thank you for this article. It is well written and makes the point I have been trying to make. That the Wikileaks taken together
with the Instagram photos warrant an investigation. A person with a predilection to pedophilia (based on the Instagram photos,
choice of music, and music recordings at the Pizza Parlor premises) at the least, should not be running a "child-friendly" pizza
parlor without some kind of societal due diligence to ensure the safety of our children.
On the one hand, what is lost if an investigation occurs and it turns out there is no wrong doing? We would have wasted some
tax dollars and time of the law enforcement teams, but James Alefantis would in fact benefit from being exonerated. If
however, there is ANY truth and any harm has and is occurring to children, then the greater good resulting from the investigation
would be without price.
@Jus' Sayin'... In one of my many different
careers I worked for a couple of years as an outside consultant to the FBI's ViCAP (now VICAP) program. About the time I was thus
delving the depths of human depravity -- and they are far deeper than the more fortunate readers of this are ever likely to learn
-- a scandal similar to this broke in Belgium, involving the highest levels of society, politics, and the EU bureaucracy in criminal
conspiracies to kidnap children, sexually violate them, torture them, and even use them in the production of snuff films. A full
investigation dead-ended after many suicides and suspicious deaths and disappearances. IMHO, based on some experience with criminal
conspiracies of this type, the mass of material presented here is a pretty overwhelming indication that something very bad is
happening. That the MSM ("fake new") sources are not paying more attentionto this is scandalous.
The Belgian case, among other high-profile quashed investigations, is summarized here:
Furthermore, Tony Podesta's favorite artist is Biljana Djurdjevic, whose art heavily features images of children in BDSM
-esque positions in large showers.
Psychopathy in the Pedophile (From Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior, P 304-320, 1998, Theodore Millon,
Erik Simonsen, et al, eds.--See NCJ-179236)
This paper argues that pedophilia may represent a special case or subcase of psychopathy and that the main aims of both
the psychopath and the pedophile are to dominate, to use, and to subjugate another person in service of the grandiose self.
[...] It notes that the major differences between psychopaths and pedophiles are that the object of the predation for the
pedophile is a child and that the overt behavioral manifestation of the pathology is sexual.
I just wanted to reemphasize Scott Adams' statement about the scandal:
Over on his blog, Scott Adams asks us to keep in mind cases where confirmation bias did lead to false allegations of
institutional pedophilia, to caution against excessive confidence.
These types of investigations and scandals can easily lead to 'witch hunts' and 'panics' and need to be handled with the greatest
care, prudence, and levelheadedness possible.
----
I wanted to add the following study/information, because as the study states ' These results provide further evidence
of the importance of distinguishing between these groups of offenders. '
This might just be an irrelevant distinction for most people appalled by this potential/alleged abuse of power and authority
of 'our' elites; but I believe we might mostly be looking at and dealing with psychopathy and not necessarily 'just' pedophilia
in this Pizzagate scandal.
This has several different implications for how this scandal might be handled or be covered up, etc., because psychopaths are
master liars, deflectors, charmers, etc., i.e. 'pillars of the community,' 'movers and shakers,' etc.
There is another curious connection here; Professor Robert Hare – the father of psychopathy research – said this:
Hare considers newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell to have been a strong candidate as a corporate psychopath.[10]
Robert Maxwell is the father of Ghislaine Maxwell, who is close friends with Jeffery Epstein:
In an American court case that was made public in January 2015, a woman identified as 'Jane Doe 3′ said she was approached
by Maxwell in 1999, and claimed that Maxwell procured under-age girls to have sex with Epstein. Maxwell has always denied any
involvement in Epstein's crimes.[10] She said: "She [Ghislaine] said she'd hit hard times. Jeffrey offered her a job
and then, I guess, because of her ability to procure girls, she became a vital asset to him.
Abstract OBJECTIVE :
Among men who commit sexual offenses against children, at least 2 distinct groups can be identified on the basis of the age
of the primary targets of their sexual interest; pedophiles and nonpedophiles. METHOD :
In the present report, across 2 independent samples of both types of child molesters as well as controls, a total of 104 men
(53 pedophilic and 51 nonpedophilic) who had sexually offended against a child age 13 or younger were compared to each other
(and to 49 non-sex offender controls) on psychopathy as assessed by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI). RESULTS :
In both samples of child molesters, the nonpedophiles scored as significantly more psychopathic than the pedophiles. CONCLUSIONS :
These results provide further evidence of the importance of distinguishing between these groups of offenders.
500 Words @MQ This 'story' is complete
horseshit / random confirmation bias. Scan the full social media accounts of any group of 100+ people and you could find just
as much 'evidence' if you were determined to do so. This is scary -- the day that any social media post involving children that
uses the word "chicken" anywhere in it counts as evidence of pedophilia is the day anyone could be smeared.
Ron Unz should be ashamed of himself for giving this kind of unhinged paranoid fear-mongering space.
Your comment sounds familiar to me. Are you writing from the UK perchance?
Back in the mid-Aughts I was surprised by how often I saw commenters at MSM news sites talking about the grooming and abduction
of white girls in cities in England. At the time I was regularly reading BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, and Times. The stories where
these comments appeared were diverse in topic.
Sometimes other comments would share similar experiences. Some would say they talked to someone who claimed similar experience.
Others would say they'd heard murmurs of such things.
These voices repeatedly called on the MSM outlet to investigate, or they wondered why no response was forthcoming from
elected officials or policymakers.
This was after–I later learned–Ann Cryer (MP for Keighley) had bravely stepped forward on behalf of girls whose parents had
approached her for help. IOW, the cat was emerging from the bag, but the MSM were trying to stuff it back in.
Dismissive responses to these comments frequently were framed as yours is here: nothing to see here, move along, it's confirmation
bias, you people are nuts, mods, step in and censor them!
In the Rotherham/etc. case, racism, Islamophobia, etc., were trotted out to inflict silence.
What was most noteworthy to me, and creepy, was how these comments would be removed from the comment streams of these outlets.
Sometimes the comments would be deleted but the response calling them racists or Islamophobes allowed to stand.
By the late Aughts I was convinced some sort of coverup was underway of something terrible indeed.
We now know that the MSM were key players in that.
Similar murmurings were afoot in Pennsylvania for many years prior to the revelations of the sexual abuse of children by Penn
State coach Sandusky. I knew men who steered their sons away from football in general, guiding them instead to hockey or lacrosse,
because the word on the street was that football camp was not a safe place for boys anymore. (Nor, increasingly, Boy Scouts or
church camps.)
The gig is up for the MSM acting as panderers and pimps in the Cathedragogue of their own degenerate Narrative-religion.
They won't go down without a fight. They have more power and money to lose than any of the kids victimized by pedocidal perverts.
But what those kids have to lose is a treasure of vastly more importance than power and money.
Thing is, truth and goodness of spirit will win. This is part of why these degenerates fight back as they do. They can put
truth and goodness on the run for only so long. They fight back not because they are losing, but because, by nature, they can
never join the winning side of truth and goodness. It's just not in them.
All the more reason they need to be found out and reined in hard.
One last thing, regarding some people's assertion that these symbols, in-jokes, etc., are all "just a game." Or, worse, "art."
(Which implies getting money and power by representing degeneracy to decorate rich people's businesses, homes and bedrooms.)
If pedophilia, grooming, and child rape are now matters to take lightly as shibboleths of entrance to circles of power, then
those circles of power need to be napalmed.
"In the beginning there were the swamp, the hoe, and Jussi."
I think the crux of the problem is that most people find two different things equally plausible.
1) That the people who are talking about this (pizzagate) are lunatics.
or
2) That Podesta and the rest actually are involved in things like this.
Personally I think a nation that has reached this point, that it is totally believable that our leaders and elites are a bunch
of monsters well that's a real problem.
Another problem is that the UK article a poster above linked to is two years old. Has anyone heard anything about that since?
Expect to?
How many members of the media political class, that are dismissing this as fake news have enjoyed "pizza" at Besta or at a
similar place?
What if criminal deviancy rather than disqualifying a person, is not instead some weird prerequisite for elite status? Don't
have to worry about rock throwers if they're inside the same glass house.
Blackmail seems as good an explanation as any for things like John Roberts sudden change of heart on the constitutionality
of the Obama care mandate.
This is a very good summary; thank you for publishing it.
The speed with which the old media have declared the entire thing false, far sooner than they possibly could have explored
all the latest information and come to that conclusion, is astonishing. In other cases of conspiracy theories they think are false,
they are willing to stand back and ridicule the theorists. Obama Birthers, 9/11 Truthers, Boston Bombing hoax, Sandy Hook . all
certainly called false and ridiculed, but that's all. I don't think I've ever seen them try to squelch an entire line of discussion
from the start like this before, even threatening lawsuits and prosecution.
There may be something to pizzagate but I'm very skeptical of accusations of widespread institutional pedophilia. I initially
fell for the "Satanic panic" of the 1980s; I learned my lesson.
I see that this case relies a lot on cryptic symbols. Reminds me of the people who see swastikas and white supremacy runes wherever
they look and try to make a case for a vast neo-Nazi underground. But the author states that 470,000 children "disappear" each
year in the US alone. Really? The link goes to "reported missing" which is a whole different thing. I once reported one of my
kids missing; he turned up shortly afterwards at a friend's house. He hadn't even run away, just overstayed and not informed us
where he was. That sort of thing happens all the time, but genuine disappearances? I don't know of a single case and I know plenty
of people with kids. In some third world country in a war, tens of thousands of missing kids might be believable, but even in
most such countries (Syria for example) 470,000 disappearances per year would be a stretch.
In the U.K., all the abuse took place by people in power. Catholic clergy over choirboys. Celebs over their fans. Pakistanis
targeted girls from broken homes. The wealthy and 'noble' preyed on the lesser born.
The worst though are the politicians, who have maximum power. I'm not sure I believe the pizzagate thing – the evidence is
not conclusive (show me a victim or witness). But I certainly believe it is possible.
The reliably excellent John Helmer provides an oblique reference to Pizzagate in the following linked piece about Propornot
and its marvellous 200 Putin Stoogesites:
200 Words @utu "What 'relatively obscure
charge'?" - Making payments in a manner hiding the detection of payments. Payments were not illegal but he was doing it in amounts
below the amounts that automatically would require reporting. In my opinion he did nothing illegal. The crimes he allegedly committed
were beyond the statute of limitation and paying hush money is not illegal either.
I kinda thought that's what you were referring to, but wanted to make sure.
His real crime was something else.
He was a high school coach years ago and was raping underage boys in his charge. The cash he was withdrawing was for payments
to one of the boys to keep him quiet. If memory serves, another one of his victims had committed suicide (not sure though). But
the one Hastert was paying off wanted to burn him.
In addition, Sibel Edwards, when she was working for the FBI and translating foreign language intercepts, picked up some conversations
by Turkish officials, who were bribing Hastert, and claimed they "owned him". He reportedly got $500K, but not sure for what.
FBI had courts put a gag order on Sibel, so she could not reveal any more details. The story was buried: probably because too
many high ranking swine were involved.
Hastert pleaded guilty to a Mickey Mouse charge so that there would no public child-rape trial, where the public might learn
all the lurid details of what the filthy swine did to those underage boys.
Hastert got away with destroying the lives of many boys.
Hopefully he will be savagely beaten and crippled in prison – but not killed – so he can suffer for years.
Like a lot of people I have gone from completely ignoring this story, thinking it was Alex Jones type fantasy to starting to
wonder if there might not be some truth to it after all. So far I haven't seen any definitive evidence that kids are actually
being molested, or worse. And because the accusations are so damning I would want to be very cautious about casually tossing them
around.
That being said, a lot of the stuff that's surfaced; the artwork, the cryptic messages, Spirit cooking, the odd choices of
entertainment for a family friendly pizza restaurant and the Instagram pictures are just flat out creepy .
Even with a presumption of innocence I wouldn't allow anyone under the age of 18 anywhere near the Podesta brothers, Alefantis
and everyone else involved without adult supervision.
I'm glad Unz has decided to publish this. I'm interested to see if anything more will come of it. It certainly warrants further
investigation.
@DanC Rotate the old logo for Besta Pizza
180 degrees. It is the pedophile BLogo symbol.
That's why when it got publicised, Besta's management immediately deleted the old one and converted to a new, BLogo-free symbol
on all their website and printed materials.
What is interesting to note in mainstream media "debunkings" of PizzaGate is that they focus on the doubtful evidence, things
that could be "interpreted either way" and they leave out the glaringly obvious pedophilia links, like the Besta Pizza logo.
Just look at all the "debunking articles." Do any of them mention the old Besta logo? I haven't seen any.
It seems to me this is the way to wean the public off the mainstream media. Hammer on the fact that the MSM insists on leaving
out the clear, obvious evidence and tries to imply that everything is doubtful and open to interpretation. Then people will start
to associate them with coverup and BS. The MSM can't recover from that.
Actually the logo issue is a prominent part of this Washington Post article (and a tweet by the fairly well-known Dave
Weigel highlighted that part in particular):
100 Words @Johnny Smoggins Like a lot
of people I have gone from completely ignoring this story, thinking it was Alex Jones type fantasy to starting to wonder if there
might not be some truth to it after all. So far I haven't seen any definitive evidence that kids are actually being molested,
or worse. And because the accusations are so damning I would want to be very cautious about casually tossing them around.
That being said, a lot of the stuff that's surfaced; the artwork, the cryptic messages, Spirit cooking, the odd choices of
entertainment for a family friendly pizza restaurant and the Instagram pictures are just flat out creepy .
Even with a presumption of innocence I wouldn't allow anyone under the age of 18 anywhere near the Podesta brothers, Alefantis
and everyone else involved without adult supervision.
I'm glad Unz has decided to publish this. I'm interested to see if anything more will come of it. It certainly warrants further
investigation.
Podesta is a creepy fuck period.
How did such a dweeb get to be such a big person in our national conversation?
He is an obvious hack , but not a particular clever one. He just comes off so "are you fucking kidding me?". Where do they get
these dudes? James Carville. Paul Begala. Bill Burton. Robby Mook. Even right has George Will, Buckley. Strange unnormal people.
I confess I don't get it. I can understand pizzagate as a brutal and nasty last minute campaign tactic, but the election is
over, drop it. A mighty tissue of "coincidences" woven together in a manner that would make Glenn Beck envious. I guess I need
to fashion a tin foil hat and then re-read the article. I think it just discredits the source more than the target.
If someone is actually raping children, then where are the children? The kids related to the socialite that she is bringing
to a pool party? Come on, that is what plebes are for. How are the children procured? Where do they live? There is necessarily
logistics to this kind of activity, and zero evidence of logistics, just some weird emails and weird art. Its like saying someone
is a coke head because they had a runny nose. tweet at early hours in the morning, and behave very alpha.
500 Words @Anonymous "Every aspect of
British society seems to have ties to pedophilia, from Parliament, to the elites, the City of London, the government, public schools,
Oxbridge, the universities, all the way down to Paki immigrant communities and even British soccer."
Why do pedos gain such power? Same reason why homos do? Since many of them don't have families and since they resent the Normal
World(from which they must hide their deviance or sickness), do they have extra time/energy for gaining power? Are they fueled
by resentment toward Normal Society? It seems like homos had a kind of revenge streak, and it all came out with New Normal. Homos
really want to rub our faces in their feces. They want to force us to accept the New Normal or be totally destroyed. They want
to turn us into their bitches. They are into Bitch-Hunting.
Working in the shadows, homos and pedos seemed to gained considerable power. And since they are associated with Vice Industry,
they have the dirt on everyone else and can blackmail them. Bill Clinton prolly never had sex with a minor, but surely homos and
pedos have a lot of dirt on him about his many affairs and orgies. And since they have many connections, they serve as essential
middlemen for those who seek power.
Also, there is a code of silence among the powerful. They watch out for one another. And homos and pedos are both pushy and
gushy. They are very demanding but also accommodating and supportive of the powerful and ambitious. They go all out to serve the
powerful and those on the up-and-up, but they also demand a cut of the pie.
The ambitious care most about power and privilege than about right and wrong. If their power depends on a coterie of people
committed to them 24/7, they will look the other way even when they know something is up. Also, there is the human factor. People
who work together closely develop an emotional bond. It's team politics, us vs them. And loyalty must be favored.
Since homos and pedos have more time on their hands and more energy(fueled by resentment), they might be more available to the
powerful or those who seek power.
Hollywood made the media the hero in the movie SPOTLIGHT. But the media seem eager to bury this as fast as possible.
Why did it take so long for the Hastert and Sandusky cases to come to light?
Homos seem to be closely allied with pedos, and the trajectory of our culture is to normalize pedophilia by sexualizing young
girls and boys. If young ones are sexualized, it means they can be objects of sexual desire. And then what?
And the scientific community is arguing pedophilia should be treated as a condition than a crime. This may be legit as long
as pedos didn't act on their impulses. But if they did, how can it not be a crime?
Rape is 'natural' too given that sexual feelings are natural. But we can't treat rape itself as a condition and not a crime.
Regrettably, though one may have grown old without ever feeling the wish to have sexual contact with a pre-adolescent or of
anyone of the same sex it hasn't been possible for a long time to deny the prevalence of socially disapproved sex drives and behaviours.
So one finds that the nice young presenter on the antique show has been arrested for downloading and keeping pedophile images.
And so on But isn't the idea of a large network, and what is needed to keep it covered up, a bit much to swallow? Nasty minds?
Conspiracy theories?
Well I suppose not. Sex as a drive and the perverse varieties of expression that we know to manifest themselves are enough
to make one accept the pedophile reality. Then the network and the cover up? The cover up, however difficult to make it reliable,
is just a consequence of the danger their behaviour exposes them to. And the network? Easy enough to explain once you are in it
– like knowing that you could attend mass in a number of aristocratic Elizabethan households. But the detail of why and how it
should grow from a very small group is obviously more complex. I guess that there are organisers and facilitators who seek various
rewards, some financial, some in young flesh, some in the obtaining of blackmailing power.
It's the age difference and the power equation that matters. If a fifteen year old is sexting a thirteen year old it's quite
different than a grown man like Anthony Wiener. I couldn't blame any father who administered a sound beating to an adult creep
who was sexting a minor. What kind of a society doesn't protect children?
"IMO this is yet another Jimmy Savile case: i.e. literally Satanic pedophilia on a vast scale, with the active collusion
of our political and media elites"
Savile case wasn't that at all – more like famous DJ/charity fundraiser with great PR taking advantage of his status with teenage
girls. How many of the post-death allegations are true, who knows, but we know some definitely aren't true – we know because long-time
blogger Anna Raccoon was a resident of a small children's home where Savile was claimed to have abused girls. She has a whole
series of seven posts called "Past Lives and Present Misgivings" on the allegations.
More "active collusion" is likely in the cases of Cyril Smith and Greville Janner, two pretty high-profile and connected MPs,
who seem to have managed to go to their graves scot free.
Flynn's tweet regarding this story was perfectly reasonable.
The story has been stamped "bogus" without any kind of investigation.
No response to questions about the weird content of emails by Podesta and others.
Stonewalling.
Makes one think the shotgun blast at Comet might even have been a false flag!!
For those wondering about the authenticity of the FBI document, here is the wikileaks page where it was revealed in 2007 and
they say "Wikileaks has verified the document":
I remember watching an excellent Australian film years ago that covered this very topic. It portrayed in a very realistic way
the whole homo/ pedo underground in the upper rungs of society, from posh public schools to university, where grooming of youngsters
occurred, to Parliament and Finance, where the powerful pederasts/homosexuals ruled. In this world, the shortest way to power
and riches for a young man was to seek out the protection and guidance of an older and powerful homo/pederast lover. It was shot
in Australia and in Australian settings and institutions, but it's all so British you'd think the film makers really intended
the story to reflect British society and were using Australia as a legal cover.
Sorry, I can't remember the title of the movie or the director. It was quite disturbing to watch but very interesting.
Perhaps Pat Hannagan or some other knowledgeable Australian reader can help.
Let's say there was no pedo-ring. I'm rather skeptical of it myself.
But just look at that pizzeria. What kind of freako place is that?
And why are some of the 'most powerful' people in DC such downright perverts and degenerates?
The fish rots from the head. Degenerates run government, institutions, and culture.
Government and judges push homo agenda. College push porn and 50 genders. Hollywood pushes drugs and tattoos. Disney turns
girls into whores.
And this isn't just a 'left' vs 'right' problem. A lot of Trump voters were ass-tattoo freaks. The working class grew up on
Jerry Springer, WWE, mentally deranged metal music, or Goth freakery.
And middle class kids grew up on the nerdy black magic of Harry Potter whose teacher is a happy ass-man.
Whether it's elites and their Pervert Pizza or the underclass with their degeneracy, it's ugly all around.
I'm not sold on the pedo-ring. Too much risk, though I think those 'elites' are a bunch of pervs.
If anything, this pedo-issue takes our eyes off the ball.
The real issue should be that the governing elites of this nation in government, colleges, cultural institutions, media and
even military(look at those tranny freaks) are a bunch of decadents, even degenerates. We are seeing the normalization of freakery
and grossness.
The fact that it is considered NORMAL for Hillary to invite Lena Dunham to the DNC speaks for itself. The fact that Newsweek
celebrated Obama with a gay 'halo' speaks for itself. The fact that churches hang 'homo flags' speaks for itself.
It is a sick nation.
A tolerant nation has room for decadence and even degeneracy. It belongs in the underground. They always existed.
But now, this underground stuff is the bobo cultural fixation of the elites who consider themselves 'hip' and 'edgy'.
And they even introduce their kids to this stuff from a young age.
Indeed, even without overt pedophilia, introducing sexuality to kids at a very young age is a kind of indirect pedophilia.
When homo-ness is promoted among kids, what is being done? Kids will ask 'what is homo stuff?' And an honest answer will have
to be, "some guys wanna stick pee pee into poo poo". But then, the kids will have to be told THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT,
and if anything, WE SHOULD BLESS THE HOMOS. But why? What is so great about pee pee in poo poo?
We really need Culturegate. The whole culture is a rotten scandal, and the fact that US globo-imperialism spreads this filth
around the world speaks volumes about how sick America has become. We don't need real pedo-rings of 'pizzagate' to accuse the
elites of filth and vileness. Their cultural life is garbage.
Just look at this: 'mainstream' culture has no problem with it. If anything, it is promoted as the New Norm.
As John Helmer points out, the new digital news business model doesn't provide any funds for investigative journalism.
So who is going to pay for a serious journalist to do the legwork and paperwork and FOIA requests, etc.?
Re "And why are some of the 'most powerful' people in DC such downright perverts and degenerates? "
I thought you were going to say:
What are the most powerful people in DC doing hanging out at this creepy pizza parlor and doing fundraising events there?
We all know where Hillary goes for "real" money: The Saudis, Goldman Sachs, billionaires' glitzy summer compounds in the Hamptons,
places like that-you know, where the money is.
So WTF is she doing in one of these pizza joints? Why would there be any real money there?
With creepy, tawdry "artwork" on the walls?
Something here does not pass the smell test.
I'm intrigued by the Anna Racoon stuff, but I found it completely incoherent. Could you explain what these claims are, and
why they should be taken seriously?
Re Sir Savile and Satanic child sex abuse, at least two victims gave entirely credible and consistent accounts. Here's a mainstream
source:
Agreed. Often one wonders why such outrageous decisions are made in politics that clearly contradict the public good and one
wonders, why? This topic goes a long way to explaining the why. I'm not so sure if the investigating of it is the hard part or
the broad exposure, but it needs to happen.
I am probably more tolerant of 'deviates' than most on here. Queers don't bother me much, though I would recommend that they
be more discreet and stop the promotion of their peccadilloes as normal. When it comes to children, even teenagers, I am very
strict about them not being able to give consent and should be treated with respect, if not revered, by all adults with no exceptions.
There is enough smoke here for a thorough investigation to be demanded and carried out. I hope nothing less ensues.
The fact that it is considered NORMAL for Hillary to invite Lena Dunham to the DNC speaks for itself. The fact that Newsweek
celebrated Obama with a gay 'halo' speaks for itself. The fact that churches hang 'homo flags' speaks for itself.
It is a sick nation.
Yep. I don't have to look any further then this perv Alefantis. This is what you get when sodomy is legal. Of course this craven
bastard makes all kinds of snarky degenerate comments about children on his instagram
Society has been desensitized to homosexuality- so they have moved on to the "prize".
You have hit it out of the park as usual, I enjoy and concur with your assesments.
I believe I saw the instagram account of Alefantis before it came down. The girl pictured in several images seems to be the
child of a family friend. I thought the taped to the table image and the other pic with #chickenlover tag were at a minimum indicators
of a dark humor or innuendo. Who finds this sort of thing funny?
There were more pics of infants and a doll with creepy tags like #hoetard and suggestive comments, again, indicating a level of
casual comfort with making implied references to pedophilia. ..wink wink.
Gross, at a minimum. But evidence of a ring? I don't understand why Alefantis doesn't just acknowledge that there is an "appearance"
of sick humor.
Regarding the use of supposedly known pedo symbols- I'm skeptical. These are shapes and motifs we see everywhere. It could
be that the pedo symbol inventors purposely chose designs that would easily coincide with innocent use so as to hide in plain
sight. Or hmm ?
Podesta is definitely using code in his emails but my read was that he's talking about drugs and partying. Didn't we all use
"pizza" at one time or another as a reference to party favors back in the day?
The Podestas have bad taste in art. Not a crime, just a general indicator of regular degenerately "hip" tastes so as to impress
the cool kids?
And yet no one clears the air. And this is disturbing. I have yet to read one Wapo or nyt article denouncing the "witch hunt"
but acknowledging that, yes, it looks bad. Because it really does.
Incidentally, if they haven't been faked, one of Alefantis' instagram commenters is the maker of child sized coffin coffee
tables. Nice.
"What if criminal deviancy rather than disqualifying a person, is not instead some weird prerequisite for elite status? Don't
have to worry about rock throwers if they're inside the same glass house.Blackmail seems as good an explanation as any for things
like John Roberts sudden change of heart on the constitutionality of the Obama care mandate."
This fits Occam's Razor. I would go so far as to say that pedophilia blackmail appears to have been a method of political control
since the days of the British Empire. Much like gang membership, participation is required for entrance into the inner circles
of political power, then used as blackmail to enforce conformity and secrecy.
Interestingly, there is a recent episode of "The Black Mirror," a Netflix show, that addresses this very psychology.
There is a rather informative article in the WaPo about Pizzagate and its potential (mass-)psychological origins.
It actually indirectly and temporarily "blames" over-zealous feminists with being the originators of the this moral panic. Quite
interesting, but of course the article/author reverts back to Trump-bashing, etc. in the end.
What the Pizzagate conspiracy theory borrows from a bogus satanic sex panic of the 1980s
Second, in both cases, social movements were involved in the weaponization of suspicion, although the political center of
gravity has shifted from one episode to the next. In the late 1970s, social workers and feminist activists had focused on
combating child sexual abuse; they sometimes developed extremely broad definitions of abuse or floated exaggerated estimates
of its occurrence in this quest. Such efforts have left deep cultural residues, and these include the acceptance of exaggerated
claims about the number of child trafficking victims, and the incidence and forms of organized child sexual abuse. Pizzagate
relies on these inflated fears to seem plausible, and it similarly relies on a viewpoint marked by extreme suspicion (of the
media, Washington "elites," politicians and the Clinton camp specifically) to decode ordinary events and statements into extraordinary
claims.
A moral panic is a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society.[1][2]
A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of
moral entrepreneurs and the mass media."[3] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
We know all about "Hysteria", but why did the artist use a decapitated male if not to possibly conflate this in the
viewers mind with the atrocities of Dalmer?
What about the other degenerate art, such as the child bondage spankees posing in the easy- to -clean tiled torture chambers?
Some of us will never accept homosexuality as an "alternative" lifestyle.
The fact that Alefantis is a homo; who by dint of his perverse sexuality- has achieved some level of notoriety prior to pizzagate-
is certainly part of the underlying rancor towards him.
Incredibly generous of you to quote WaPo as a credible source. I would have done the same at one time but that was ages ago.
BB753 asks why haven't the Posdestas sued? I would ask why haven't they at the very least stepped forward to offer a simple
explanation for what most agree is code in the emails?
I would suggest a possibility that blowing the lid off on this exposes exactly how certain "lobby" groups maintain control
of the wheelhouse of the US ship of state, and have consistently steered it into troubled waters against the national interest.
Wiz, a simple typo that my computer ran with (very observant of you).
Pizzagate is not "fake news" at all. It needs to be investigated.
The MSM says it does not disseminate "fake news". However, the MSM will often simply not cover events that ARE real news.
Thus, the MSM is disseminating the opposite of "fake news", namely NO NEWS. The MSM keeps people in the dark because there
things that it does not want people to know about. For example, the MSM will often not cover stories about how the LGBTQ movement
is brainwashing kids in even the lowest grade in public elementary schools. That's because the MSM does not want people to become
upset at the penetration (no pun intended) of the LGBTQ agenda.
In reality, there is relatively little "fake news" out there. Most alternative websites that people visit, such as Unz, simply
provide a different perspective on issues that the MSM won't cover at all, or cover in a cursory manner.
Classic disinfo technique, to seed the truth with a few lies that are provably false so that then the whole thing can be claimed
to be false and written off.
I don't know about the Podestas but as others here have rightly stated, there's enough smoke for a thorough, open investigation.
Coincidently, the anti-Russian rhetoric has escalated to an even more absurd degree alongside the Pizzagate news. I wonder
if the result will be even less people believing the blatant lies of mass media or if people will just demonstrate that there
are no limits to gullibility.
I saw a headline on CNN.com claiming Russia was attempting to smear people by 'planting' child pornography on their computers.
I didn't bother reading it, as CNN is a Gawker level news source these days, but it seems like they may attempt to blame this
stuff on Russia – along with everything else.
Here's another sex scandal (and a certifiably real one) involving a prominent Canadian who turned out to be a pedaphile. There's
a lot in this story that's revealing and fascinating.
Such a disturbing story. But instructive. In particular the information, or perhaps it is a speculation, that the pedophiliac
sexual drive develops early on. This drive must be incredibly strong-stronger than what would be considered normal sexual desire?
I don't know. But I have read that it is so strong that pedophiles make major life choices in terms of finding a way to get access
to children to use sexually. Such as marrying: so they can father their own children and have them handy for abuse. Or entering
a profession, such as the priesthood, or pediatrics, or education, etc. so that they have access to children. Or becoming sports
coaches, where they spend a lot of time in locker rooms and also have blandishments to offer young boys such as sports career
advances. Etc.
I think this point-the power of the drive-should be taken into account when people such as some commenters on this thread say:
"These people [such as Podesta} are too intelligent to risk their careers blah blah." If the pedophilia drive is as strong as,
say, a heroin addiction, then the addiction is in the driver's seat, not "intelligence." The more you feed an addiction, the stronger
it gets, and the more stimulation it takes to get the charge.
As for the sprinkling of a few lies in with a story that is targeted for debunking: In a normal police investigation the police
solicit leads from the public. (It is true that in this case there is not an obvious victim, so that must also be taken into account;
but this was also the situation with the Ben Levin [Toronto] case; nevertheless what he did was criminal and dangerous.) They
examine the leads and follow them up. This is detectives' job.
Often an obscure lead does lead to further useful information needed to build a hypothesis of the motive-means-opportunity
for the crime and widen the scope of an investigation. Every American with a TV set has seen hundred of such police procedurals
showing how crimes have been solved, often cold cases. Bona fide detectives who get leads from the public don't immediately start
to smear the source of leads as looney-tunes. In this case the public, in the face of apparent inaction by law enforcement to
follow up on this case, is responding by posting ideas and hypotheses and possible leads.
An honest law enforcement agency would be conducting an aggressive investigation and checking out any useful info and ideas
that members of the public come up with, whether online or off. Honest news outlets should either be calling for a thorough investigation,
or staying mum if they have been informed that an investigation is ongoing. The fact that the MSM, absent any sign of an investigation,
are blaring out the "nothing here; move on; blogger are rabid fools" message is in itself suspicious and suggests that someone
is being protected. The MSM have put out just enough info to warn the possible wrongdoers to get their act together, change their
signage, and run for cover.
The fact that the MSM, absent any sign of an investigation, are blaring out the "nothing here; move on; blogger are rabid
fools" message is in itself suspicious and suggests that someone is being protected. The MSM have put out just enough info
to warn the possible wrongdoers to get their act together, change their signage, and run for cover.
My feeling exactly. Too much volume, no doubts, too orchestrated and nothing being investigated, in fact just like WMD, and
9/11.
I believe that Pizzagate is a Trojan Horse being pushed into Alt-Right internet circles by Hillary/Soros' former CTR trolls
in order to help the Democrats and the MSM continue to flog the "fake news" narrative. The idea behind it is to enable them to
say, "Look, you see what kind of crazy conspiracies those Alt-Righters consume and repeat amongst themselves? This is the kind
of fake news believing nutjobs we're up against." If you think back upon the history of the meme (I hate that word, but I have
no other to use in its place), you'll find that its original and most vocal proponents were exhibiting clear trolling behavior.
Given their flaky commenting histories, their pretended expertise on this then-obscure topic, their ostentatious expressions of
optimism that this breaking news would ensure a Trump victory (itself a rather obsequious and scarcely believable attempt to paint
themselves as one of our number), and their single-minded determination to talk about (and to get us talking about) nothing else,
one can only suspect the presence of some sort of agenda behind their sudden exuberance over Pizzagate.
I believe we are up against a new and rather sophisticated sort of Concern Troll here-a veritable Stuxnet of concern trolling.
A perfect example here at the Unz Review is the poster "anonguy". Look at his commenting history. Look at the sudden acceleration
of his offerings as Election Day neared. And then look at his militant megaphoning of the Pizzagate narrative all over Sailer's
blog in the days immediately preceding the election. Furthermore, pay attention to his unusual style, i.e. how he structures
his comments as detached musings about the goings-on in the "infosphere" (his word), how he jejunely assures us the "the narrative
is forming" (yes, he actually said that, and at a time when there was no narrative to speak of), and his links to literally
fake news sites (the Denver Guardian? Give me a break). Now tell me that this is the behavior of someone who actually has
the health of the body politic as his primary objective.
Now, after having sifted all that, do try to remember that the larger general public really doesn't know or care anything at
all about Pizzagate, and that the leaked Podesta emails (all 37,000 of them, or whatever the final tally was) influenced the vote
of precisely no one who did not have the time or inclination to read through them all, which is practically every one of us. Remember
that the only people talking about this in the first place are the Alt-Right bloggers and their followers, the very venues of
"fake news" whom the Left is attempting to discredit and sully. Remember that the Clintons and Soros specialize in public deception
and that they employ all sorts of people for that very purpose. Now consider who is rendered vulnerable by all of this. It isn't
going to be the Clintons or Podesta. If Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted for trafficking in state secrets from her private server-a
crime for which she should have been executed- then Podesta is not going to be investigated for this. But you all, on the other
hand, have been tainted with it. You have been successfully associated in the public mind with a "conspiracy theory," with the
"fake news."
My conclusion: Pizzagate is a "thought worm" designed to infect, distract, and destroy the Alt-Right, and most of you have
been infected with it. This is not to say that there is no pedophilia going on in Podesta's circle. There may be or there may
not be, I really don't know. The point is that there isn't anything you can do about it. The accusations will be turned
against the accusers instead-classic Clinton behavior. It would be better not to take the bait anymore. Recent history has demonstrated
over and over again that the public is not going to rise up with one voice and clamor for the punishment even of credibly accused
child molesters unless there is something more to be gained from doing so, and in this case there clearly isn't. What this says
about the spiritual state of the modern West or the psychology of fallen mankind are subjects I will leave for another discussion.
For now it is simply a fact of life with which we have to account. The only way to beat these people is the Chicago Way: hit them
harder than they hit you. We dealt them a stunning blow by electing Donald Trump, but now we are in danger of losing our advantage
by immersing ourselves in a mire of toothless recriminations, and this is exactly what they want. Let's not fall for this again;
let us rather rekindle the spirit that got us this far, and take these vile people down once and for all.
The Washington Post found the funds to assign 27 investigative reporters for over a year to dig dirt on Trump, and bragged
about it. Judging by what they came up with, it wasn't too fruitful.
First you say the entire pizzagate meme is fake and it's fakery will undo the alt-right. Then you say that you can't do anything
about pedophilia anyway, pizzagate or otherwise.
Which is it? Is the story fake and thereby discrediting to those who support it, or is it real but pointless to cover because
you can't do anything about it?
Then you suggest we do this "the Chicago way" which is hitting harder than them whatever that means. If you are not going to
open investigations against these people, then what does "hitting harder" entail?
There is no way that Soros or anyone else is going to construct an elaborate criminal conspiracy out of whole cloth and tag
one of his own loyal operatives.
I agree.
Intelligent's comment looks to me like an elaborate misdirection.
All such blah blah gets no one any closer to an answer as to what is behind the coded language in the Wikileaks emails.
It is a classic example of throwing up a convolution of dust to obscure the smoking emails.
Stick to the evidence.
Ignore irrelevant baroque musings.
You make some good points but have missed the real issue entirely. Whilst I and many others here DO care about pedos and want
them locked away from society, what makes this matter much more important is that it involves many top level power brokers in
politics.
Pedophilia is more of a compulsion rather than addiction, why matters less than the fact that recidivism is the norm and society
deserves protection both from the crime itself and from the crimes of blackmail that can result from knowledge of it..
Blackmail is a very powerful tool in the work of pure evil and is the reason why even Marines and Embassy guards have restrictions
on who they may or may not consort with whilst on active foreign postings. I would estimate that there is no greater threat of
exposure than one of sexually exploiting children. Even hardened criminals have contempt for such perverts who are usually granted
special protection when incarcerated.
I would venture the suggestion that people with a compulsion towards sexual contact with children are identified early in their
careers and consequently put forward for rapid progress within government institutions by those working behind the scene to exercise
control over others with decision making capacity in the highest levels of government.
This is not a matter to be swept away if the swamp is to be drained, rather, this may well be where the "plughole" to the swamp
itself is to be uncovered. It will require a special investigation team but not one like the Warren Commission or 9/11 "Investigation",
a real investigation. Americans should settle for nothing less and it is incumbent of them to demand it.
This is not a matter to be swept away if the swamp is to be drained, rather, this may well be where the "plughole" to the
swamp itself is to be uncovered.
I'm willing to believe something pretty sordid is required to keep the bung hole as tightly plugged as it is and I can't imagine
anything else creating a more tightly woven, impenetrable web of mutual blackmail. Imagine what they have on each other, and imagine
what foreign intelligence services could do with same if they got hold of it. Come to think of it, maybe they have
America must get to the bung, dislodge it and deal with the stench that will cover the country for a generation. Until then,
America can't hope to be great again.
This makes a lot of sense.
That string pullers are on the lookout for rising political stars who can be compromised along the way.
Hmmmmm . . .
Seems like a lot of political families have dynastic aspirations. That would mean that such offspring might be natural targets
for monitoring for any "quirks."
Craig Spence's call boy business in Washington clearly involved high civilian and military officials. And Spence was able to
take friends on midnight tours of the White House.
Spence's house was provided by the Japanese ruling party. The house they provided him had at least one bedroom wired for audio
and video. I'm sure the Japanese didn't know that.
The Washington Times covered it for two or three weeks and it was never mentioned again.
Kids from Boys Town in Nebraska were allegedly used.
Unpack that and hope your hair doesn't turn white.
"Nobody is suggesting a rush to judgement here but clearly a prompt and thorough investigation is called for especially given
the supporting evidence, as other commenters have pointed out."
Really.
If the putative "circumstantial evidence" that Russia-no! Putin himself!!-interfered in the American election suffices to launch
the CIA on a nutty investigation whose purpose is, obviously, to "prove" that this is the case to the satisfaction of enough electors
for them to become "faithless," then I think the Pizzagate emails plus "circumstantial" Pizzagate evidence are by comparison much
more compelling and really scream for an investigation. In the Pizzagate case the investigating agency would presumably be the
FBI. Which *might* be grounds to expect a genuine investigation.
No reasonable person would think that the emails really are about Podesta's playing dominos and having cheese for dinner. quite
apart from the fact that cheese is usually mixed in with pasta!! Come on. I bet Podesta doesn't know how to play the game of dominos.
What are these people really emailing about?
For U.S. readers to gauge whether something like this COULD be happening in an advanced country, look to other countries where
such incidents ARE known to have happened.
In Belgium, the Marc DUTROUX scandal led to political consequences and appears to be ongoing.
In the UK, the claims against Ted Heath and Cyril Smith (see picture of both in article linked below) are broadly seen as having
at least some factual basis, and were reported in a number of newspapers including the Independent, the Guardian and the Daily
Mail (see link below). Other names were rumored about.
There were also years of investigations and cover-ups involving various orphanages such as KINCORA (in Northern Ireland) and
HAUTE GARENNE (on the Isle of Jersey). Both were conveniently located in somewhat remote locations outside the direct reach of
English law.
There were also extensive rumors regarding several locations in London. Investigations were accompanied by the usual fortuitous
deaths of potential witnesses, mysterious disappearance of documents, etc.
To reiterate a point that should be clear to the more astute reader, my goal in this series (part 1, part 2) has not been
to defend "Pizzagate" as such. My goal has been to defend the people who want to investigate it against specific accusations
levied against them by people who think Pizzagate has revealed no intriguing information at all-for a specific reason, which
I will be honing in and focusing on much more directly in this closing entry.
Whereas the mainstream critics of Pizzagate would have you believe that the world is divided between paranoid conspiracy
theorist followers of "fake news" and level-headed people who follow trustworthy news sources and rely on cold, hard reason
to determine the truth, my goal has been to show that-whatever is or is not happening with Pizzagate itself-this framing of
the issue is arrogant, insulting, and the product of extremely narrow tunnel vision. [...]
And if the media is telling you only about the most bizarre, reaching accusations without telling you any of the more
interesting points that have been uncovered (which it is), it is not doing its proper job."
If in fact making all the "elite" blackmailable is the object of the exercise and at the same time being blackmailable is the
requisite entry ticket to the elite, then not all the people taking part in all this sinister deviancy need be actual pedophiles!
Some of them could be "merely" psychopaths furthering their careers. (Not that that makes them any better.)
If this story is what it appears to be – the tip of a very nasty and very large iceberg, then it could be the mechanism by
which the "Deep State" keeps its control of the US government. That would make getting an investigation by official investigators
going, very difficlt indeed.
If in fact making all the "elite" blackmailable is the object of the exercise and at the same time being blackmailable is
the requisite entry ticket to the elite, then not all the people taking part in all this sinister deviancy need be actual pedophiles!
Some of them could be "merely" psychopaths furthering their careers.
Well, I don't really have anything to contribute to the "Pizzagate" discussion myself, except to say that some of the supposed
evidence plus the behavior of the media makes me very, *very* suspicious.
However, here's a somewhat related paragraph from one of the articles I published a year or two ago:
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets
who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep
within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence.
I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly
commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful
people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
This is ALL about the child trafficing that the Clinton-Bush Foundation was doing in Haiti. It is the weakpoint in a global
child trafficing network and it is why the Clinton-Bush Foundation has taken down their website and are attempting to cover up
any traces of it as we speak. Trump knows.
Anyone who believes that it is ludicrous to think that pizzerias could be used for such nefarious operations, I 'd like to
point out to you the case of "The French Connection" which later became known as "The Pizza Connection" in which a huge global
network of pizzerias were being used to distribute drugs in the 1980′s.
Anyone who believes that the pedophile code is purely circumstantial needs to take a look at the Katy Perry video "This Is
How We Do" which appears to be an homage to Comet Pizza. It is absolutely rife with the code words from the Podesta emails revealed
by Pizzagate. They prance around with convicted sex offender, who plea bargained out of a child porn charge, Pee-Wee Herman(
http://people.com/celebrity/pee-wee-actor-settles-kiddie-porn-case/
) singing about "this is how they do" and "it's no big deal".
Here is a video "Kids" by the group MGMT. The quote at the beginning of the video is from the quintessential Satanist Nietzsche("Free
spirits", by contrast to the philosophers of the past, are "investigators to the point of cruelty, with rash fingers for the ungraspable,
with teeth and stomach for the most indigestible"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil ). The video shows them bragging about how prevalent they are through our
community. The "do as thou wilt" bastards are laughing at us about how they control positions of authority like policemen(3:36
of video) and how childrens TV programs are filled with their garbage of wolves in sheeps clothing(4:24 of video). And of course
the Pizza and Hot Dog symbology throughout the end which culminates with them eating the child. This trash has 77 million views
on Youtube.
Here is the video "Criminal" by Fiona Apple. It is all about placing the blame on the victim, by saying that the victim enticed
the pedo scum, instead of the perpetrator. This homage to Child Porn makes great pains to highlight Pizza(:21 and :38 of the video)
and tiled kill rooms with easy clean-up(:45 of the video and blood stains on carpet at :48 and :54).
The lyrics from "In Bloom":
Sell the kids for food. Weather changes moods. Spring is here again. Reproductive Glands. We can have some more. Nature is
a whore. Bruises on the fruit. Tender age in bloom . But he don't know what it means when I say "Yummmmmm"
It should be noted that there are two versions of this song. The original one has the Yummmmm heard at the end at 4:15 in this
version.
Some potential victims of James Alefantis have been identified and one gave an anonymous testimony.
What James Alefantis allegedly did here is not illegal, but speaks volumes about his character, in my opinion, if the story
indeed is true:
[...]
It turns out that Carole's son, who is +/-18 at this time, is also working at the restaurant. I think his name is Dylan/Dillon.
He grew up without a father and turned to James Alefantis often for advice.
One night Carole walked into the comet pizza kitchen, and saw James Alefantis fucking her son in the kitchen. She was furious
because she immediately knew how completely James had taken advantage of her son. She quit immediately and denounced James
viciously in private, unwilling to do so publicly for professional reasons.
The story checks out, so far: Carole Greenwood is a single mom and has a son named Dylan, who was 13 years old/young in
2003. [...] [–] daj 16 points (+16|-0) 11 hours ago (edited 10 hours ago)
Disclaimer : I have absolutely no idea if this person is authentic, but since many Pizzagate critics argue
that the scandal has not a leg to stand on, because no victims have come forward so far, I believe this testimony is important
to share.
[...]
This is how he answered one of the questions on a voat comment thread. He seems to know/be aware of Dylan Greenwood
[...]
Here is one of the email exchanges between he and James Alefantis, that he did not delete:
http://archive.is/8423t
[...]
After a little while when it was nearing the final exams, I was stressed out, exhausted and let my guard down and went out
for some drinks with James a few times after work to get stuff off my chest. James would drug me up and then take advantage
of me. When I threatened to go to the police he implied that he would harm me physically and said he would sue me. He had so
many friends around DC that I believed him, I really was afraid, and just kept it all bottled up. I ended up getting PTSD,
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, from what were effectively rapes, and later I began to realize that I likely had Stockholm
Syndrome. I eventually quit the job, but James would send me lewd photos and texts for another 2 or three years at the rate
of once about every 2 to 3 months, I think 6 months was the longest in that period. I had to kick him out of the place I worked
when he came in every other month or so for about a year. Let this be a lesson: do not trust sociopaths and pathological liars.
Note: I have personally verified this person's identity and backstory. I obviously cannot verify his accusations. He
wishes to remain anonymous.
By now, most people are at least vaguely familiar with the so-called "fake news" story known as Pizzagate. For those that
aren't, the brief version is that self described "internet investigators" caught wind of some strange wording in the John Podesta
emails released by Wikileaks, and went down the largest internet rabbit hole in recent history.
The story was quickly written off as mass hysteria, a conspiracy theory, and fake news by nearly all of mainstream media,
and censored from the internet forum site Reddit. The theory, which has a plethora of circumstantial evidence, lacked one key
factor: a victim. [...] The anonymous nature of internet forums leads to skeptics demanding proof of any seemingly outrageous
claim. The publication of these emails adds credibility to his story.
"... A judge threw out Guiffre's motion in 2015, but Guiffre stands by her claims and is suing Ghislaine Maxwell, whom she claims acted as Epstein's madam. ..."
"... Buckingham Palace has also denied the allegations against Prince Andrew, calling them "categorically untrue. ..."
"... Requests for comment to Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Clinton Foundation were not returned. The former president, who flew on the "The Lolita Express" at least 26 times from 2001 to 2003, has never addressed his ties with Epstein, a onetime major Democratic donor, according to Federal Election Commission records, who also gave millions to the Clinton Foundation even after his arrest for abusing underage girls. ..."
Trump's supporters have long wondered whether he'd use billionaire sicko Jeffrey Epstein as ammo against the Clintons-until a
lurid new lawsuit accused The Donald of raping one of Epstein's girls himself. Editor's note: This article has been updated to
reflect the withdrawal of Virginia Roberts Guiffre's allegations against Alan Dershowitz and the striking of the allegations from
the court record by a federal judge. For Jeffrey Epstein and his famous friends, the Aughts were a simpler time, when the businessmen,
academics, and celebrities who counted themselves among the playboy philanthropist's inner circle could freely enjoy the fruits of
his extreme wealth and connections. Epstein's
little black book
and flight
logs read like a virtual Who's Who: Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Larry Summers, Kevin Spacey,
Prince Andrew , and Naomi Campbell all hitched rides on Epstein's private planes. Socialites and distinguished scientists went
to visit Epstein's island in St. Thomas, and cavorted at
epic dinner parties at his palatial townhouse-then
the largest privately owned residence in New York, as
he liked to brag .
There, they picked at elaborate meals catered by celebrity chefs like Rocco DiSpirito, marvelled at Epstein's opulent decor, and
noted the pack of very, very young model-types with whom Epstein always seemed to surround himself. But a darker story was going
on underneath the glamour. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting
sex from an underage girl and quietly paid settlements to scores of alleged victims who said he serially molested them.
But the girls kept coming out of the woodwork-in 2014, another young woman filed a lawsuit claiming that Epstein used her as a sex
slave for his powerful friends-and that she'd been at parties on his private island with former President Clinton. And just last
week, yet another "Jane Doe" filed a suit in New York accusing Epstein and Donald Trump of raping her at a series of sex parties
when she was only 13.
... ... ...
By the time Epstein was arrested in 2008, police in Palm Beach County, Florida, had already
spent months monitoring his movements, rifling through his trash, and interviewing potential victims and witnesses. Police
reported to prosecutors that they had gathered
enough evidence to charge the money manager with several felonies: lewd and lascivious molestation and four counts of unlawful sexual
activity with a minor. Epstein's freedom, his wealth, his little black book full of famous folk-including princes, presidents, and
prime ministers-all were seemingly at stake.
So Epstein did what the mega-rich do in these situations: hired star attorneys Gerald Lefcourt and Alan Dershowitz, who defended
their client vigorously, reportedly having witnesses followed and discrediting the alleged victims by offering their MySpace pages
as evidence of supposed drug use and scandalous behavior.
Prosecutors said Epstein's dream team made successful prosecution unlikely. "Our judgment in this case, based on the evidence
known at the time, was that it was better to have a billionaire serve time in jail, register as a sex offender, and pay his victims
restitution than risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of success," U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta explained in a 2011 letter.
And so, despite a decade of alleged serial sexual abuse and rape of an unknowable number of girls, some as many as 100 times according
to court filings, the notoriously secretive financier was offered a deal. For the alleged systematic victimization of young girls-most
of whom were plucked by Epstein's assistants from Palm Beach's poorer neighborhoods and groomed to adore or acquiesce to him-he was
slapped with a 2008 conviction on a single charge of soliciting a minor; and sentenced to an 18-month stay in a Palm Beach county
jail-of which he served only 13 months and was allowed to leave six days out of every week for "work release." He also agreed to
a few dozen confidential, out-of-court payoffs to his accusers, the most recent of which was finalized in 2011.
Epstein's "potential co-conspirators," as the U.S. Attorney called them-women who allegedly procured girls for Epstein-also received
immunity from prosecution as a condition of the 2007 agreement that enraged the local police force for its leniency. As of 2015,
according to The Guardian, two of these women had changed their names, and were operating businesses out of a building owned by Epstein's
brother, where it was alleged in court documents that Epstein had housed young women.
Though Epstein must register as a sex offender for life, and arguably suffer the world's most revolting Google presence, he has
seemingly retained his collection of elite academic and media friends as well as his fortune. Since his release in 2009, Epstein
has gone about his business, running a mysterious money management firm (clients unknown, income unknown, investments and activities
unknown) from his private 70-acre island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and spending time at his Uptown stone mansion. The palace was
gifted to Epstein, some say, by its previous owner-Epstein's guardian angel and the founder of The Limited Inc., Leslie Wexner.
... ... ...
In December 2014, just as the Palm Beach lawsuits were winding down, another alleged victim emerged and her claims were salacious:
Epstein, she said, had loaned her out as an underage sex slave to his famous friends -- including Britain's Prince Andrew and Epstein
defense attorney Dershowitz (both men denied the charges). Coming forward in Britain's
Daily Mail in 2011, Virginia Roberts Guiffre-called Jane Doe #3 in a related lawsuit (
PDF )-claimed that
Epstein and his "girlfriend,"
alleged
madame Ghislaine Maxwell, forced her to have sex with the pair's powerful pals and gather intel that Epstein could later
use. In court documents,
Guiffre testified, "Epstein and Maxwell also told me that they wanted me to produce things for them in addition to performing
sex on the men. They told me to pay attention to the details about what the men wanted so I could report back to them."
Guiffre noted that
Epstein appeared to be collecting information on Prince Andrew-particularly on his alleged foot fetish-and claimed, "Epstein also
trafficked me for sexual purposes to other powerful men, including politicians and powerful business executives. Epstein required
me to describe the sexual events I had with these men presumably so that he could potentially blackmail them. I am still very fearful
of these men today." A judge threw out Guiffre's motion in 2015, but Guiffre stands by her claims and is suing Ghislaine Maxwell,
whom she claims acted as Epstein's madam. Meanwhile, the men named by Guiffre seem eager for her to go away. "It's as if I've
been waterboarded for 15 months," Dershowitz told the
Boston Globe after the settlement of a defamation case related to Guiffre's claims. "This has taken a terrible
toll on my family, on my friends " Buckingham Palace has also
denied the allegations against Prince Andrew, calling them "categorically untrue."
UPDATE: This April, Giuffre's lawyers withdrew her allegations against Dershowitz and said that it was a "mistake" to have
filed the accusations in the first place. A federal judge later struck her allegations against Dershowitz from the court record.
At Dershowitz's request, Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, also conducted an independent investigation of her claims and published
a statement noting, "Our investigation found no evidence to support the accusations of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz."
In her lawsuit, Guiffre had claimed that during trips to Epstein's private island, she'd also encountered another very famous
person: former President Bill Clinton. Guiffre
alleges the former
U.S. president visited Epstein's "Orgy Island" when there were underage girls present, but added that she never had sex with him
and never saw him have sex with any of the young women. Still, it's these sorts of allegations that have journalists and Clinton-haters
circling. Just last month, pundits on MSNBC's
Morning Joe were speculating about Bill Clinton's oft-discussed friendship with Epstein and whether it would
be the go-to play for a Trump campaign looking to combat Hillary Clinton's claims that Trump is
bad for women .
Requests for comment to Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Clinton Foundation were not returned. The former president, who
flew on the
"The Lolita Express" at least 26 times from 2001 to 2003, has never addressed his ties with Epstein, a onetime major Democratic donor, according
to Federal Election Commission records, who also
gave
millions to the Clinton Foundation even after his arrest for abusing underage girls.
"I invest in people-be it politics or science. It's what I do," Epstein has
reportedly said to friends. "There's a 100 percent
chance [Trump] is going there," said former McCain strategist Steve Schmidt on Morning Joe , referring to Clinton's friendship
with the pervy moneyman.
It's really interesting that I was listening to a Boston sports radio station as the thing
with Kraft and prostitution was unfolding and ESPN's reporter Adam Schefter was on and he
denied his initial reporting about the 200 other guys and "bigger fish".
It looks like an effort is going on to stamp out news of what these other "bigger fish"
were up to.
edit to expound on that. Adam Schefter got caught, and remains in, a fake news warp. Right
before he came on the WEEI radio show they had a TMZ guy come on and he said the names they
showed were the only ones.
Schefter said what he said and the radio guys were talking about it and asked him about
the 200 names and the bigger fish and he denied saying it. So what happened as far as I can
tell is TMZ got the memo from fake news hqtrs to *** it and Schefter/ESPN did not.
People are
saying who cares about old guys paying for blow jobs - but according to the popo spokesman -
this multi-agency investigation is not about prostitution but about human trafficking which
moves the needle from raunchy to sinister.
"... Trump didn't drain the swamp, he pour fertilizer in it. ..."
"... The shekel counting big snout alligators? They're particularly nasty. ..."
"... Acosta = Epstein Pedogate Prosecutor "When I first heard the name Alexander Acosta, Trump's new pick for Labor Secretary, I knew it sounded eerily familiar. And then it dawned on me. He was the U.S. Attorney in charge of the Southern District of Florida from 2006 through 2009, and oversaw a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein." ..."
"... Trump - Epstein civil suit COMPLAINT FOR RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND DEFAMATION ..."
"... Over 200 children. 12,13,14 years old. Broken homes. Different countries. "Punishment" = Empty wing of a comfy 'prison' with liberal leave privledges for him to work from his office, where he could receive guests including females. That's not prison Tyler's, it's ******* daycare - which is the kind of place he's attracted to. Stop calling it / quoting it as a "prison sentence". ..."
So Trump appoints the prosecutor who slapped Epstein on the wrist for a cabinet position. This is so obvious as Trump was part
of the Lolita Express as was lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz who has suddenly flipped to Trump's most ardent supporter as well
as the usual group of pervs like Clinton and Spacey (who cares I guess).
Trump didn't drain the swamp, he pour fertilizer in it.
Acosta = Epstein Pedogate Prosecutor
"When I first heard the name Alexander Acosta, Trump's new pick for Labor Secretary, I knew it sounded eerily familiar. And
then it dawned on me. He was the U.S. Attorney in charge of the Southern District of Florida from 2006 through 2009, and oversaw
a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein."
Trump - Epstein civil suit COMPLAINT FOR RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL
AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND DEFAMATION
Over 200 children. 12,13,14 years old. Broken homes. Different countries. "Punishment" = Empty wing of a comfy 'prison' with
liberal leave privledges for him to work from his office, where he could receive guests including females. That's not prison Tyler's,
it's ******* daycare - which is the kind of place he's attracted to. Stop calling it / quoting it as a "prison sentence".
Must be some really compromising video footage with some very powerful people on it to get that kind of deal. Day of the rope
for that **** and all who let him walk. No exceptions.
I had to search this up to believe what you said. Holy ****... the rabbit hole is deeper than most realize:
" Instead of being sent to state prison, Epstein was housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. And rather
than having him sit in a cell most of the day, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office allowed Epstein work release privileges,
which enabled him to leave the jail six days a week, for 12 hours a day, to go to a comfortable office that Epstein had set up
in West Palm Beach. This was granted despite explicit sheriff's department rules stating that sex offenders don't qualify for
work release ."
Note how they spent hours to placate and kowtow to the pedophile while dumping on the victims. That is because the government
is loaded with dog **** like the half monkey Epstein and his fellow tribe members. The only justice left to Americans will come
from the streets. I am completely against torture and war, yet this piece of scum should be waterboarded for names. They need
to clear out those members of government who have been compromised by the activities of the tribe.
The websites contain not only virus, malware, spyware whatever. .. (depends on your PC protection)
It is a ripoff . You never get paid a cent. But if one is gullible and naive enough to give away to shady strangers personal
data as address, birth date, social security number, credit card number, bank account etc., they empty your account , and they
do Identity theft.
p.e. They ask for an initial payment for training, or they sell you a starter kit etc., so they get your data. Or they promise
you to pay salary in advance, before they ever saw you. Sometimes they have "real" job interviews with a "recruiter" by Skype
or Smartphones facial, no skills required, with faked websites of real companies, faked or personal email addresses.
Every last pedophile is dead meat just like Judaica is dead meat which promoted it. No, you cannot touch a kid any longer,
ignorant arrogant sick followers of the Talmud and Kabbalah, for the Talmud and Kabbalah will be burned out of every last Synagogue
on the planet just as the entire religion will be burned down to the ground. Including many dumb parts of the Bible. Take for
example that sick *** stupid mother ******* event where some guy holds a knife up to his son because God told him to. You ignorant
arrogant assholes. God never said any such thing, and God sure as hell never said you were chosen! Well, I take that back. You
see, God told me that you are actually especially chosen for the *** kicking of a millenia.
This is the manner that the scum in the so called "Justice Department" works to protect pedophiles. If it wasn't for an intense
amount of corruption, Epstein would have been prosecuted by the full extent of the law. Instead, sneaky deals by the scum bags
that "prosecuted" this fraud of a case ended up with a plea agreement which "punished" this slimy creep with a measly 13 month
sentence.
To add insult to injury to the victims, the civil case is dragged on for 11 years.
This is the same type of "justice" that is in place that has protected the Catholic clergy pedophiles, which for the most part,
never saw the inside of a court room for their unspeakable crimes.
Why are pedophiles seemingly protected in this society? Is it because pedophilia is rampant among so many that are in powerful
positions? I think we all know the answer to that one.
And then there are all Epstein's friends, who enjoyed themselves with little girls on that benighted island: hearsay includes
both the Clintons among them, and the Queen of England's second son, prince someone or the other. I assume that what they did
on that island was felonious. Need to go after them.
And then there's ACOSTA - our current Federal Secretary of Labor. TRUMP NEEDS TO FIRE HIM, perhaps to prosecute him.
Shhhh, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Orange Jesus is their messiah. He can do no wrong. He was misquoted
when he said he'd bang his daughter, ignore those creepy photos too.
Facts? Oh you mean like the Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislane Maxwell connection? Yeah. Wait, they obviously never met
right? "He's a lot of fun to be with," "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on
the younger side."
This ****** is toast. If you don't get that, you're just not ready for what's happening, and it's OK. The adults have stepped
in, and are cleaning house. The streets will be paved with the carcases of these pedophiles, satanists, and assorted scumbags.
Some will be from the dregs of society, others from the highest echelons, but none will escape.
[So it has been spoken, so it shall be done... (Yul Brenner as Pharoah - from The Ten Commandments)]
I figure God helps those that help themselves,there is an afterlife though,the trick is being in this world but not of it.I
have a roof over my head,a full belly,an income and good family and friends hell thats better than 70 per cent on this planet
so I tend not to be much of a God botherer.
I must apologize, it seems his pimpette (?) named Ghislaine was there, representing Prince Andrew, who also seems to like them
young, ... not sure if thats why Fergie left him... its complicated...
As far as the Clinton Foundation paying for the 3 million dollar wedding, well that's murky too
Far more important in the here and now is Bernie Sanders refused to go with the Dims and back fat Mike's 'Guido' in Venezuela.
The head of the Clinton Foundation , a Congresswoman from Florida and ex Bill Clinton Secretary of something, loudly condemned
Bernie and said he will NEVER be the Dems candidate for President.
"... Yeah. Sociopath. Gives me the shivers. Bill is the same, but conceals it better. I mean, WTF, the guy had state troopers bringing him any pussy he spotted on his lunch break. ..."
Yeah. Sociopath. Gives me the shivers. Bill is the same, but conceals it better. I mean,
WTF, the guy had state troopers bringing him any pussy he spotted on his lunch break.
Jesus,
the rejects this country brings to the White House it's a wonder there's anything left of
this country at all.
This is probably the most vicious attack on Trump trangressions that i encountered so far...
Notable quotes:
"... The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign finance laws. ..."
"... The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare state institutions than he would otherwise have done. ..."
There is no doubt about it: Stormy Daniels is a formidable woman. Karen McDougal is no slouch either, though she is hard to admire
after that riff, in her Anderson Cooper interview, about how religious and Republican she is; she even said that she used to love
the Donald. Stormy Daniels is better than that.
How wonderfully appropriate it would be if she were to become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.
Even in a world as topsy-turvy as ours has become, there has to be a final straw.
To be sure, evidence of Trump's vileness, incompetence, and mental instability is accumulating at breakneck speed, and there are
polls now that show support for him holding fast or even slightly rising. Trump's hardcore "base" seems more determined than ever
to stand by their man.
But even people as benighted as they are bound to realize eventually that they have been had. Many of them already do, but don't
care; they hate Clinton Democrats that much. This is understandable, but foolish; so foolish, in fact, that they can hardly keep
it up indefinitely.
To think otherwise is to despair for the human race.
What, if anything, can bring them to their senses in time for the 2018 election?
Stormy Daniels says she only wants to tell her story, not bring Trump down. But her political instincts seem decent, and she is
one shrewd lady. Therefore, I would not be the least surprised if that is not quite true. It hardly matters, though, what her intentions
are; I'd put my money on her.
A recession might also do the trick. A recession is long overdue, and Trump's tax cut for the rich and his tariffs are sure to
make its consequences worse when it happens.
To turn significant portions of Trump's base against him, a major military conflagration might also do -- not the kind Barack
Obama favored, fought far away and out of public view, but a real war, televised on CNN, and waged against an enemy state like North
Korea or Iran. It would have to go quickly and disastrously wrong, though, in ways that even willfully blind, terminally obtuse Trump
supporters could not fail to see.
Or the gods could smile upon us, causing Trump's exercise regimen (sitting in golf carts) and his fat-ridden, cholesterol rich
diet to catch up with him, as it would with most other sedentary septuagenarians. The only downside would be that a heart attack
or stroke might elicit sympathy for the poor bastard. No sane person could or should hope for a calamitous economic downturn or for
yet another devastating, pointless, and manifestly unjust war, especially one that could become a war to end all wars (along with
everything else), on the off-chance that some good might come of it. And if the best we can do is hope that cheeseburgers with fries
will save us, we are grasping at straws.
These are compelling reasons to hope that the accusations made by Daniels and McDougal and Summer Zervos – and other consensual
and non-consensual Trump victims and "playmates" – gain traction. If the several defamation lawsuits now in the works can get the
president deposed, this is not out of the question.
The problem for Trump is not that his accusers' revelations will cause his base to defect; no matter how salacious their stories
and no matter how believable they may be. Trump's moral turpitude is taken for granted in their circles; and they do not care about
the myriad ways his words and deeds offend the dignity of the office he holds or embarrass the country he purports to put "first."
If any of that mattered to them, they would have jumped ship long ago.
Except perhaps for unreconstructed racists and certifiable sociopaths, white evangelicals are Trump's strongest supporters. What
a despicable bunch of hypocrites they are! As long as Trump delivers on their agendas, his salacious escapades don't faze them at
all. Godly folk have evidently changed a good deal since the Cotton Mather days.
What has not changed is their seemingly limitless ability to believe nonsense.
And in case light somehow does manage to shine through, Trump has shown them how to restore the darkness they crave. When cognitive
dissonance threatens, all they need do is scream "fake news."
The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in
effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign
finance laws.
In this case as in so many others, it is the cover-up, not the underlying "crime," that could lead to his undoing – especially
if the stories Daniels and the others are telling shed light upon or otherwise connect with or meld into Robert Mueller's investigation
of (alleged) Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election.
Trump could and probably will survive their charges. His base is such a preternaturally obdurate lot that there may ultimately
be no last straw for them. We may have no choice, in the end, but to despair for a sizeable chunk of the human race.
Stormy Daniels would not be any less admirable on that account. She took Trump on and came out on top. For all the world (minus
the willfully blind) to see, she, the porn star, is a strong woman who has her life together, while he, the president, is a discombobulated
sleaze ball who is leading himself and his country to ruin.
***
It was different with Monica Lewinsky, another presidential paramour who, almost two decades ago, also held the world's attention.
There was nothing sleazy or venal about Lewinsky's involvement with Bill Clinton; and, for all I know, unless chastity counts,
she is as good and virtuous a person as can be. But personal qualities are not what made her affair with our forty-second president
as historically significant as it turned out to be.
It would be fair to say that of all the women who have ever had intimate knowledge of that old horn dog's private parts, there
is no one who did more good for her country. If only for that, if there were a heaven, there would be special place in it just for
her.
The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare
state institutions than he would otherwise have done.
Who knows how much progress he would have turned back had he and Monica never done the deed or at least not been found out. Building
on groundwork laid down by Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, he and his wife had already terminated Aid to Families With Dependent
Children, one of the main government programs aimed at relieving poverty. This was to be just the first step in "ending welfare as
we know it."
With their "donors" pushing for more austerity, those two neoliberal pioneers were itching to begin privatizing other, more widely
supported social programs, including even Social Security, the so-called "third rail" of American politics.
The "Lewinsky matter" put the kybosh on that idea, leaving the American people forever in Monica's debt.
Back in the Kennedy days, Mel Brook's two-thousand year old man got it right when he said: presidents "gotta do it," to which
he added – " because if they don't do it to their wives and girlfriends, they do it to the nation."
Stormy Daniels made much the same point ten years ago, while flirting with the idea of running against Louisiana Senator David
Vitter. Vitter's political career had been almost ruined when his name turned up in the phone records of the infamous "DC Madam,"
Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Daniels told voters that, unlike Vitter, she would "screw (them) honestly."
What then are we to make of the fact that Trump screws both the nation and his wife (maybe) and his girlfriends (or whatever they
are)?
Blame it on arrested development, on the fact that despite his more than seventy-one years, Trump still has the mind of a teenage
boy, one with money and power enough to live out his fantasies.
The contrast with Bill Clinton is stark. Clinton is a philanderer with eclectic tastes, a charming rascal with a broad and mischievous
mind. Honkytonk women from Arkansas appeal to him as much as zaftig MOTs from the 90210 area code.
Trump, on the other hand, goes for super-models, Playboy centerfolds, and aspiring beauty queens -- standard teenage
fantasy fare.
He seems to have had little trouble living his dreams – not thanks to his magnetic face, form and figure, and certainly not to
his refinement, wit or charm, but to his inherited and otherwise ill-gotten wealth.
It is money and the power that follows from it that draws women to his net.
Henry Kissinger understood; recall his musings on the aphrodisiacal properties of power. Even in his prime, that still unindicted
war criminal (and later-day Hillary Clinton advisor) was even more repellent than Trump. But that never kept him from having to fight
the ladies off.
This fact of life puts a heavy responsibility on the women with whom presidents hook up.
Consider Melania. She made a Faustian bargain when she agreed to become Trump's trophy bride; in return for riches and a soft
life in a gilded tower, she sold her soul. She might have thought better of it had she taken the burdens she would incur as First
Lady into account, but why would she? The prospect was too improbable.
She has, it seems, a very practical, old world view of marriage, and is therefore tolerant of her husband's womanizing. At the
same time, as a mother and daughter, she is, like most immigrants, a strong proponent of old world "family values."
Too much of a proponent perhaps; insofar as her idea was to "chain migrate" her parents out of Slovenia and onto Easy Street,
or to raise a kid who would never want for anything, there were less onerous ways of going about it. After all, there are plenty
of rich Americans lusting after supermodels out there, and it is a good bet that many of them are less repellent than Trump.
She was irresponsible as well. She ought to have realized that the man she married had already spawned two idiot sons, along with
other fruit from the poisonous tree, and that four bad apples in one generation are enough.
And so now she finds herself a single mother – not in theory, of course, but very definitely in practice. Unlike most women in
that position, she is not wanting for resources. But it must be a hard slog, even so. To her credit, Melania seems to be handling
the burden well. More power to her!
She also deserves credit for her body language when the Donald is around; the contempt she shows for him is wonderful to behold.
Best of all is her sense of the absurd. The way she plagiarized from Michelle Obama had obvious comic validity, and making childhood
bullying her First Lady cause – all First Ladies have causes -- was a stroke of genius.
On balance, therefore, it is hard not to feel sorry for her. Of all the women in Trump's ambit, she deserves humiliation the least.
The rumor mill has it that with all the publicity about Daniels and the others , she has finally had enough. This may
be the case; the old world ethos requires discretion and a concern with appearances. That is not the Donald's way, however, and now
she is paying the price.
What a magnificent humiliation it would be if she and Trump were to split up on that account. This could happen soon. I would
expect, though, that through a combination of carrots and sticks, Trump and his fixers will find a way to minimize the political
effects. More likely still, they will channel Joe Kennedy and Jackie O, and figure out a way to head the problem off.
Then there is poor forgotten Tiffany. Her Wikipedia entry lists her as both a law student and a "socialite." I hope her studious
side wins out and that, despite the genes from her father's side, she is at least somewhat decent and smart.
I'd be more confident of that if she would do what Ronald Reagan's daughter, Patti, did: use her mother's, not her father's, name.
Unless she is a sleaze ball too, a Trump in the Eric and Don Junior mold, that would be a fine way to make a political point.
It would also pay back over the years. With the Trump administration on its current trajectory, who, in a few years' time, would
take a Tiffany Trump seriously? A Tiffany Maples would stand a better chance.
Her half-sister, the peerless Ivanka, the Great Blonde Hope, is, of course, her father's sweetie. Let's not go there, however.
Her marriage to Jared Kushner is already enough to process.
What a pair those two make; and what a glorious day it will be when the law finally catches up with Jared, as it did with his
Trump-like father, Charles. Perhaps he will take Ivanka down a notch or two with him. Despite an almost complete lack of qualifications,
Trump made his son-in-law his minister of almost everything; a pretty good gig for a feckless, airhead rich kid. Among other things,
Trump enabled him to become Benjamin Netanyahu's ace in the hole. Netanyahu is a Kushner family friend. Netanyahu has more than his
share of legal troubles too. Let them all go down together!
Ivanka and Jared are well matched – they share a "business model." It has them exploiting their daddies' connections and money.
Jared peddles real estate; his efforts have gotten his family into serious debt, while putting him in solid with Russian and Eastern
European oligarchs, Gulf state emirs, and Mohammad bin Salman – people in comparison with whom his father-in-law seems almost virtuous.
Ivanka sells trinkets and schmatas to people who think the Trump name is cool. There actually are such people; at two
hundred grand a pop, Mar-a-Lago is full of them. Ivanka's demographic is made up mostly of their younger set.
Two other presidential women bare mention: Hope Hicks and Nikki Haley. Surely, they both have tales to tell, but it looks, for
now, as if their stories would be of little or no prurient interest. Neither of them appear to have been propositioned or groped.
Even though Hicks is said to be like a daughter to the Donald – we know what that could mean! – it is a safe bet that there was
nothing of a romantic nature going on between them. For one thing, Hicks seems too close to Ivanka; for another, she is known to
have dallied with two Trump subordinates, Corey Lewandowski and Rob Porter. The don is hardly the type to let his underlings have
at his women.
Haley had to quash a spate of rumors that flared up thanks to some suggestive remarks Michael Wolff made while hawking Fire
and Fury . The rumor caught on because people who hadn't yet fully realized what a piece of work Trump is, imagined that something
had to be awry inasmuch as her main qualification for representing the United States at the United Nations was an undergraduate degree
in accounting. Abject servility to the Israel lobby also helped.
But the Trump administration is full of ambitious miscreants whose views on Israel and Palestine are as abject and servile as
hers, and compared to many others in Trump's cabinet she is, if anything, over qualified. Think of neurosurgeon Ben Carson heading
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He is qualified because, as a child, he lived in public housing.
With the exception of Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Summer Zervos and whoever else comes forward with a juicy and credible tale
to tell, the women currently in the president's ambit, though good for gossip and interesting in the ways that characters on reality
TV shows can be, are of little or no political consequence.
This could change if any of them decides to "go rogue," to use an expression from the Sarah Palin days. But, while neither Melania
nor Tiffany can yet be judged hopeless, it would be foolish to expect much of anything good to come from either of them.
Stormy, Karen, Summer, and whoever else steps forward are a better bet. They are the only ones with any chance of doing as much
for their country and the world as Monica Lewinsky did a generation ago.
Among the president's women, they are a breed apart. This is plainly the case with Stormy Daniels; it is already clear that she
deserves what all Trump's money can never buy – honor and esteem. To the extent that the others turn out to be similarly courageous,
they will too.
Jobs is another significant stress on modern marriage...
Notable quotes:
"... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 297 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser, what we've accomplished in the last year and our current goal, more meetups and travel . ..."
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives ..."
"... The "young woman with crusty old rich guy" is so common it's a cliché. ..."
"... The tactic is only going to sway a portion of the cultural warriors, because a lot of them are arguing in bad faith. ..."
Yves here. Bill Black's article is well timed as well as important. Tonight, the Wall Street
Journal was flogging "Cheap Sex and the Decline of Marriage," adapted from a new book, which
argues that young men aren't getting married because it's so easy for them to get laid. Black
takes on this effort to try to present good old fashioned moralism as the remedy for deeper
economic problems in his next column in this series, so let me have a mini-go at its first.
It does not appear to occur to author Mark Regnerus that young women might be the ones who
aren't so keen to get married, due among other things to the widely reported immaturity of
young men. Moreover, there are now more women than men graduating from college and law schools
than men. Women are acculturated to marrying up or at worst sideways, income-wise. Might
another problem be a shortage of sufficiently-desirable partners?
The book's findings are also at odds with trends that have been widely reported: more young
people, particularly young men, being less keen about having casual sex; the number of sex
partners among young people falling and the age when young people on average start having sex
rising. Admittedly, some of this change has been attributed to smart phones degrading social
skills to the point that it apparently makes young people less adept at flirting and
seduction.
To give an idea of the caliber of this alleged research, this was the only argument
presented to counter the notion that young people aren't getting married because many aren't
making enough to set up households:
A May 2017 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, focusing on regions
enriched by the fracking boom, found that increased wages in those places did nothing to
boost marriage rates.
Help me. What do you think mining boom towns are like? Answer: they bring in a lot of men,
from engineers (yes, petroleum engineers skew male) and oil industry workers like derrickhands.
They do risky physical work and are paid well. But most of the men are transients, and aren't
looking to stay and marry local women. Moreover, the influx of men skews the gender ratio,
putting the men who are interested in getting married at a disadvantage from a dating
perspective (if you think men who want to get laid can't fake romantic interest, I have a
bridge I'd like to sell you).
Even though the book claims to be based on exhaustive work, all you need to do is have a
gander through the underlying study to see it screams bias. As we've regularly reminded
readers, survey instruments are very sensitive to the order and phrasing of questions.
The first section is about religion. Not exactly subtle about what the researchers think
matters. And while generalizing from one's social circle falls into the "data is not the plural
of anecdote" fallacy, I consider my peer group to be stodgy, yet this study say the number of
sex partners I know many of my friends (male and female) have had puts them at the far end of
the spectrum of this study.
Put it another way: in the 1950s, before birth control, Kinsey found that the average man
reported having had six sex partners and the average woman, three. This would seem to be
impossible unless you have gay men having sex way way out of proportion to the general
population (which as far as I can tell, they do, but even so, not enough to fully account for
this difference), and/or men overstating and women understating their histories, and/or men and
women having different ideas of what constitutes having had sex with someone else.
So what has this study found about our modern era where people are supposedly having way too
much casual sex? On p. 23:
The median heterosexual man or woman (age 18 to 60) reports somewhere between four and six
opposite sex partners in their lifetime.
This is in line with what Kinsey found in the stone ages before The Pill. So exactly where
is all this casual sex that is leading to the handwringing? Either it's not happening despite
birth control (doubtful) or the sample for this study, despite its size, is crap.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of
Bank Whistleblowers United. Jointly published with New
Economic Perspectives
The University of Missouri – Kansas City recently hosted the first conference on
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and a closely associated idea, a federally-backed job guarantee
for everyone willing and able to work. On September 25, 2017, the New York Times
published an article exemplifying one of the applications of the job guarantee that would
provide a win-win that should unite anyone interested in strengthening the family. The
title is "How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?" Claire Cain Miller authored the
column, and her key takeaway are in these two passages.
Fewer Americans are marrying over all, and whether they do so is more tied to
socioeconomic status than ever before. In recent years, marriage has sharply declined among
people without college degrees, while staying steady among college graduates with higher
incomes.
Americans across the income spectrum still highly value marriage, sociologists have found.
But while it used to be a marker of adulthood, now it is something more wait to do until the
other pieces of adulthood are in place -- especially
financial stability . For people with less education and lower earnings, that might never
happen.
These facts establish an obvious policy that could unite the public. The combination of MMT
full employment policies and the job guarantee is the best way to strengthen family financial
stability. The United States, which has a sovereign currency, can do that. The European Union
nations that lack a sovereign currency will frequently be unable to do so. Jobs, not simply
income, are essential to many humans' happiness and sense of self-worth. Unemployed American
men, for example, do less housework than do employed American men. Businesses are deeply
reluctant to hire the unemployed, particularly if they have been unemployed for any significant
time. The cliché of males responding to unemployment through depression has considerable
truth.
Miller's article notes that there is an unproductive split between conservatives and
progressives about how to strengthen families. Conservatives tend to claim that the problem is
cultural. Progressives generally agree that culture is important but note that the surest and
quickest way to make productive changes in culture is frequently economic. Progressives oppose
conservatives' punitive and authoritarian policies that purport to change culture and note that
they have failed. Miller correctly notes that the economics and culture are closely
interrelated.
Conservatives deeply resent safety net programs in which the recipients are able to work but
decline to do so. The complementary steps to run a consistent full-employment program are to
follow MMT principles with an employer-of-last-resort job guarantee program. The job guarantee
does not merely guarantee that anyone willing and able to work in the government or non-profit
sectors can do so; it finesses the disinclination of private sector employers to hire the
unemployed. We can provide a full employment economy with rates of inflation so low that even
(very conservative) central bankers consider desirable , not simply acceptable.
The job guarantee program would also allow us to close one the great perception gulfs
between progressives and Trump's supporters. Trumps supporters believe that disfavored
minorities prefer not to work and live on the dole. Progressives believe the opposite. The jobs
guarantee would provide the definitive test that could end any debate and replace perceptions
with an easily observable reality. The job guarantee test has the potential to do what female
employment in World War II did – destroy prejudiced myths that 'everyone' knew were true.
It turned out that women could do a massive array of jobs and that they were interested in
doing so.
The Themes of this Series of Columns
This column is the first of three related columns on the general topic of the conservatives'
culture wars in which the family is ground zero. I develop several themes. First, that their
culture war is rests on false premises. There are win-wins available, particularly through the
job guarantee and MMT that allow great progress in strengthening the family. Progressives would
be delighted to work with conservatives to implement these winning strategies.
Second, the policies that the conservative culture warriors are pushing rest on bogus
claims. They also fail.
Third, the policies that the conservative culture warriors are pushing are nasty. They
represent authoritarian, dogmatic, and bigoted pathologies that have long disgraced
America.
Fourth, the conservative culture warriors do not address most of the critical problems
Americans and others face. They religiously ignore the cultural/ethical problems of
conservative elites and the Republican Party and the harm that these cultural/ethical problems
inflict on Americans and the peoples and creatures of the world. The culture warriors
overwhelmingly support and assist Republicans implementing pathological policies arising from
these cultural/ethical problems. Those pathological policies channel the most disgraceful
American traditions.
Fifth, the conservative culture warriors religiously refuse to join progressives and others
in embracing cultural values the conservatives purport to treasure even though there is an
obvious potential for broad consensus on a broad range of cultural and ethical views and
policies that represent the very best of American traditions. The conservative culture warriors
are hypocrites who want a culture war that energizes the worst elements of their base even
though they know that the result will be to degrade American values and practices and cause
immense harm to the "other."
Other Win-Wins We Can Implement to Strengthen Families
We could build on these win-wins by getting rid of federal subsidies to places that are not
real colleges – the scores of fraudulent for-profit schools. Fraudulent for-profit
schools do not provide the benefits to employment and marriage that real public and non-profit
community colleges, colleges, and universities provide. This reform would also greatly reduce
eventual losses due to student loan defaults.
Conservative culture warriors that run the Education Department are racing to prevent
sanctions against these fraudulent schools. Other conservative culture warriors applaud this
obscenity.
We could create another win-win by providing real sex education (rather than the sham of
"just say no") and provide ready access to contraceptives including the morning after pill to
poorer women. All of these reforms reduce considerably births outside of wedlock. Conservative
culture warriors in the Trump administration are trying to eliminate these successful programs
– and the conservative culture warriors outside the administration are cheerleaders for
the travesty.
A win-win policy that has been shown to be exceptionally effective is the provision for home
visits by specially trained nurses to new moms who are most at risk of being overwhelmed. The
nurses explain and demonstrate, for example, the importance of moms talking pervasively to
their infants. The Trump administration's culture warriors targeted the program for elimination
because it is successful. Conservative culture warriors know the program works, but refuse to
oppose their fellow warriors.
Even When the Culture Warriors Talk Economics They Get it Wrong
"Financial stability" is the key concept, one that "pro-marriage" cultural warriors and weak
economists have repeatedly failed to comprehend. Their typical "analysis" goes like this
– if poor women would only marry their boyfriends, they would have materially larger
income and only modestly larger living household expenses. (Their analysis almost invariably
purports to describe the marriage decisions of poorer, heterosexual women, so I address that
context.) The simplistic idea is that adding the male's income to that of the poor woman means
that she and her children must be better off. The only slightly less simplistic version of this
claim is that married couples tend to have stronger economic results than do the unmarried.
Both arguments ignore the most important and fundamental applicable principle of finance
– risk. Fortunately, poor women apply a more sophisticated analysis to the question of
marriage than do these economists.
Risk, as most poor women understand, is the key. It is not sufficient that the male, on the
average day, would be a source of financial strength, particularly if the mother has children.
If the male does not have stable income, creates a material risk of increased expenses, or both
he is a threat to financial stability that can put the mom and her child at grave risk. One car
accident while impaired or even tripping on the stairs while impaired and breaking a leg can
put the household in a financial crisis. The typical working class household has under $400 in
savings. Even if they have auto and medical insurance, the deductible plus the loss of work due
to the injury or wrecking the auto can instantly hurl the household's financial stability into
a desperate crisis. If the male's job is unstable with material periods of unemployment or
underemployment the household is made more unstable. If the male becomes depressed when these
episodes occur the financial and family instability increase greatly.
If the male has expensive tastes for non-essential goods or if he has a substance abuse
problem, he makes the household more unstable financially and in terms of safety for mom and
her kids. If the male is violent or hostile towards mom or her kids, or indifferent or
unreliable in providing childcare he makes the household more dangerous and unstable.
It is impossible to "hold constant" for these factors in an empirical test. Heterosexual
moms are in the best position to judge the strengths and frailties of potential male mates. If
the man is interested in marrying her, and seems to the primitive economist to add to the
household's total wealth, and she does not want to marry him the logical inference is that she
has a reason for her unwillingness. The types of risks I have explained are realistic examples
of those reasons. In statistical jargon, they represent "unobserved differences" –
unobserved by the researcher who cannot "hold constant" for them, but observed by the
heterosexual women making the decisions whether to marry a particular man.
The job guarantee does not eliminate many of the risks I have described. It would improve
job and income stability, particularly for working class males. That would be unambiguously
good for men, women, the economy, and our culture. The ability to run a real world test that
demonstrated that disfavored minorities do want to work could reduce bigotry and our cultural
and political divisions.
In my second column in this series, I criticize Mark Regnerus' false assertion that working
class male employment stability is unrelated to women's decisions whether to marry. Miller's
column provides a useful corrective.
In a working paper
published in July, three economists studied how the decline in manufacturing jobs from 1990
to 2014, across industries and regions, "contributed to the rapid, simultaneous decline of
traditional household structures."
Labor market changes made men less marriageable, they concluded. There were fewer
available men, because unemployment was associated with a rise in incarceration or mortality
from drugs and alcohol. The men who were left were less desirable, because they lacked income
and were more likely to drink to excess or use drugs.
Researchers found a corresponding increase in births to unmarried mothers. The decline in
marriage was not offset by more couples living together.
***
Never-married adults cite financial instability as a major reason for being single,
especially those who are low-income or under 30, according to a new
Pew Research Center survey . Most men feel it's important for a husband to be a financial
provider, especially men without college degrees, according to another new
Pne ew survey .
Women, meanwhile, have learned from watching a generation of divorce that they need to be
able to support themselves. And many working-class women aren't interested in taking
responsibility for a man without a job.
"They say, 'If he's not offering money or assets, why make it legal?' " said June Carbone,
a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the author with Naomi Cahn of "Marriage
Markets: How Inequality Is Remaking the American Family."
(June Carbone is the inaugural holder of the Robina Chair in Law, Science and Technology at
the University of Minnesota's Law School. She is also my spouse.)
PS
Carbone notes that marriages in which both couples have at least college degrees have vastly
lower divorce rates. If you are in college and contemplating marriage after graduation do not
assume that you are doomed to a high risk of divorce.
What Yves states in the foreword and Black states in the article is so obvious as to be
head slapping as to why other "experts" don't see it. How can an economist or scholar argue
that marriage would always be a virtue and not take into account decisions at the
relationship level that Black nicely outlines here? Are these not the same so called
"experts" touting a philosophy of markets being rational because of a series of individual
choices within them? Obviously the decision to forgo marriage is a rational one.
Perhaps I'm the one who is too naive and "experts" must double down on blaming the victim
of policy so that they can continue dumping on victims with increasingly bad policy.
Ideologues always reach the same conclusion. You can have them make an argument, show them
that the facts they had were wrong and showed the opposite, and their response is to
reformulate the argument to reach the original conclusion.
Another related issue is that a lot of these men have atrociously bad credit. I know at
least one person who hasn't married her baby-daddy because his credit is off-the-wall bad (he
mostly uses prepaid debit cards to avoid taxes and back child support).
And there is the second reason not to marry him.. avoiding child support is not exactly a
good sign of reliability. I know a few anecdotes that work for cash because of such
situations.
The child support system is a strong disinsentive against men to even have relatonsips.
There are cases where men have been ordered to pay child support, even if its not their
child, or having as much as 90% of their wages garnished. I know a man where his two boys
have moved out of their mom's and are now living on their own. One even being in he US Marine
core – and he STILL has to pay child support.
The current system is to easy to abuse. Incresng risk for men. There only real option
these days is to no longer play the game.
This is exactly the point I am making below. The article and comment by Yves is written as
if there is risk on only ONE side that needs to be "managed" when there is actually risk on
both.
If it is "ok" now to think of these matters in purely economic terms, why should men
accept any risk either? Instead of "hiring" what amounts to a full time "sex/support"
employee, why not simply contract for the services you need on an a la carte basis?
Need someone to pretend to care about your problems? Go talk to a therapist at
$100/hr.
Krugman had a nice turn of phrase a while back, something like, why do conservatives not
consider that social breakdown isn't causing unemployment, but that unemployment is causing
social breakdown?
I think we should consider the case for moving from a full employment economy with a
welfare state to "free markets" would lead to greater "responsibility" to be falsified. Ppl
can't take up responsibilities without an income.
"Women are acculturated to marrying up or at worst sideways, income-wise. Might another
problem be a shortage of sufficiently-desirable partners?"
"They say, 'If he's not offering money or assets, why make it legal?' "
So this is ok? Women are acculturated to be gold diggers and that's that? Doesn't this
flirt with blaming the victim? Might this also not be a problem the in same way men are
acculturated to prefer young, bone thin models?
Perhaps there are a number of men who have seen this dynamic at work and are choosing to
stay single since the only factor that seems to actually matter is our income level.
Put another way, why would I want to marry someone who is most likely going to leave for
greener pastures the moment my career takes a turn for the worse?
Although actual gold-diggers are rare, I think there's a cultural lag on the part of many
women. They want to make their own money, as they should, but still want a man to make
more.
Rare? C'mon rojo. The "young woman with crusty old rich guy" is so common it's a
cliché. See one Hefner, Hugh. You really think if he had been a local schoolteacher
that those women would agree to put up with his nonsense?
I would consider Playmates to be pretty rare. Most women I know do have more of an "income
line" than most of my guy pals. But the straight-up rich-guy anglers are the minority.
The "young woman with crusty old rich guy" is so common it's a
cliché.
Lessee, other cliches -- 'woman driver' oh, that one doesn't work anymore. Maybe 'ditzy
girl'. No, not that one. How about 'dumb blonde'? OK, not that either. I forget, what were
you trying to prove by citing 'cliche'? And I'm still keeping this family-bloggable.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! If offspring are contemplated (by either party), then it is usual for
the female to spend at least some time with the new little creature, and it may be medically
necessary -- childbirth is still not a piece of cake. As well, the current thought is that
parent-child bonding or whatever socializes the little critters so they don't become
psychopaths -- seems like a good idea to me.
Now, in my country, Canada, we are guaranteed 17 weeks of maternal leave, plus 17 weeks of
parental leave (both parents can take it) and adoptions are included (slightly less time,
IIRC), so around 35+17 = 52 weeks off to care for your child. That's not all paid, very
little is, but you get your old job back, guaranteed. However, you're still gonna need bucks,
so it's nice if there is one income coming in while the other parent, um, parents.
US-ians, benighted country that you live in, do not have any such thing and any woman
contemplating having children would be a poor mother indeed to not provide for her child This
is not gold-digging, it's just rational acting.
In my family, my mother's college-educated farmer father, had a mantra regarding women and
professions. He said, every woman should have a profession so she'll never have to marry to
live. His daughters went to college to become teachers. His granddaughters went to college,
his granddaughters, great grands, 2Gs on track.
Any woman with children knows she may become the primary or sole breadwinner in her
household. Unless she is a complete fool or exceedingly wealthy.
Tribes affiliated with conservative religious practice should require their church to
provide support for abandoned or abuse wives & children in their Churches. Let Graham,
Osteen, et al pony up Support money, health insurance, etc for female adherents in poverty
owing to following their advice regarding birth control & selection criteria for
spouses.
The tactic is only going to sway a portion of the cultural warriors, because a lot of them
are arguing in bad faith. Ignoring even the ethno-nationalist cultural warriors who aren't
interested in traditional religious values, many of the traditional values CW's, especially
those in positions of power, are just using that argument as apologetics for the economic
failings of the system. Blame loose morals, homosexuality, and lack of religiousity for
stagnant wages, opioid abuse, un- and under-employment, as to create a cover for the free
market, shareholder value, wealth hoarding, etc. So it's not enough to just make appeals to
the true believers, but enlighten them to the fact that many of their so-called peers are
wolves in sheeps' clothing.
The University of Missouri – Kansas City recently hosted the first conference on
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and a closely associated idea, a federally-backed job
guarantee for everyone willing and able to work.
I'm going to flog this point one more time. It is a logical fallacy and, more to the
point, a potential distraction to link MMT and progressive issues.
Aside from the purely academic discussion, we most often see MMT raised to answer
questions such as:
How can we fund job guarantees, universal health care, better public education, etc.?
Let me point out that MMT can also answer the question:
How can we fund greater military adventurism, a more effective and intrusive surveillance
state, pork projects and tax cuts for the politically favored?
Progressive policy issues will not be advanced by a change in the accounting rules.
Progressive policy issues will ultimately only be advanced by promoting and electing people
who support progressive policy issues.
MMT is both a fiscal model and a budgeting/planning tool. Like any tool, it can be used
for good or for ill depending on who wields it
Steve Randy Waldman had this article from a few years ago on this subject: "Marriage
promotion is a destructive cargo cult". Title maybe a bit OTT but IMHO definitely worth a
read even if he goes the UBI route rather than the JG one.
Maybe policy ought to consider universal healthcare at an affordable rate to the economy
(ie less than 12% of GDP). Extending universal education to 16 years seems reasonable, too.
BTW everyone ought to have basic training in real home economics and health even within a
college prep program. Plumbing, electrical, construction, gardening, child rearing, cooking,
etc. are real skills that contribute to health and well being.
Andy S.
The UMKC scholars who have advocated the dissemination of information about the Chartalist
aspects of the dollar system since the abandonment of Bretton Woods have done so from a
position of principled progressivisim, they advocate the work they have done for progressive
reasons.
I agree entirely on the moral neutrality of tools, what can be used for good can be used
for bad. The essential issue at play here is the Chartailist reality now described by these
scholars to define the policy space available for progressive causes has been well understood
by the MIC and FIRE sectors of the economy since 1971. They have profited grotesquely while
pauperizing the nation under a deliberately propagandized attack on "government debt" for any
purpose other than their own enrichment.
Progressives won't have material successes until progressive efforts are funded. The
recognition that the US Govt can purchase whatever is for sale within the dollar denominated
world system at no cost to itself simply by paying for it must be applied again to public
goods rather than war mongering and financial speculation. This won't happen until people
understand what money is to a sovereign issuer.
Yes, also any bastard who takes hold of the system, like our last half dozen presidents,
can use it for Forever War and to guarantee rentier income. But the policy space for
progressivism must be staked out according to the terms of the actual, existing, function
monetary system through which policy will be deployed and through which, once understood, the
incredible waste of the last 4 decades can be exposed.
"Put it another way: in the 1950s, before birth control, Kinsey found that the average man
reported having had six sex partners and the average woman, three. This would seem to be
impossible unless you have gay men having sex way way out of proportion to the general
population (which as far as I can tell, they do, but even so, not enough to fully account for
this difference), and/or men overstating and women understating their histories, and/or men
and women having different ideas of what constitutes having had sex with someone else."
Could this also be due to prostitution? I mean if more than a few of the men have one or
two pro's in the their totals, but you don't include prostitutes in your sampling (and how
many of them are going to answer a survey), they you'd get a skew.
In these modern times where one or both members of a couple may have experienced one or
more divorce among their parents marriage may not be seen in quite as rosy a light as it once
was. Most people are aware that "happily ever after" is not a sure thing so why be in a rush
to enter the matrimonial state?
As an anecdatum I'll offer that my wife and I (both of us with divorced parents,
university grads, career Federal civil service, no children nor desire for them) have been
together just under 40 years but only married for the last 10. We were fine with our
unmarried status, what prompted the change was when we started doing planning for our modest
estate. The attorney we were seeing pointed out that the process would be greatly simplified
if we just got married, and since we had no significant objections either way we did
that.
There was no big change in our lives other than having another anniversary to celebrate,
mainly just some legal/financial benefits.
So while there may be some correlation that can be drawn between marital status and
economic status, I'm not sure how much causality can be established.
yalensis says:
July 17, 2017 at 3:29 pm Mark: Blame me, I was the one who urged everybody to
engage and fight against Matt.
Against those who said, "Ach Gewahlte, just ignore this noodge "
People can disagree with my reasoning, but I figured if somebody shows up
spoling for a fight, then they should get what they ask for.
It's like, if you were in a space station, and an energetic monster suddenly
starts zipping around acting hostile, then you should take note and not ignore
it.
Which is
another plug for one of my blogposts, a movie review.
Sorry, I coundn't resist!
As Blanche Dubois used to say: "Attention must be paid."
Pucker
February 24, 2017 at 9:51
am
#
Apparently, the code words like "pizza", "cheese", "hotdog", "pasta", etc. are
from an FBI list of code words commonly used by pedophiles. These words appear
in the Podesta emails. They're not just found in the Podesta emails.
On page 20, it says that the strongest indicator of a pedophile is a person
who collects child pornography. John Podesta's brother collected sexually
bizarre and sadistic photos of young children.
hmuller
February 24, 2017 at
10:06 am
#
Good point, Pucker. All the pro-Podesta apologists can't explain away the
code language. Especially, disturbing are remarks (I think by owner James
Alefantis) about 4 sick pizzas left over from the last session on sale for
$1000. Be sure and dispose of them properly."
Then there's Laura Silsby
rescued from a Haitian jail by the Clintons after being caught trafficking
in children for prostitution.
Either JHK can't believe that such blatant evil exists in the world or
he's pimping for that well entrenched crowd.
malthuss
February
24, 2017 at 5:01 pm
#
I have pages of Word docs and have listened to too many facts,
Start with
You Tube, Titus Frost, especially hhis talk and
display of sick 'art' on his PIZZA BRAIN –investigated.
Why is Katy Perry and the other bimbo, Miley, wearing Pizza
Costumes?
and,
WHAT IS PIZZAGATE
CHILD SEX SLAVERY
PEDOPHILE RING
BILL CLINTON SEX SCANDAL
BILL CLINTON PEDOPHILIA
BILL CLINTON SEX SLAVE ISLAND
BILL CLINTON ORGY ISLAND
LAURA SILSBY HAITi CHILD TRAFFICKING
MONICA PETERSON
CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING
CLINTON HAITI
THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
LOLITA EXPRESS
PEDOPHILE ISLAND
ROGER CLINTON COCAINE
ROGER CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL PARDON
DAN LASATER
DAN LASATER PRESIDENTIAL PARDON
PIZZAGATE EVIDENCE
PIZZAGATE PROOF
PIZZAGATE DOCUMENTARY
END TIMES NEWS REPORT
JAKE MORPHONIOS
JAMES ALEFANTIS
JOHN PODESTA
TONY PODESTA
COMET PING PONG
etc.
Janos Skorenzy
February
24, 2017 at 3:26 pm
#
Most intellectuals hate Conspiracies for two reasons: one good and one
bad. On the good side, there is just too much lunacy and crackpottery
once conjecture and Freud's "primary process" (fantasy) get going. On
the bad side, they hate not having full information or at least a
partial store of consensus information from which to analyze. But Life
is Conspiracy – and sometimes we have to go with what we have. In this
regards, detectives are superior to intellectuals: they do it all the
time. Ditto scientists. It's the inductive process. Once you get
enough you form a hypothesis. Then you test it. That's all we're
asking for in regards to this case. And I think we both agree: what
they would find would bring down the System.
And there are two reasons these people can get away with it: one
because of the number of the Elite who are involved. And second
because people think a priori that it's not possible that such evil
exists or that they could get away with it. Because people think it
can't exist and they couldn't get away it enables them to get away
with it.
Walter B
February
24, 2017 at 7:47 pm
#
The utilization of "Conspiracy theorist" came about after the
common man on the street started waking up to the fact that he was
being screwed by those in power and lied to consistently. Did you
know that during World War II, President Roosevelt, was onboard the
battleship USS Iowa in route to North Africa when it was
"accidently torpedoed" (the fish detonated in the ship's wake and
did not actually impact the ship) by the US destroyer, the William
D. Porter? Well it's the first I am hearing of it so I guess that
these people are pretty good at keeping things quiet when they go
wrong, especially REALLY wrong
I am reading the trilogy of the war by Rick Atkinson, and in the
second book in the series, The Day of Battle, the revelation was
detailed much to my surprise. If our own people can accidently fire
a live torpedo at one of our own battleships, especially the one
that happens to be transporting the standing President of the
United States on it at the time, well there is no telling what
supreme act of incompetence they will pull of next.
Those who rule lie their asses off every damned day and cover up
every damned screw up they create until enough time goes by so that
those that are now in the general public don't give a damn anymore.
You would have to be retarded or on their payroll to believe
otherwise.
Catastrophic mistake. Proof of sexual misconduct accumulated by the deep state makes it possible to dictate the votes &c. of
Congress, decisions of judges and administrators, &c.
Without a one-time blanket amnesty - however morally revolting - deep state control of government will endure. If you want
to end its control of the ship of state, you must remove its nuclear option : blackmail (threat of exposure/prosecution/bankruptcy/family
impoverishment/dying in prison).
the whole Military Intelligence is rife with pedophilia and sodomy – I can't imagine how Flynn avoided it – the whole top ranking
guys are involved – watch video interview of Kay Griggs –
Good point, but there are many types of amnesty. The first is the amnesty of tolerance, consenting adult sex mutual or professional,
no matter how distasteful or strange, whether adulterous or not, should be considered private and off the table, but never kiddy-fiddling
(actual rather than fictitious, in the real that is). Publication of tolerated sexual matters should be slammed, tolerance does
not mean condoning, tolerance is what it says tolerating what is not condoned.
That is an amnesty that every civilised nation follows I can't see why the US should not adopt it as it use to be the case.
In Australia we tolerate a lot of things, ex prime minister Bob Hawke was a notorious womaniser a faithless husband, and his antics
were a national laugh.
I also agree blackmail is one of the main weapons and sexuality is one of its mainstays. Its an puritanical extension of identity
politics, I believe toleration is the amnesty. I think your logic and argument is correct.
Look at the other way, a corrupt person, rips off this person and that, they are a public menace. A corrupt judge that cheats
on taxes, runs fictions companies, uses legal fictions to launder wealth is defrauding the public as a whole - it is a worse crime.
By extension accepting bribes, favours, preferential treatment, corporate support is to provide inequality before the law, negate
the whole purpose of the judiciary and again is a worse crime than tax fraud - it is at best a serious conflict of interest (serious
enough for removal), but is usually the accepted method of tilting the judicial system which is, with evidence, criminal. and
all the evidence has to be is that judge has accepted favours and their judgements demonstrate his gratitude to the social network
that provided the favour.
Against this a man whose marriage is happy, but sexually disaster, visits prostitutes or keeps a mistress, or has fathered
a child, is as is nothing - if only it was tolerated whilst terrible crimes are tolerated instead. Flint's water poisoning is
not a scandal it is a criminal conspiracy that stemmed from a criminal neglect. Banks that seize homes that they purposefully
overvalued and over-lent of which we have a mountain of documents to show this was done purposefully - the banks are the ones
that should suffer, not those desperate to own a house and were sent to them, by Real Estate agents and developer.
A sea change in attitude, on really simple stuff, has a disproportional effect. And today that is actually easier to achieve
than ever before. My advice is to go to the local churches and argue that their fixation on sex is producing untold evils in the
world and their moral righteousness is being misdirected. A direct confrontation on theological grounds etc.,
Sorry for the rant your point has been taken on board well and truly.
The first is the amnesty of tolerance, consenting adult sex mutual or professional, no matter how distasteful or strange, whether
adulterous or not, should be considered private and off the table, but never kiddy-fiddling (actual rather than fictitious, in
the real that is).
@Greg -
No rant at all. IMO this is the real elephant in the political livingroom. People are coming to understand who the orcs are,
how they operate and what their objective is. They can be mentioned now without everything melting down in a storm of terror.
But that they have the whole US government, industry and military (pardon the expression) "by the balls" is not known so well.
Nor is it appreciated that no necessary change can be expected to gain political traction so long as this iron control continues.
The trial balloon figure of 30% compromised is probably a gross underestimate. And we are not talking about marital infidelities
with secretaries or "escorts" but romping with adolescents (both sexes but apparently boys are their favorites - http://educate-yourself.org/tg/franklincoverupexcerptwashtimesphoto.shtml
Franklin/Boys Town scandal, Sandusky/Penn State, pizzagate, et al.)
This may not be the place for it but, if not, where ? The "Age of Consent" to sexual relations in the early US varied, but
was often put at 9 years of age (this when puberty occurred around age 17-18). I see this as no evidence of moral turpitude, but
of hard-nosed realism. It was human nature (as you have the moral decency to note) that people were going to get up to stuff like
that, and there was no need to make bigger issue of it than it was. If it stirred popular outrage, the perpetrator could expect
to be lynched or, where I grew up, shot "in a tragic accident" during hunting season when he was in the woods. People took care
of their own problems. And gravely mistrusted the judicial system where the ability of wealth and connections (business relationships
and funny handshakes) all but guaranteed impunity.
We now take it for granted (see Goebbels on the power of simple repetition to create "public opinion") that sex between an
adolescent and an adult is the single worst moral outrage imaginable. In reality (I came to understand it inside the criminal
justice system during 20+ years of working in it), making this a criminal offense, with the age of consent raised to 18 (completely
ridiculous with puberty now happening in elementary school and given the "sexualization" of children by the orc media) was a strategic
coup by the prison-industrial complex. By legally re-defining this as RAPE (!) and the perpetrator as a RAPIST (!) - well, repeat
this often enough in court with an adolescent well coached by the childrens' services caseworker to see herself as a VICTIM who
was GROOMED by him (when the actual dynamics of the situation were often the other way around), and a conviction was a prosecutor's
easiest victory in an average month. Not to mention that the threat of sentence piling (pioneered during the Nixon years - prosecuting
the same offense as as many separate crimes as possible, with sentences running consecutively) all but guaranteed "plea bargains"
without even the expense or inconvenience of a trial.
Prisons love(d) this, as (except for homosexual pederasts) "sex offenders" ( almost 100% White for some strange reason
) are the most easily managed demographic of all. If a state prison (or private one) could house 2,500 of them, it could operate
with a staff of, probably,10 guards per 8-hour shift.
Now, with the MSM and academia having turned sex with adolescents into the new "forbidden fruit," the appeal of it to the idle
imaginations of the susceptible is multiplied. The whole thing stinks to high heaven of rank hypocrisy, human exploitation and
lives ruined by a system that exploits human frailties as profit & control opportunities.
Now I am ranting, so will stop here. Noting that there is a LOT more that needs to be said on this.
"... So I found myself on the crazy left. I'm genuinely more "lefty" than I was 15 years ago, but even now I'm not exactly calling for full communism. I generally think that usually the best use of my efforts are to pull the party leftward (not that I think I have the superpowers required to do this), not just because I'm more lefty, but because the forces pulling them to the right continue to be powerful and well-funded. Also, if the "crazy" position is a minimum wage of $25 an hour, then $15 an hour doesn't look so crazy anymore (for example). If the best we can ever do is a compromise, then it's best not to start the negotiations with the compromise position. ..."
"... People get mad about criticizing Democrats these days in a way they never did before. People like Obama associates "the crazy left" with Bernie, blaming him (and therefore the crazy left) for Clinton's election problems. Maybe I'm wrong, but whatever horrors the Trump administration is going to unleash, the important thing is for the Democrats to draw distinctions, and not just hope for team R to step on enough rakes. "Not as evil as the other guys" just doesn't win elections, even when the other guys are really f!@#ing evil. ..."
Changing Perspectives
Short blog post means big generalizations, but...
Post-impeachment, post-Bush selection, post-9/11 was a
weird time in American politics (I suppose a specific
weird time, it's always a weird time). One thing people
forget about the impeachment era was that it was basically
The Left (sometimes actually The Left like The Nation
magazine writers and sometimes people who found themselves
being branded The Left because of this) who defended Bill
Clinton in the whole Monica Madness era (and before).
Mainstream media (hi New York Times!), columnists, cable
news personalities, all the respectable prominent
"centrist" Democrats, were falling all over themselves to
condemn that nasty Bill Clinton and his nasty penis, and
Ken Starr was treated as the second coming of Jesus in
respectable DC circles. It was a weird time in which the
crazy left were actually the biggest defenders of the
Democratic party, much bigger defenders of it than the
Democratic party itself. It was a time when you wouldn't
have been surprised if you woke up one morning and half
the party hadn't decided to switch teams and become
Republicans. "I was a Democrat before Bill Clinton did
nasty things with that woman, but now I don't think rich
people should pay taxes anymore..."
And then the selection, and then Iraq, and then Bush's
re-election, and the whole Social Security privatization
nonsense... It was always the "crazy left" that was trying
to make the Democratic party just, you know, be Democrats,
and everybody else basically being like "Why can't a
Democrat be more like a Republican." Being against the war
or against Social Security privatization (the Dems finally
woke up on that one, but it took a lot of yelling) wasn't
exactly calling for full communism, and plenty of people
who thought they were just standard squishy Democrats
suddenly found themselves being lumped together with
radicals.
So I found myself on the crazy left. I'm genuinely more
"lefty" than I was 15 years ago, but even now I'm not
exactly calling for full communism. I generally think that
usually the best use of my efforts are to pull the party
leftward (not that I think I have the superpowers required
to do this), not just because I'm more lefty, but because
the forces pulling them to the right continue to be
powerful and well-funded. Also, if the "crazy" position is
a minimum wage of $25 an hour, then $15 an hour doesn't
look so crazy anymore (for example). If the best we can
ever do is a compromise, then it's best not to start the
negotiations with the compromise position.
People get mad about criticizing Democrats these days
in a way they never did before. People like Obama associates "the crazy left" with Bernie, blaming him (and
therefore the crazy left) for Clinton's election problems.
Maybe I'm wrong, but whatever horrors the Trump
administration is going to unleash, the important thing is
for the Democrats to draw distinctions, and not just hope
for team R to step on enough rakes. "Not as evil as the
other guys" just doesn't win elections, even when the
other guys are really f!@#ing evil.
This is from Daily Mail. The later is a British daily conservative, middle-market tabloid. You
are warned !
I wonder whether when the Dems --or I should say if the Dems --select an "establishment" nominee
they might consider Elizabeth Warren. She's very popular & not as far out there as Bernie. I could live
with that. B ut is considered to be a menace to the Wall Street. In realty not much, but due to this
perception chances for this happening are slim. Dems are corrupt to the core and are now the party of
Wall Street ("republicans light") , thanks to this neoliberal stooge Bill Clinton who sold the party
for 20 silver coins (sorry, millions in annual speeches). And as the neoliberals the last thing they
need is have Warren as their (temporary) leader. Warren is probably acceptable to neocons as she is
war hawk "light" do I would say that her chances are single digits.
An interesting combination would be to have her as VP to boost Hillary changes and then force Hillary
to resign. But this is a conspiracy theory.
Funny, Republicans start digging the dirt on Bill Clinton again and it looks like he enjoyed himself
not only with Monica during his time at White House. There were also unnamed receptionist, his female
jogger companions, and even Eleanor Mondale, the daughter of former US Vice President Walter Mondale.
Of course those are rumors but they are 'well substantiated rumors" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk
)
Now it is quite clear that both Clintons have a really sociopathic sense of entitlement. A lack
of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating
another; use of seduction, charm, glibness.' That's why "Anyone by Clinton" movement is so strong. Reportedly
around a half of Bernie supporters decided never vote for Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... 'There is a vengeful, spiteful ugliness that some women have for other women. Hillary is just one of those women.' For the latest on Hillary and Bill Clinton visit www.dailymail.co.uk/hillary ..."
"... Their clandestine meetings typically included Bill goofing around and playing his sax while Miller, a trained singer and musician, accompanied him on her piano. He would sometimes unwind by smoking a marijuana cigarette. Miller claims that she saw Clinton produce a pouch of white powder on several occasions and snort lines off her coffee table. 'I don't do drugs and I don't smoke. But if you come into my house and say "gosh I've had a bad day" I wouldn't know how to stop you,' said Miller. ..."
"... Their affair would remain a secret for nearly a decade until she went public on the Sally Jesse Raphael show in July 1992, a day after Clinton had been formally named by the Democratic Party as its Presidential candidate. ..."
'There is a vengeful, spiteful ugliness that some women have for other women. Hillary is just
one of those women.' For the latest on Hillary and Bill Clinton visit
www.dailymail.co.uk/hillary
====
...The book promises to recall a series of unguarded conversations in which she claims Bill revealed
his wife's preference for female lovers. As far-fetched as her accusations may appear, she remains
convinced that Hillary Clinton is behind a plot to silence her ahead of the November election. But
it will also lay bare what Miller, describes as a decades-long Democrat campaign to discredit and
harass her that began when she first revealed the affair in 1992, a campaign she claims has now reached
such perverse depths that she actually fears for her life.
The twice-divorced 77-year-old took to social media in recent weeks to post an extraordinary warning
that if she dies by 'suicide' no-one should believe it. When Daily Mail Online visited Miller at
her Arkansas home she insisted she had been stalked, spied upon and plagued by anonymous phone calls
since word of her memoir leaked out.
... ... ...
It was a very different scenario in August 1983, when a 44-year-old Miller left her back door
ajar so her seven-years' younger paramour Bill could be chauffeured to the rear of the property before
slipping inside unnoticed.
The pair had met a decade earlier at parties and political functions when Miller was a senate
aide at the Arkansas State Capitol and Clinton was preparing for his unsuccessful 1974 run for the
House of Representatives.
So when she needed help getting a vintage steam train project off the ground, she sought out her
former friend, by now in his second stint as Governor. 'I left my number with his secretary,' recalled
Miller. 'He was playing golf but within three hours he'd called me. 'He said "I'm going to be leaving
here in a little while, why don't I just drop by and let's see each other for old times' sake."
'We decided because of the positioning of the condo it might be better if he didn't come by the
front door, there are some prominent people that live across by me. 'He never drove himself, it was
a state trooper or someone on his staff. He parked in the park behind my house. I had a gate on the
patio but he just had to lift the latch. 'The first night I just played the piano while he sang.
He's not noted as someone who has a trained voice but we laughed, it was just kind of fun. 'Finally
he said ''we didn't talk about what I came to talk about, so we're going to have to do this again
sometime''. I had all my notes and pictures, all my ideas, all he had to do was call his parks and
tourism gal and get her on this. Bill is not the most handsome man. But he makes you feel like you
have an incredible body and on top of all that you're beautiful. There are not many men that can
make a woman feel that way. 'But we dragged it out for about three months. And yes, we did go upstairs
where the bedrooms were.'
Their clandestine meetings typically included Bill goofing around and playing his sax while
Miller, a trained singer and musician, accompanied him on her piano. He would sometimes unwind by
smoking a marijuana cigarette. Miller claims that she saw Clinton produce a pouch of white powder
on several occasions and snort lines off her coffee table. 'I don't do drugs and I don't smoke. But
if you come into my house and say "gosh I've had a bad day" I wouldn't know how to stop you,' said
Miller.
'Bill is not the most handsome man. But he makes you feel like your breasts are the right size,
your legs are the perfect length, you have an incredible body and on top of all that you're beautiful.
There are not many men that can make a woman feel that way. 'Do I make it a point to have affairs
with married men, no. But most everyone in Arkansas assumed that their marriage was a business arrangement.
'Bill never sounded like he was in love or locked into a loyal arrangement.'
Their affair would remain a secret for nearly a decade until she went public on the Sally
Jesse Raphael show in July 1992, a day after Clinton had been formally named by the Democratic Party
as its Presidential candidate. But while the future president was a born entertainer and charismatic
companion, the sex itself failed to inspire. 'It wasn't that memorable. It was no big deal - think
about that,' chuckled Miller. 'That's probably why he didn't have any confidence as a lover. 'He
reminded me of a what a little boy would say to his momma. 'Is it OK if I put my hand there? Can
I touch you here?' I've always preferred younger men but I've never had one who asked permission.'
She claims the affair ended abruptly in late 1983 when Miller revealed her intention to stand for
mayor of her hometown, Pine Bluffs, as a Republican.
It would remain a secret for nearly a decade until she went public on the Sally Jesse Raphael
show in July 1992, a day after Clinton had been formally named by the Democratic Party as its Presidential
candidate.
.... ...
BILL'S WOMEN WHO HAUNT HILLARY
Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer who says Bill Clinton groped her in
an Oval Office hallway in 1993 when she came to him seeking a paid job, says she has agreed to
become a paid national spokeswoman for an anti-Clinton group being created by operative Roger
Stone
Paula Jones, the former state employee whose allegations of sexual harassment dogged
President Bill Clinton throughout his administration, was photographed appearing at a rally for
presidential candidate Donald Trump in Little Rock.
Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky's confidante and who worked as a White House staffer says
that Hillary Clinton not only knew about her husband's exploits, 'She made it her personal mission
to disseminate information and destroy the women with whom he dallied.'
Juanita Broaddrick, who claims that she was raped by Bill Clinton in an Arkansas hotel
38 years ago, says that she was cornered by Hillary as she was helping at a Clinton fundraiser
and was given a thinly-veiled warning to keep her mouth shut.
Maria Crider, who worked on Bill Clinton's first political campaign, said power-hungry
Hillary torpedoed the torrid affair that threatened to destroy her master plan to become president
with anonymous phone calls, fears of stalking and veiled threats.
SF94123, San Francisco, United States, 3 months ago
She probably fears her because it's all a bunch of lies.
Not_Surprised, Walton County, United Kingdom, 3 months ago
Don't believe this mess!
Barney Fife, St Paul, United States, 4 months ago
And this is news? It has been rumored for many years Hillary swings both ways. As for Billy,
that has been known, too.
mememememe, Glasgow, 4 months ago
So what? Sad old woman reliving her youth
du Vallon, Midwest, United States, 4 months ago
So this woman admits that she freely threw her cat at a married man, and now she is bragging
about it, and all the bible pounding, family values, right wing Christian fundamentalists want
us to believe that she is the caliber of woman who we should all believe. Making it worse, she
has so little regret at the hurt she caused that she is now passing around some completely unsupported
and foul whispers about the wife of the man that she dragged into bed. Then has the gall to whine
that Hillary isn't very nice to her. I should think not. She is a sodden dox of a woman with no
morals whatsoever. I have no use for her and don't believe a word she says.
peanutmom, SFBay, United States, 4 months ago
Meh. Who the Clintons get busy with, and how, is of no consequence. Hillary could do the entire
USC football team, and I wouldn't care, just so long as the job she does is done right. It was
ridiculous that Bill got impeached over a dalliance with an intern. It's not like Lewinsky interfered
with how the country was being run.
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the
government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success
of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition
party.
1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news
blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better,
create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk
all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and,
of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people
you have thus maligned.
6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not
really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to
make money.
7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out
route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively
harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back
position quite different from the one originally taken.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction,
troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of
evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma
City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge
by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a
press that would report it.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.
According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in
US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013 – about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the
U.S. resident population.[2] Additionally, 4,751,400 adults in 2013 (1 in 51) were on probation
or on parole.[2] In total, 6,899,000 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole,
jail, or prison) in 2013 – about 2.8% of adults (1 in 35) in the U.S. resident population.[2]
[2] Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013 (NCJ 248479). Published December 2014
by U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
... and those who survive, survive in the belly of the beast.
What is wrong with Bill Clinton? He just doesn't look right these days. Is he just stoned, or
is whatever is left of the rapist's brain drying up? Check out Bill Clinton yesterday in Arizona
where they forced Gabby Giffords to stumble through a speech for Hillary Clinton. Something about
BJ just doesn't seem right.
Something isn't right with Bill Clinton. Did he pick up some sort of disease from one of his
trips to Jeffrey Epstein's Pedo Island? He looked like he was about to pass out. You ALMOST want
to feel sorry for the old fogey, but I don't. dance...dancetotheradio
•
7 months ago
Never met a skirt he didn't hike in the Crooked Wagg'in Finger Days of Yore. Firing blanks..
he won't have wedlock problems of Pal Webster Hubbell.
Nor will a poor little baby suffer with the horrible affliction. 2 out of 3, It's more positive,
than negative. Bill has Great Health Care...He'll be Fine.
"... Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek did? ..."
"... In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?" ..."
"... Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying. ..."
"... That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all the time. ..."
"... Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when. Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers. ..."
...l each batch of stolen emails is worse than the last.
Hillary Clinton is a liar. She has terrible instincts. She doesn't believe in anything. Her head
is broken. She doesn't know why she should be president. She is pathological. And she is psychotic.
Just ask everybody who works for her. Just ask campaign chairman John Podesta. Just ask the people
working the hardest to get her elected president.
I mean, in her most rabid streak of attacks on Donald Trump's alleged unfitness for office, Mrs.
Clinton doesn't call him "psychotic."
Psychotic! That is what her campaign chairman called her.
Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern
in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek
did?
Take a poll. And he found out that he could skate by on even this - even this! But first - the
poll told him - he had to stall for time. He had to lie about it for as long as he possibly could
before coming clean.
And that was exactly what he did. And he survived.
And good thing he survived so he could go on to haunt America another 15 years later.
In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC
Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of
questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband
and his allies?"
Answer: Not likely.
Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying.
That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all
the time.
Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when.
Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers.
Exhaust the people with lies. And then, very flippantly, after months or years of lying, say whatever
you have to say to make the press go away.
"I am sorry you were confused."
"I have already said I wish I had done it differently."
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
It is all so shameless and dirty and befuddling that it would make Niccolo Machiavelli blush.
Hillary Clinton is a secret sex freak who paid fixers to set up illicit romps
with both men AND women!
That's the blockbuster revelation from a former Clinton family operative who is sensationally
breaking ranks with his one-time bosses to speak to The National ENQUIRER in a bombshell
9-page cover story - on newsstands Wednesday.
"I arranged a meeting for Hillary and a woman in an exclusive Beverly Hills hotel," the man,
who was hired by the Clintons, via a Hollywood executive, to cover up their scandals, told
The ENQUIRER .
"She had come to the studio to see the filming of a movie in 1994."
"While I was there, I helped her slip out of a back exit for a one-on-one session with the other
woman. It was made to look casual, leaving quietly [rather] that being caught up in the melee but
really it was for something presumably more sordid."
What's more, it wasn't just Hillary's flings with women that the shadowy Mr. Fix It helped to
orchestrate! Hillary's former bagman finally confessed to The ENQUIRER just how
he helped her to cover up her affair with married lover Vince Foster
, too!
The shadowy figure - who provided PROOF of his employment for the Clintons - also revealed 12
fixes he covered-up, including:
+ How Hillary secretly plotted to a counter-attack on Bill's mistress Monica
Lewinsky - via a document
buried for two decades!
+ What crooked reporters were on the take from the Clinton camp!
+ How he covered up Bill's seedy romp with hookers!
+ Which A-list celebrity had a secret affair with Bill during his presidency!
"... Yoko Ono has been talking about it for years and those who would be bothered by it, aren't voting for her anyway. ..."
"... I don't think anyone really cares especially since I doubt she's doing much of anything with anyone nowadays. ..."
"... Now, if she were to divorce Bill and have a public gay wedding ceremony with a divorced Huma Abedin, that might surprise some people but that wouldn't win her any points since it would alienate those who actually just like Bill . ..."
why bother, it's no secret to her voters I don't think Yoko Ono has been talking about
it for years and those who would be bothered by it, aren't voting for her anyway.
I don't think anyone really cares especially since I doubt she's doing much of anything with anyone
nowadays.
Now, if she were to divorce Bill and have a public gay wedding ceremony with a divorced Huma Abedin,
that might surprise some people but that wouldn't win her any points since it would alienate those
who actually just like Bill .
"... Rumors have abounded for years that Hillary's door swings this way and this is why she had no issue with Bill's marital infidelities. While the story is not a new one, if it came with credible proof to support those long persistent rumors, it could be a complete game-changer for the election that is now just a short, three weeks away. ..."
Popular Conservative news personality, Matt Drudge, has caused quite the stir. On Sunday
Drudge tweeted that he was about to unleash a bombshell like none other, one that could potentially
upend this contentious Presidential election.
"Oh, on the sex stuff. Hillary is about to get hers ," he wrote on Twitter,
sharing a photo of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton with talk show host-comedienne-actress
Ellen DeGeneres. The implications, of course, are that the rumors may force Hillary out of the closet
so to speak as a lesbian.
Rumors have abounded for years that Hillary's door swings this way and this is why she had no
issue with Bill's marital infidelities. While the story is not a new one, if it came with credible
proof to support those long persistent rumors, it could be a complete game-changer for the election
that is now just a short, three weeks away.
"... Michael Isikoff, who was a leading reporter during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said in a Thursday discussion that NBC should release a 17-year-old tape of an interview that it conducted with Broaddrick. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton was involved in quashing Broaddrick's rape claims. ..."
Michael Isikoff, who was a leading reporter during
the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said in a Thursday
discussion that NBC should release a 17-year-old
tape of an interview that it conducted with
Broaddrick.
Broaddrick has long claimed that the
interview that NBC aired edited out her claim that
Hillary Clinton was involved in quashing Broaddrick's rape claims.
Warns Hillary presidency 'would be destructive to the United States' Published: 05/18/2016
at 9:56 PM >
[Editor's note: WND sent Candice Jackson, attorney and author of the acclaimed book
"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine," to Arkansas to conduct a rare in-person
interview with Juanita Broaddrick, who claims Bill Clinton raped her in 1978. Jackson's revealing,
in-depth interview with Broaddrick is presented here for the first time. For those not familiar with
the actual details of Clinton's alleged felonious sexual assault on Broaddrick, WND has published
the entire Broaddrick rape narrative from "Their Lives"
here.
What follows, as Jackson explains, poignantly and in detail, reveals for the first time how
Broaddrick's life – like that of so many others – has been deeply and permanently scarred by her
alleged unwanted sexual encounter with Bill Clinton. Broaddrick also details Hillary Clinton's "haunting"
and intimidating interaction with her following the sexual assault.]
By Candice E. Jackson
Juanita Broaddrick first spoke publicly about her experience being raped by Bill Clinton in 1999.
I met her while featuring her story in my book,
"Their Lives: The Women Targeted By The Clinton Machine." She has largely stayed out of the public
eye for the last decade, but she has spoken out during this 2016 election cycle to urge the American
public to refuse to elect Hillary Clinton to the presidency. I was honored to meet with Juanita in
her Van Buren, Arkansas, home to talk about the long-lasting impact the Clintons' abuse has had on
her life.
The brutal sexual assault itself has been described in Juanita's own words in the
Wall Street Journal
, on
NBC's "Dateline" with Lisa Myers , and in my book
"Their Lives." This interview isn't about cheap headlines promising new revelations of details
surrounding the rape itself. This is about sharing publicly new details of how the rape has affected
Juanita over her lifetime. It's also about presenting Juanita's experience to a new generation, including
millennials who may be more open-minded to hearing the truth about the Clintons now than their baby
boomer parents were in the 1990s.
Juanita created a social media firestorm earlier this year by tweeting that she had been "dreading
seeing my abuser on TV campaign trail for enabler wife but his physical appearance reflects ghosts
of past are catching up." One of the many media figures who called her after this tweet was Andrea
Mitchell of NBC. Because she'd had a positive experience with Lisa Myers with NBC back in 1999, Andrea
Mitchell was one of the few calls Juanita returned in the aftermath of her trending tweets. Andrea
Mitchell asked her just one question, listened to her answer, and told Juanita condescendingly, "We're
not going to air anything with you because you have nothing new to add." Juanita felt bewildered
by Andrea Mitchell's dismissive attitude.
Nothing new? Hardly. What happened to Juanita in that Little Rock hotel room at the hands of Bill
Clinton in 1978 is "nothing new," and Hillary's inimical confrontation of Juanita weeks later, and
Bill Clinton's much-delayed and dubious "apology" to Juanita years later are historical events that
haven't changed for three decades. What's new is that Hillary Clinton has all but secured the Democratic
Party's nomination for president, and Juanita Broaddrick is willing to bravely come forward to shed
new light on the lifetime of pain Bill and Hillary Clinton have caused her (and so many women like
her).
"I could actually have respected Hillary if she had divorced Bill in 1978. But I feel like she
has always known about all of his dalliances and misdeeds either at the time or shortly after, and
now we know their marriage is just an arrangement. I can't respect a woman like that." She pauses,
reflecting, "I remember being shocked to hear that Hillary was pregnant. She'd been in Sweden or
Switzerland or something like that when I heard it on the news. I was shocked because of what Bill
had told me in that hotel room, you know, that I shouldn't worry about getting pregnant because he
was sterile after having had the mumps."
Hillary advocates are in a typical situation "The pot calling the kettle black". Bill Clinton
sexapades are much more serious that Trump said or ever attempted...
Notable quotes:
"... Krugman's hero, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is on the record for support Simpson-Bowles. Austerity and raising the Social Security age? What gives? ..."
"... I'd suggest, an underlying cynicism... We're talking about a party that has long exploited white backlash to mobilize working-class voters, while enacting policies that actually hurt those voters but benefit the wealthy. Anyone participating in that scam ... has to have the sense that politics is a sphere in which you can get away with a lot if you have the right connections ..."
"... There is also, I'd suggest, an underlying cynicism that pervades the Republican elite. We're talking about a party that has long exploited white backlash to mobilize working-class voters, while enacting policies that actually hurt those voters but benefit the wealthy. ..."
"... I agree, impugning the integrity of a large group of people is about as bad as calling a large group of people 'deplorables' or Romney's writing off 47% of the population. ..."
"... Unfortunately, history is clear that there is one group of people who routinely took sexual advantage of women: some of the rich and powerful. ..."
"... The main reason it was incomprehensible was that "Europe" practices the allegedly-French maxim "live and let live" in this regard - a considerable level of "benevolent" sin and debauchery will be tolerated and dutifully disregarded as long as it is properly hidden and orderly public perceptions are maintained (or if some of it gets out, at least a customary effort will have to have been made to keep it under wraps). I.e. if you make reasonable efforts to keep it private, it will be treated as private. But fail to make the effort or deliberately show off, then you will meet with scorn and resentment. ..."
"... Using positions of influence to actively take advantage or extract concessions, or abusive behavior of any kind, are not OK, and there is no presumption that it is a perk of power. ..."
"... And that it was viewed as extramarital relations was in good part because a lot of the media "coverage" concentrated on rehashing all the salacious "sexual" aspects in almost pornographic detail. If anybody defiled Ms. Lewinsky's virtue and reputation, it was the persecutors and the media. ..."
"... So why do the French tolerate behavior that would both shame and topple leaders in the U.S. or Britain? Because, despite French lip service to their revolution's promise of "egalite" for all citizens, voters still tend to defer to politicians as a class apart who enjoy entitlements once associated with royal courts. ..."
"... Italy was pretty tolerant of Berlusconi's behavior...until it was proven that he slept with an underage woman. ..."
"... Krugman's claim: "Yes, Bill Clinton had affairs; but there's a world of difference between consensual sex, however inappropriate, and abuse of power to force those less powerful to accept your urges." ..."
"... Wikipedia: "Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001), has been publicly accused by several women of sexual misconduct. Juanita Broaddrick has accused Clinton of rape; Kathleen Willey has accused Clinton of groping her without consent; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her." ..."
"... Sadly, Krugman is just spewing the usual partisan sanctimony ...being shocked--just shocked--at the behavior of the other side while showing a shocking lack of curiosity in the misbehavior of politicians on his side...or denying that it might have happened. ..."
"... Let's be clear...Trump's behavior was despicable. Any maybe, just maybe, Bill Clinton's behavior was somewhat less despicable. Still, we can agree that both behaved badly, taking advantage of their power and position to take advantage of others. ..."
"... Clintons have no convictions. And there is always a worse criminal to excuse them. ..."
"... According to sexual harassment guidelines issued by the Clinton administration, large imbalances of power made "consensual" very problematic. For you irony fans..... ..."
"... How can Democrats be shocked--just shocked!--at Trump's behavior, while they continue to cover up and minimize Bill Clinton's? Can Democrats legitimately claim that Bill Clinton was the lesser of two evils when it came to sexual predation? I don't think so. How many hairs do you want to split when it comes to sexual predation? ..."
"... Certainly, Hillary must find it hard to have stood by her man, despite his sexual predations, and then attack Trump for the same behavior. As a result, she leaves the attacks to her army of partisan hacks...like Krugman. ..."
"... Of course he was abusing his power. Being an apologist for Clinton exploiting his power to get sex is pathetic. Failing to recognize the significance of the power differential between Clinton and the women he screwed is pathetic. ..."
"... Predator talk angst on faux prudes is nothing to neocon predator plans on entire countries. It is alleged that Trump does women. Hillary would do Syria, ousting Assad is her goal much like her murder of Qaddafi and Libya. The bait and switch! ..."
Predators in Arms, by Paul Krugman, NY Times
: As many people are
pointing out, Republicans now trying to distance themselves from
Donald Trump need to explain why The Tape was a breaking point, when
so many previous incidents weren't. ...
Meanwhile, the Trump-Ailes axis of abuse raises another question: Is
sexual predation by senior political figures - which Mr. Ailes
certainly was, even if he pretended to be in the journalism business -
a partisan phenomenon?
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about bad behavior in general...
Yes, Bill Clinton had affairs; but there's a world of difference
between consensual sex, however inappropriate, and abuse of power to
force those less powerful to accept your urges. ...
... ... ...
Mr. Trump, in other words, isn't so much an anomaly as he is a pure
distillation of his party's modern essence.
"There is also, I'd suggest, an underlying cynicism... We're
talking about a party that has long exploited white backlash
to mobilize working-class voters, while enacting policies
that actually hurt those voters but benefit the wealthy.
Anyone participating in that scam ... has to have the sense
that politics is a sphere in which you can get away with a
lot if you have the right connections. ..."
Times are
tough, our backs are against the wall. But, do Americans quit
? No.
Like when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor ;-) ......
There is also, I'd suggest, an underlying cynicism that
pervades the Republican elite. We're talking about a party
that has long exploited white backlash to mobilize
working-class voters, while enacting policies that actually
hurt those voters but benefit the wealthy.
Anyone
participating in that scam - which is what it is - has to
have the sense that politics is a sphere in which you can get
away with a lot if you have the right connections. So in a
way it's not surprising if a disproportionate number of major
players feel empowered to abuse their position....
-- Paul
Krugman
[ This is the rationale of the generalizing in the column,
and possibly the rationale is correct as such and makes sense
of the stereotyping of individuals in the Republican Party. I
have no counter argument, though I feel I should have. ]
I agree, impugning the integrity of a large group of people
is about as bad as calling a large group of people
'deplorables' or Romney's writing off 47% of the population.
Unfortunately, history is clear that there is one group of
people who routinely took sexual advantage of women: some of
the rich and powerful.
The practice even has a name: Droit du seigneur, or droit
du jambage, whereby a lord was entitled to deflower the bride
of another man on her wedding night.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur
Though the Wikipedia entry casts some doubt on the
practice, because there was no proof (there wasn't proof of
much back then), it has been a recurring theme. Balzac and
Dumas, fils wrote novels about very young women brought into
wealthy households as playthings. Mario Vargas Llosa wrote a
novel about the dictator Trujillo's practice of having
virgins delivered to his palace during the 1950s. Amin Malouf
wrote a similar novel about a local lord in Lebanon in the
19th century.
My guess is that the practice is alive and well. Many
Europeans never understood why the Lewinsky affair became a
scandal, because they assumed that such behavior was just a
perk of the position. Certainly, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF
Managing Director and a contender for the presidency of
France, felt no compunction about sexually assaulting a maid
in New York City in 2011.
Now I don't want to impugn the integrity of ALL people who
are rich and/or powerful, but there is clearly a problem with
some of them, regardless of nationality or political party.
The
Feast of the Goat (Spanish: La fiesta del chivo, 2000) is a
novel by the Peruvian Nobel Prize in Literature laureate
Mario Vargas Llosa. The book is set in the Dominican Republic
and portrays the assassination of Dominican dictator Rafael
Trujillo, and its aftermath, from two distinct standpoints a
generation apart: during and immediately after the
assassination itself, in May 1961; and thirty five years
later, in 1996. Throughout, there is also extensive
reflection on the heyday of the dictatorship, in the 1950s,
and its significance for the island and its inhabitants.
THE FEAST OF THE GOAT
By Mario Vargas Llosa.
Translated by Edith Grossman.
Sympathy, or at least empathy, for the Devil seldom fails
as a novelistic formula. Virtue may inspire, but evil
fascinates. Most fascinating of all, perhaps, is political
evil -- the sort of programmatic perfidy that doesn't just
harm individuals but roils the flow of history itself. For
all its richness as a subject, such large-scale wrongdoing
rarely gets much play in the work of North American writers,
who tend to favor stories of private crime over tales of
public villainy. Recent events may change this cultural
emphasis, but for now one has to look abroad, to talents such
as Mario Vargas Llosa, the prolific Peruvian essayist and
novelist, for the lowdown on organized evil in high
places....
Latin American literature is great...and it often deals with
the abuses of the politically powerful...Isabel Allende,
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes
and others. One of my favorites is 'El Otoño del Patriarca,"
a composite of many strongmen who ruled in Latin America.
The US once had great authors such as Steinbeck and Sinclair
Lewis. Barbara Kingsolver's 'The Lacuna' is a really good
story set in Mexico and The US in the 1930s and fascinating
commentary on art and politics of the time.
A Stunning Portrait of a Monstrous Caribbean Tyrant
By WILLIAM KENNEDY
THE AUTUMN OF THE PATRIARCH
By Gabriel García Márquez.
Translated by Gregory Rabassa.
In 1968 when he began to write this majestic novel,
Gabriel García Márquez told an interviewer that the only
image he had of it for years was that of an incredibly old
man walking through the huge, abandoned rooms of a palace
full of animals. Some of his friends remember him saying as
far back as 1958, when as a newsman he was witnessing the
fall of Marcos Pérez Jiménez in Venezuela, that he would one
day write a book about a dictator. He has since spoken of the
influence of the life of the Venezuelan caudillo, Juan
Vicente Gómez, on this book. He himself lived for years under
the Rojas Pinilla dictatorship in his native Colombia. He
covered the trial of a Batista butcher in the early days of
Castro's Cuban takeover. He lived in Spain during the
interminable rattlings of Franco's elusive death, when that
country was a hospitable journey's end for deposed Latin
dictators.
He has added to these times of his own life fragments from
the long history of dictators--the deaths of Julius Caesar
and Mussolini, the durability of Stroessner, the wife-worship
of Perón, what seems to be a close study of the times of
Trujillo and the United States and English
gunboat-puppeteering of so many bestial morons into the
dictator's palace. He has absorbed and re-imagined all this,
and more, and emerged with a stunning portrait of the
archetype: the pathological fascist tyrant.
García Márquez (his surname is García; Márquez is his
mother's name) began this novel in 1968 and said in 1971 that
it was finished. But he continued to embellish it until 1975
when he published it in Spain. Now Gregory Rabassa, who
translated the author's last novel, "One Hundred Years of
Solitude," and who on the basis of these two books alone
stands as one of the best translators who ever drew breath,
has given us the superb English equivalent of García
Márquez's magisterial Spanish.
The book, as is to be expected from García Márquez, is
mystical, surrealistic, Rabelaisian in its excesses, its
distortions and its exotic language. But García Márquez'
sense of life is that surreality is as much the norm as
banality. "In Mexico surrealism runs through the streets,"he
once said. And elsewhere: "The Latin American reality is
totally Rabelaisian."
And so his patriarch, the unnamed General (his precise
rank is General of the Universe) of an unnamed Caribbean
nation, lives to be anywhere between 107 and 232 years old,
sires 5,000 children, all runts, all born after seven-month
gestations. He is a bird woman's bastard, conceived in a
storm of bluebottle flies, born in a convent doorway, gifted
at birth with huge, deformed feet and an enlarged testicle
the size of a fig, which whistles a tune of pain to him every
moment of his impossibly long life. The graffiti on the walls
of the servants' toilet give him oracular insight into
traitorous cohorts, one of whom he serves roasted for dinner
to a gathering of his generals.
He has such power that when he orders the time of day
changed from three to eight in the morning to deliver himself
from darkness, the roses open two hours before dew time. His
influence is so indelible that eventually his cows are born
with his hereditary presidential brand. His venality such
that he rigs the weekly lottery, using children under seven
to draw the winning three numbers, and he always wins all
three. To quiet the children about their enforced complicity,
he imprisons them. When they number 2,000 and the Pope
anguishes publicly over their disappearance and the League of
Nations investigates it, he isolates the children in the
wilderness after a Nazi-like deportation in boxcars, and
finally drowns them at sea, denying they ever existed.
But his most fantastic depredation is the sale of the
Caribbean Sea to the gringos who have kept him in power. The
United States ambassador orders in giant suction dredges and
nautical engineers, who carry off the sea "in numbered pieces
to plant it far from the hurricanes in the blood-red dawns of
Arizona, they took it away with everything it had inside
general sir, with the reflection of our cities, our timid
drowned people, our demented dragons," and they leave behind
a torn crater, a deserted plain of harsh lunar dust. To
replace the breezes that were lost when the sea went away,
another U.S. ambassador gives the General a wind machine....
Latin American literature is great...and it often deals with
the abuses of the politically powerful...Isabel Allende,
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes
and others....
"Many Europeans never understood why the Lewinsky affair
became a scandal, because they assumed that such behavior was
just a perk of the position."
I disagree. I don't know any
Europeans who think like that.
Extramarital affairs are not really uncommon, and not
restricted to people of high social stature. The affair was
viewed more as extramarital relations than (passively) taking
advantage of somebody arguably in a position of occupational
dependence, and the whole impeachment proceedings were
recognized as a witch hunt by lecherous old bucks riding the
well-worn Puritan mock adultery outrage theme. (And some of
whom later turned out to have had affairs of their own going
on.)
The main reason it was incomprehensible was that "Europe"
practices the allegedly-French maxim "live and let live" in
this regard - a considerable level of "benevolent" sin and
debauchery will be tolerated and dutifully disregarded as
long as it is properly hidden and orderly public perceptions
are maintained (or if some of it gets out, at least a
customary effort will have to have been made to keep it under
wraps). I.e. if you make reasonable efforts to keep it
private, it will be treated as private. But fail to make the
effort or deliberately show off, then you will meet with
scorn and resentment.
Using positions of influence to actively take advantage or
extract concessions, or abusive behavior of any kind, are not
OK, and there is no presumption that it is a perk of power.
And that it was viewed as extramarital relations was in good
part because a lot of the media "coverage" concentrated on
rehashing all the salacious "sexual" aspects in almost
pornographic detail. If anybody defiled Ms. Lewinsky's virtue
and reputation, it was the persecutors and the media.
"So why do the French tolerate behavior that would both shame
and topple leaders in the U.S. or Britain? Because, despite
French lip service to their revolution's promise of "egalite"
for all citizens, voters still tend to defer to politicians
as a class apart who enjoy entitlements once associated with
royal courts."
I thought that Thoma would be wise enough not to republish
this Krugman column...but since he wasn't, here goes:
Krugman's claim: "Yes, Bill Clinton had affairs; but there's
a world of difference between consensual sex, however
inappropriate, and abuse of power to force those less
powerful to accept your urges."
Wikipedia: "Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United
States (1993-2001), has been publicly accused by several
women of sexual misconduct. Juanita Broaddrick has accused
Clinton of rape; Kathleen Willey has accused Clinton of
groping her without consent; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton
of exposing himself and sexually harassing her."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Sadly, Krugman is just spewing the usual partisan
sanctimony ...being shocked--just shocked--at the behavior of
the other side while showing a shocking lack of curiosity in
the misbehavior of politicians on his side...or denying that
it might have happened.
Let's be clear...Trump's behavior was despicable. Any
maybe, just maybe, Bill Clinton's behavior was somewhat less
despicable. Still, we can agree that both behaved badly,
taking advantage of their power and position to take
advantage of others.
I say, let's continue to expose the dirty laundry...all of
it. Historically, the media has chosen to treat Presidents
like royalty. But, as we know, the British royal family has
its share of tawdry scandals.
The American people deserve to see what's behind the
carefully fabricated public images of rich and powerful
people who choose to be our leaders. A spotlight needs to be
shown on powerful people who abuse their position both for
personal gain as well as exploitation of the less powerful.
What alternate universe do you live in? Bill Clinton - a bit
old and decrepit - goes down as a good president, isn't
running. We dems don't bring up GWB - a very bad president -
in re Trump.
The analogy to Clinton and Monika: there was evidence he did
the deed; she was bullied, she was the underling, she was
abused, and the process let Bill off. Why different standard
for no evidence but braggadocio Trump?
The shady "process"
that let H. Clinton off on security and federal records was
not like the process Bill endured.
According to sexual harassment guidelines issued by the
Clinton administration, large imbalances of power made
"consensual" very problematic.
For you irony fans.....
How can Democrats be shocked--just shocked!--at Trump's
behavior, while they continue to cover up and minimize Bill
Clinton's? Can Democrats legitimately claim that Bill Clinton
was the lesser of two evils when it came to sexual predation?
I don't think so. How many hairs do you want to split when it
comes to sexual predation?
Certainly, Hillary must find it
hard to have stood by her man, despite his sexual predations,
and then attack Trump for the same behavior. As a result, she
leaves the attacks to her army of partisan hacks...like
Krugman.
> Krugman's claim: "Yes, Bill Clinton had affairs; but
there's a world of difference between consensual sex, however
inappropriate, and abuse of power to force those less
powerful to accept your urges."
Wow. Show of hands: Who
believes Bill Clinton was not using his power to 'encourage'
less powerful people to accept his urges?
I can't keep a straight face with that. Of course he was
abusing his power. Being an apologist for Clinton exploiting
his power to get sex is pathetic. Failing to recognize the
significance of the power differential between Clinton and
the women he screwed is pathetic.
ilsm :
, -1
Predator talk angst on faux prudes is nothing to neocon
predator plans on entire countries.
It is alleged that
Trump does women.
Hillary would do Syria, ousting Assad is her goal much
like her murder of Qaddafi and Libya. The bait and switch!
"... Will you get dinner and pick up the kids? Could you call the plumber about the kitchen sink?" ..."
"... everything - ..."
"... "I'll be in bed in a little bit" ..."
"... Do you want to be more mindful about eating healthy foods that'll keep your mind and body at their best? Sign up for our newsletter and join our Eat Well, Feel Great challenge to learn how to fuel your body in the healthiest way possible. We'll deliver tips, challenges and advice to your inbox every day. ..."
When your spouse isn't interested in doing the "work" of marriage, it's easy to feel powerless.
But all isn't lost, said Jeannie Ingram,
a couples therapist based in Nashville, Tennessee.
"The relationship doesn't have to end," she told HuffPost. "The truth is, all relationships need
tuning up from time to time."
Below, Ingram and other experts share the most common signs a spouse has checked out of a marriage
- and what you can do to take matters into your own hands.
1. They spend a lot of time around you but not with you.
"If you and your spouse spend a lot of time in the same room but they never do things with you,
they've likely disengaged from the relationship," he told us. "Nobody wants to spend the two hours
after work browsing social media."
Try planning new, exciting things to do together so hopefully "your partner will want
to shut down the computer and turn off their phone to be with you," Anderson said.
2. They never include you in their weekend or after-work plans.
Spending time apart (pursing your hobbies or seeing friends) is essential in a healthy marriage.
It keeps the mystery alive. But spend too much time apart and you're well on your way to
living separate lives, said Becky Whetstone, a
marriage and family therapist who works in Little Rock, Arkansas.
"If your S.O feels disillusioned with the marriage, they might cope by distracting themselves
with things they enjoy that that don't involve you," she said.
To figure out why they're disengaging, broach the conversation in a calm manner, at a time that
works for the two of you, Whetstone said.
"Therapists call this 'coming toward your partner,'" she said. "Watch the tone of your voice and
your body language and find the right time - not in the middle of something hectic. Ask, 'Hey, what's
up? I've noticed you pulling away lately.'"
Most importantly, don't lash out if their answer upsets you. "Make it safe for them to reply or
they're not likely to open up again after that," Whetstone said.
3. They never ask, "How was your day?"
If your conversations are limited to household logistics (" Will you get dinner and pick up
the kids? Could you call the plumber about the kitchen sink?" ) and your S.O. seems disinterested
in how you're doing, your marriage may be in trouble, Anderson said.
"When someone checks out of a relationship, they stop caring about their partner as much," he
said. "They don't ask you how work is going, how your family is doing or even if you got that promotion
you wanted."
To show that your marriage is still very much a priority - and that you, at least, care about
them - make it a point to vocalize that.
"Just because they've checked out doesn't mean you have to," Anderson said, "And after they see
how much you care, they might just start caring more, too."
4. They aren't interested in sex.
The thrill is gone - and your S.O. seems entirely OK with that. Why might that be the case? Oftentimes,
partners avoid physical intimacy after they've been hurt emotionally, said Ingram.
"In the beginning, couples in love are so intoxicated with each other that they share everything
- they allow themselves to be fully vulnerable," said Ingram.
But that same vulnerability also opens you up to hurt from your partner.
"If you're emotionally hurt, intimacy doesn't feel safe - it's just too vulnerable,"
Ingram said. "Couples need to become conscious of this and be willing to talk about why they avoid
closeness, perhaps in the office of a qualified marriage therapist."
5. They're hyper-critical of your friends and family.
Your partner may not be as forgiving of your parents as you are, but they shouldn't take the liberty
to rag on them any chance they get, Whetstone said.
"It shows disinterest but it's also unacceptable behavior," she said. "Set a boundary and say
something like, 'Please, why so much venom? It hurts me when you throw so much negativity on to me
and my friends and family. What's going on? Obviously you're unhappy about something. Please, let's
talk about it.'"
6. They go to bed at different times.
"I'll be in bed in a little bit" is not as innocent a phrase as you might think, Ingram
said.
"Commonly, couples fall prey to what I call 'functional exits," she said. "These are behaviors
that are part of everyday life, but serve the dual purpose of avoiding intimacy. For example, work,
hobbies, or when you regularly say or hear, 'You go on to bed; I'll be along later.'"
The good news? Mismatched bedtimes and similar problems are easily fixed if you and your partner
are willing to make the effort.
"Exits like these are not necessarily a sign the relationship needs to end, but rather, an indication
that it's time for some work," she reassured.
Do you want to be more mindful about eating healthy foods that'll keep your mind and body at
their best?
Sign up for our newsletter and join our Eat Well, Feel Great challenge to learn how to fuel your
body in the healthiest way possible. We'll deliver tips, challenges and advice to your inbox every
day.
Bill
looks
sick
too. Notice
the
extreme
thinness,
and
that
red
waxy
pallor.
I
wonder
if
he's
got
AIDS.
Serve
the
mass-murdering
psychopathic
SOB
right.
Did
you
miss
the
part
about
surveillance
cameras
being
set
up
in
key
places
around
the
compound
to
record
people
engaging
in
child
rape
so
that
it
could
be
used
for
blackmail?
It
may
be
PC
to
say
one's
sex
life
is
personal
and
no
one's
business,
but
when
you
are
a
public
servant
(which
is
all
these
scum-fucking-bags
are
supposed
to
be,
not
elitist
rulers),
then
the
personal
life
becomes
one
of
national
importance.
If
the
sociopathic
rug-muncher
Shitlary
manages
to
steal
what
the
feminazis
will
rebrand
as
the
"Ova
Office,"
you
can
be
damn
sure
that
she
is
very
vulnerable
to
being
blackmailed
for
her
scumbag
husband's
lifetime
of
rape.
She
will
give
the
blackmailers
whatever
the
fuck
they
want
because
she'll
want
her
term
to
be
so
many
years
of
'peace
and
prosperity,'
the
same
lie
the
leftists
used
to
rewrite
the
history
of
the
92-2000.
Bill Clinton made multiple trips to Epstein's private island, Little St
James (pictured), between 2002 and 2005
However, the people attending the lavish residence are
likely do not go there to discuss "cutting edge scientific
and medical research" as the Epstein VI Foundation would
like you to believe, but rather go there to experience
full-on sexual encounters with underage girls as young as
fourteen.
That's right, just like a scene out of the
Hollywood blockbuster film Eyes Wide Shut, starring Tom
Cruise, from wild parties to prostitution, orgies and even
underage sex,
Little St. James
reportedly has it all and is seemingly
a gathering point frequented by prominent jet-setters, and
it is all being exposed. The cat is out of the bag so to
speak.
Back in 2005 police conducted an 11-month-long undercover
investigation on Jeffery Epstein and his estate after the
mother of a 14-year-old girl went to police after suspecting
her daughter was paid $300 for at least one sexual act on
the island in which she was ordered to strip, leaving on
just her panties while giving Epstein a massage.
Although police found tons of photos of young women on
the island and even interviewed eyewitnesses, Epstein was
hit with a mere slap on the wrist after "pleading to a
single charge of prostitution." Epstein later served
13-months of his 18-month service in jail.
In 2008 Epstein was hit again, this time with a $50
million civil suit after another victim, a woman, made a
filing in a federal court claiming that she was "recruited"
by Epstein to give him a "massage" but was essentially
forced into having sexual intercourse with him for $200,
which was payable upon completion.
Additionally it is important to point out that Bill
Clinton has been mentioned by the press often over the years
- and not just for his controversial relationship with
Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship with Jeffery
Epstein.
In fact, flight records indicate that ol' Billy-boy would
frequent the island paradise around the 2002 and 2005 era,
while Hillary, Bill's wife, was a Senator in New York.
The Daily Mail
wrote about
one woman's experience on the island:
'I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing
here kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well
he owes me a favor,' one unidentified woman said in the
lawsuit, which was filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court.
The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular
occurrence and she recalled two young girls from New
York who were always seen around the five-house compound
but their personal backstories were never revealed.
"At least one woman on the compound was there
unwillingly" and was an actual sex slave, according to the
Daily Mail.
The woman was allegedly forced to have sex with
"politicians, businessmen, royalty, [and] academics" at the
retreat and was just one of "more than 40 women" that have
come forth with claims against Epstein, showing the vast
scale of the man's dark operations, which aren't limited
only to 'Orgy Island.'
Moreover Epstein was invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding in
2010, amongst 400 other guests, demonstrating his close
friendship with the Clinton family.
To top it all off
"Prince Andrew was allegedly one of the house's visitors. On
Friday, the Duke of York was
named
in a federal lawsuit filed against Epstein, whom
the FBI once reportedly linked to 40 young women. Filed in
2008 in the Southern District of Florida, the $50 million
lawsuit
claimed
Epstein had a "sexual preference and obsession
for underage minor girls gained access to primarily
economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually
assaulted these girls", as
reported
by the Washington Post.
Manthong
bamawatson
May 29, 2016 6:10 PM
Hey,
I thought that
his personal life did not matter.
Damn, would I
love to see one of those teeny
boppers come forward and finger the
former f'r-in-chief.
He was on
Epstein's "Lolita Express" something
like 26 times.
philipat
Chris Dakota
May 29, 2016 11:56 PM
If Epstein needs to restock merchandise, ISIS now have a bargain line in sex slaves.
Wait
until
the
scumbag
'whose
cultural
identity
must
not
be
named'
has
another
high-power
orgy
and
then
let
the
navy
use
it
for
target
practice.
Crash
Overide
HowdyDoody
May 30,
2016
7:15 PM
Rumor is
Epstein
recorded
a lot of
the
sexual
acts
without
people
knowledge.
You may have thought that living with your troubled spouse was hard. But now that you've reached
the point of divorce, you probably already know that this can be ever harder. Narcissistic behavior
can be labeled as borderline, sociopathic, narcissistic, or just intolerable, but it all derives
from one fundamental driving force: narcissists can't tolerate criticism, especially public criticism.
And divorcing them is about them most direct and public criticism you can make. You'll know you're
there when your soon-to-be ex spouse begins a campaign of destruction against you. And if you don't
know how to resond and deal with it, it can take a terrible toll.
Surviving the Storm offers practical strategies that can help you reach a settlement with
your soon-to-be ex, in spite of his or her seeming determination to scorch the earth. The key is
understanding that narcissists fear, above all, critical judgment by others. Your decision to divorce
sets these fears in motion. To counter them, you need to know how to split the battlefield, offering
on the one hand a safe alternative in which you get what you need, and on the other a continuing
stream of criticism, judgment, and shame heaped on your soon-to-be ex. In essence, you trade the
safety of silence for the things you need in the settlement.
Surviving the Storm also offers practical boundaries on what you can and can't expect to
do. It explains the impact of divorcing a narcissist on your children, and offers strategies and
tactics to help achieve a custody arrangement that is best for your kids. It explains what parental
alienation is and where to get more help with it. It offers some reflection on the moral issues we
face in divorce, including the Catholic Church's surprising position holding that marriage to a narcissist
is a moral impossibility. Finally, it offers a perspective on healing and the need for new experiences
to move on.
"... ...Bill Clinton was not just being entertained by prostitutes with his brother Roger ... he, Roger and Dan Lasater were partying with HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS when Clinton was a married governor in his early 30's. I don't know what the age of consent is in Arkansas, but Clinton and Co. were getting pretty damn close... ..."
"... The sleaziest pair to lie, cheat, and steal their way to political power. Sad to realize this country has turned stupid and apathetic while ignoring the current Bonnie and Clyde ruining our country. I approve of the Ceaucescu method of removing evil. ..."
"... And it's critical that ANYONE who votes in our next election read this book. Because Hillary Clinton is one of the most evil players on the world state today, and this book proves it. Just google 'mena arkansas clinton bush', or 'hillary rape lawyer'...there's so much info here in this book and on the web from court documents, newspaper reports that are never mentioned in the mainstream more than once (they got quashed), FOIA results. ..."
"... Wow. This book is just incredible. The Oklahoma City bombing, Waco, Vince Foster, Jerry Parks, Barry Seal, an international Cocaine trade, the airport at Mena - the list of Bill Clinton's acts of corruption and criminality goes on and on. ..."
"... And don't get the wrong idea: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not some tabloid sensationalist; he's a legitimate and well-respected journalist for London's Daily Telegraph and every charge here is substantiated by facts: photographs, declassified FBI documents, interviews with eyewitnesses, and so on and so on, an avalanche of facts. ..."
"... This book is best read in conjunction with Terry Reed's book " Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA " to get the full picture of just how much Bill Clinton was willing to sell his soul for a shot at the White House. ..."
"... Here's this Brit's take on America's ruling class: "The American Elite, I am afraid to say, is almost beyond redemption. Moral relativism has set in so deeply that the gilded classes have become incapable of discerning right from wrong." That was back in 1997. It's only gotten worse since. The day the "almost" in that sentence disappears, that's the day a second American Revolution will start. And when it does, justice will finally catch up with Bill and Hillary. ..."
...Bill Clinton was not just being entertained by prostitutes with
his brother Roger ... he, Roger and Dan Lasater were partying with HIGH
SCHOOL GIRLS when Clinton was a married governor in his early 30's. I don't
know what the age of consent is in Arkansas, but Clinton and Co. were getting
pretty damn close...
The sleaziest pair to lie, cheat, and steal their way to political power.
Sad to realize this country has turned stupid and apathetic while ignoring
the current Bonnie and Clyde ruining our country. I approve of the Ceaucescu
method of removing evil.
This one is dated but
not the conduct of the Clintons. It seems whatever they do, nothing seems
to stick. Both being lawyers, they know the law and politics and how to
avoid arrest.
To say I loved
this book would be completely amiss. I hated the info I read in this book,
but I'm not that stupid that I would ignore it either. Because anyone who
has done any research into these two characters, realizes that everything
in this book is unfortunately, true.
And it's critical that ANYONE who votes in our next election read
this book. Because Hillary Clinton is one of the most evil players on the
world state today, and this book proves it. Just google 'mena arkansas clinton
bush', or 'hillary rape lawyer'...there's so much info here in this book
and on the web from court documents, newspaper reports that are never mentioned
in the mainstream more than once (they got quashed), FOIA results.
Folks, we are in serious trouble if this woman gets elected. If you thought
it was bad with George Bush 1 and 2, or Clinton 1. Just wait. Because if
Hillary or Jeb get elected, you might as well get out of this country while
you've got the chance. They will put the final nail in the coffin of what
was the great United States of America.
Do something about it! Vote for ANYONE OTHER THAN DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.
Wow. This book is just incredible. The Oklahoma City bombing, Waco,
Vince Foster, Jerry Parks, Barry Seal, an international Cocaine trade, the
airport at Mena - the list of Bill Clinton's acts of corruption and criminality
goes on and on.
And don't get the wrong idea: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not some
tabloid sensationalist; he's a legitimate and well-respected journalist
for London's Daily Telegraph and every charge here is substantiated by facts:
photographs, declassified FBI documents, interviews with eyewitnesses, and
so on and so on, an avalanche of facts.
Ultimately, there is no smoking gun here. Evans-Pritchard got as close
as he could with the available facts out there. The evidence here is mostly
circumstantial. But circumstantial as it is, the cumulative effect is devastating.
Yes, the federal government knew about the Oklahoma City Bombing in advance.
Yes, Vince Foster was murdered and his body subsequently placed in Fort
Marcy Park in an amateurish attempt to make it look like a suicide. Yes,
Bill Clinton knew all about the international drug trade going on out of
the airport in Mena, Arkanasas and looked the other way (for a price). And
so on and so on.
This book is best read in conjunction with Terry Reed's book "Compromised:
Clinton, Bush and the CIA" to get the full picture of just how much
Bill Clinton was willing to sell his soul for a shot at the White House.
And one of the truly disquieting things this book drives home to the
reader is that the very institutions we look to to prosecute crimes and
expose injustices - the Department of Justice, the FBI, the mainstream media
- seem all to have been co-opted long ago by the White House and corrupted
in the process. Read this book and, at times, you'll think you're living
in the old Soviet Union - and, in a sense, you are.
Here's this Brit's take on America's ruling class: "The American
Elite, I am afraid to say, is almost beyond redemption. Moral relativism
has set in so deeply that the gilded classes have become incapable of discerning
right from wrong." That was back in 1997. It's only gotten worse since.
The day the "almost" in that sentence disappears, that's the day a second
American Revolution will start. And when it does, justice will finally catch
up with Bill and Hillary.
One of the worst kept secrets in Washington circles is that Hillary Clinton
is a lesbian. Rumors have swirled in the past about the former First Lady's
gay ways, and with a potential presidential run coming in 2016, they have come
back to haunt her.
Back in 2004, a Washington Times columnist reviewing Bill Clinton's
memoir My Life concluded that Hillary and Bill, "have had a pact for
decades. Their sexy, sexy pact is this: "He gets to fool around with
women and she gets to fool around with women (plus the occasional man) yes,
she's bisexual."
The lesbian rumors resurfaced a year later in Edward Klein's book The
Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, And How Far She'll Go
To Become President. In it, Klein claimed that Hillary "wasn't maternal"
"had no wifely instincts," and "many of her closest friends were lesbians."
Klein asserted that Hillary was obsessed with lesbianism, but not in a normal
way. Instead, she was "much more interested in lesbianism as a political statement
than a sexual practice Hillary talked about it a lot, read lesbian literature,
and embraced it as a revolutionary concept."
In the end, Klein concluded that though she has experimented with lesbianism,
Hillary is ultimately asexual.
The rumors were fired up once again in 2007, when Huma Abedin, Hillary's
top aide, stumbled into the national spotlight with her husband Anthony Wiener's
sex scandal. Many accused Hillary and Huma of being lesbian lovers, with Hillary
hiding her "in plain sight" by hiring her as her top aide.
The lesbian rumors got so bad that year that Hillary addressed them personally.
"It's not true, but it is something that I have no control over. People will
say what they want to say," she told top gay magazine Advocate.
In 2013, when Hillary came out as pro-gay to the country, American Family
Association radio host Sandy Rios claimed to know for a fact that Hillary is
a lesbian:
"[Hillary] has always, as far as I know back to college, endorsed and
embraced all things lesbian and gay, that is her history on this so that
shouldn't be too shocking. She has played the role of wife and cookie-making
mother, I'm sorry but this is just the reality of things. We are being caught
in this vortex of homosexual advocacy, it's just amazing."
Finally, Bill Clinton's former mistress Gennifer Flowers spoke out last year
about the former first couple's sex life, and what she had to say was shocking.
Flowers claimed that Bill told her repeatedly that Hillary was "bisexual,"
and that he was fine with it. He also told her that Hillary had "eaten more
p*ssy than he had," a statement which shocked the nation.
In the end, if God-forbid Hillary becomes President in 2016, she will not
only be the first female President, but also the first gay President.
Is America really ready for a lesbian to be running the free world? What
do you think about all this? Sound off in the comments below!
I wonder for how many of them Slick Willie was a patron ;-).
Notable quotes:
"... According to the National Task Force on Prostitution , it's estimated that well over 1 million people in the U.S. have worked
as prostitutes - or roughly 1 percent of American women. If this campaign is a success, that could translate into some serious voting
power. ..."
"Everyday Americans need a champion," Hillary Clinton proclaimed in her YouTube video. "And I want to be that champion."
Yes, few were surprised when Hilary Clinton announced her campaign for the 2016 U.S. presidential race, but many were surprised
by some of her early supporters. Since that announcement, the lovable ladies of Nevada's renowned Moonlite Bunny Ranch have come
out in support of our former first lady in a serious, potentially large-scale campaign called "Hookers for Hillary." These Everyday
Americans have chosen their candidate.
... ... ...
Bunny Ranch owner Dennis Hof agrees. "With Obamacare the girls were able to buy good health insurance and without it they weren't
able to. Since Day One when I bought the brothel in 1992 no legal prostitute could get health insurance," says Hof.
According to the National Task
Force on Prostitution, it's estimated that well over 1 million people in the U.S. have worked as prostitutes - or roughly
1 percent of American women. If this campaign is a success, that could translate into some serious voting power.
"... Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself. ..."
"... Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists. ..."
"... Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government. ..."
Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA
facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role
in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of
the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and
three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and
his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop
it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary
of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere
in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.
Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife's continued presence in a Democratic administration
when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in
the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise
hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign
policy.
With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife,
inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife's activities from his
perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland
to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain's top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even
though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in
both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved
when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons
of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess
of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.
Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir
Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in
Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization
membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of
Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.
But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan's brother,
Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute,
Fred Kagan was an "anti-corruption" adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as
Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan's wife
is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the
military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations
to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible
exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans.
And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.
Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper "Doughnut Dolly" for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency
for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on
Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists
to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made "Orange Revolution
II" than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland.
Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America's "Three Stooges" of ex-boxer
and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg
Tyagnibok.
Wayne MADSEN Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional
Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club
US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Vicrotia Nuland was appointed
by Hillary nu the forigh policy is domain of the President, so she executed policy hatched by "Obama
the neocon", who is great admirer of books by Robert Kagan...
Notable quotes:
"... Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that? ..."
"... Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble! ..."
"... Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration. ..."
"... FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great! ..."
"... You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary! ..."
Following along with his good friend, Republican Robert Kagan (married, in good bipartisan
power couple fashion, to Victoria Nuland, rumored to be inline for Clinton's Secretary of State,
but I don't think so. Not even Clinton could be that crazy).
I can't find a link that makes her party affiliation explicit.
Foreign
Policy :
Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her
hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration.
But FP does not then go on to clarify. I assumed she was a Democrat because of the Clinton
connection. My bad!
FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of
the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure
foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great!
You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart.
Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary!
Hugoodanode?
It's probably bias, but my sense is Republicans love to parade anyone who is Jewish or not
white in front of cameras who can say, "im a Republican" without drooling or dying a little on
the inside. Since Nuland is Jewish, the GOP would have her on their book tour if she was suspected
Republican especially given the GOP obsession with winning Florida Jewish retirees.
"... Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century." ..."
"... Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests. ..."
"... Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East. ..."
"... Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters. ..."
"... The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
"... And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine." ..."
"... The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause. ..."
A new administration only gave interventionism a confused, humanitarian face-lift.
President Barack Obama presents something of a dilemma. I voted for him twice in the belief that
he was basically a cautious operator who would not rush into a new war in Asia, unlike his Republican
opponents who virtually promised to attack Iran upon assuming office. Unfortunately, Obama's second
term has revealed that his instinct nevertheless is to rely on America's ability to project military
power overseas as either a complement to or a substitute for diplomacy that differs only from George
W. Bush in its style and its emphasis on humanitarian objectives.
That the president is indeed cautious has made the actual process of engagement different, witness
the ill-fated involvement in Libya and the impending war-without-calling-it-war in Syria and Iraq,
both of which are framed as having limited objectives and manageable risk for Washington even when
that is not the case. Obama's foreign and security policy is an incremental process mired in contradictions
whereby the United States continues to involve itself in conflicts for which it has little understanding,
seemingly doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past thirteen years but without the shock and awe.
Obama's actual intentions might most clearly be discerned by looking at his inner circle. Three
women are prominent in decision making relating to foreign policy: Samantha Power at the United Nations,
Susan Rice heading the National Security Council, and Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett in the White
House. One might also add Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State, operated far more independently
than her successor John Kerry, putting her own stamp on policy much more than he has been able to
do. Where Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel fits into the decision making is unclear, but it is notable
that both he and Kerry frequently appear to be somewhat out of sync with the White House.
What does the Obama team represent? Certain things are obvious. They are hesitant to involve the
United States in long, drawn out military adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan but much more inclined
to intervene than was George W. Bush when there is an apparent humanitarian crisis, operating under
the principle of responsibility to protect or R2P. That R2P is often a pretext for intervention that
actually is driven by other less altruistic motives is certainly a complication but it is nevertheless
the public face of much of American foreign policy, as the nation is currently witnessing regarding
ISIS.
Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama foreign policy because on her view he did not act soon enough
on ISIS and "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing
principle." Her criticism is odd as she was a formulator of much of what the president has been doing
and one should perhaps assume that her distancing from it might have something to do with her presidential
ambitions. Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order,
Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is
more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the
broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global
architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century."
Now if all of that is true, and it might just be putting lipstick on a pig to create an illusion
of coherency where none exists, then the United States might just be engaging in a sensible reset
of its foreign policy, something like the Nixon Doctrine of old. But the actual policy itself suggests
otherwise, with the tendency to "do stupid stuff" prevailing, perhaps attributable to another Clinton
book review assertion of "a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service
of a just and liberal order."
Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her
predecessors at State
put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway
actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands
for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests.
And the arrogance that comes with power means that the country's leadership is not often able to
explain what it is doing. Currently, the administration has failed to make any compelling case that
the United States is actually threatened by ISIS beyond purely conjectural "what if" scenarios, suggesting
that the policy is evolving in an ad hoc but risk-averse fashion to create the impression
that something is actually being accomplished. Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration
of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because
air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are
a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for
those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East.
The tendency to act instead of think might be attributable to fear of appearing weak with
midterm elections approaching, but it might also be due to the persistence of neoconservative national
security views within the administration, which brings us to
Victoria Nuland. Nuland,
many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of
President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became
Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed
to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances
passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.
A Dick Cheney and Hillary
Clinton protégé who is married to leading neocon Robert Kagan, Nuland openly sought regime change
for Ukraine by brazenly supporting
government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations.
It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign
nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a
$5 billion budget,
but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for her
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and
the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. To be sure, her aggressive guidance of U.S.
policy in Eurasia is a lot more important than whatever plays out in Syria and Iraq over the remainder
of Obama's time in office in terms of palpable threats to actual American interests. The replacement
of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow
over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
Victoria Nuland is playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability
to destroy the U.S., is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Backing Moscow into a corner with
no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons
to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to
gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and
there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting
it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront
Russia. In Senate testimony in May
she cited how
the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline?
Last
week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO
is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's
blatant aggression in Ukraine."
In 2009 President Barack Obama received
the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and
cooperation between peoples." In retrospect it was all hat and no cattle given the ongoing saga in
Afghanistan, the reduction of a relatively stable Libya to chaos, meddling in Ukraine while simultaneously
threatening Russia, failure to restrain Israel and the creation of an Islamic terror state in the
Arab heartland. Not to mention "pivots" and additional developments in Africa and Asia. It is not
a record to brag about and it certainly does not suggest that the administration is as strategically
agile as Hillary Clinton would like to have one believe.
Victoria Nuland is a career civil servant and cannot easily be fired but she could be removed
from her top-level policy position and sent downstairs to head the mailroom at the State Department.
It would send the message that aggressive democracy promotion is not U.S. policy, but President Obama
has kept her on the job. The president also reportedly is an
admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military
power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria
Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she
has been doing, which should give everyone pause.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
If Hillary wins the White House, expect Victoria Nuland to be at her side.
The other day, a question popped up on a Facebook thread I was commenting on: "Where is Victoria
Nuland?" The short answer, of course, is that she is still holding down her position as assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
But a related question begs for a more expansive response: Where will Victoria Nuland be after
January? Nuland is one of Hillary Clinton's protégés at the State Department, and she is also greatly
admired by hardline Republicans. This suggests she would be easily approved by Congress as secretary
of state or maybe even national-security adviser-which in turn suggests that her foreign-policy views
deserve a closer look.
Nuland comes from what might be called the First Family of Military Interventionists. Her husband,
Robert Kagan, is a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for the New American Century
in 1998 around a demand for "regime change" in Iraq. He is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, an author, and a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of a number of national newspapers.
He has already declared that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, a shift away from
the GOP that many have seen as a clever career-enhancing move for both him and his wife.
Robert's brother, Fred, is with the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, and his sister-in-law,
Kimberly, is the head of the Institute for the Study of War, which is largely funded by defense contractors.
The Kagans work to encourage military action, both through their positions in government and by influencing
the public debate through think-tank reports and op-eds. It is a family enterprise that mirrors the
military-industrial complex as a whole, with think tanks coming up with reasons to increase military
spending and providing "expert" support for the government officials who actually promote and implement
the policies. Defense contractors, meanwhile, benefit from the largesse and kick back some money
to the think tanks, which then develop new reasons to spend still more on military procurement.
The Kagans' underlying belief is that the United States has both the power and the obligation
to replace governments that are considered either uncooperative with Washington (the "Leader of the
Free World") or hostile to American interests. American interests are, of course, mutable, and they
include values like democracy and the rule of law as well as practical considerations such as economic
and political competition. Given the elasticity of the interests, many countries can be and are considered
potential targets for Washington's tender ministrations.
For what it's worth, President Obama is reportedly an
admirer of Robert Kagan's books, which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to
accommodate its "global responsibilities." The persistence of neoconservative foreign-policy views
in the Obama administration has often been remarked upon, though Democrats and Republicans embrace
military interventionism for different reasons. The GOP sees it as an international leadership imperative
driven by American "exceptionalism," while the Dems romanticize "liberal intervention" as a sometimes-necessary
evil undertaken most often for humanitarian reasons. But the result is the same, as no administration
wants to be seen as weak when dealing with the outside world. George W. Bush's catastrophic failures
in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to bear fruit under a Democratic administration, while Obama has
added a string of additional "boots on the ground" interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Philippines,
and Somalia.
And Nuland herself,
many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of
President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-14. Yanukovych, admittedly a corrupt autocrat, nevertheless assumed
office after a free election. In spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev ostensibly had friendly
relations, Nuland provided open support for the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's
government,
passing out cookies to protesters on the square and holding photo ops with a beaming Sen. John
McCain.
Nuland started her rapid rise as an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Subsequently, she was
serially promoted by secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, attaining her current position
in September 2013. But it was her behavior in Ukraine that made her a media figure. It is hard to
imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere
in domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a
$5 billion budget,
but Washington has long adhered to a double standard when evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for using
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest in Ukraine
that she and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) had helped create. She even discussed with
U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leader of Ukraine ought to be. "Yats is the guy" she said
(referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk), while pondering how she would "glue this thing" as Pyatt simultaneously
considered how to "midwife" it. Their insecure phone call was
intercepted and leaked,
possibly by the Russian intelligence service, though anyone equipped with a scanner could have done
the job.
The inevitable replacement of the government in Kiev, actually a coup but sold to the media as
a triumph for "democracy," was only the prelude to a sharp break-and escalating conflict-with Moscow
over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine. The new regime in Kiev, as corrupt
as its predecessor and supported by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, was consistently whitewashed
in the Western media, and the conflict was depicted as "pro-democracy" forces resisting unprovoked
"Russian aggression."
Indeed, the real objective of interfering in Ukraine was, right from the start, to install a regime
hostile to Moscow. Carl Gershman, the head of the taxpayer-funded NED,
called Ukraine "the biggest prize" in the effort to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin,
who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." But
Gershman and Nuland were playing with fire in their assessment, as Russia had vital interests at
stake and is the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S.
And make no mistake about Nuland's clear intention to expand the conflict and directly confront
Moscow. In Senate testimony in May of 2014,
she noted how
the Obama administration was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia."
Nuland and her neoconservative allies celebrated their "regime change" in Kiev oblivious to the
fact that Putin would recognize the strategic threat to his own country and would react, particularly
to protect the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. Barack Obama responded predictably,
initiating what soon became something like a new Cold War against Russia, risking escalation into
a possible nuclear confrontation. It was a crisis that would not have existed but for Nuland and
her allies.
Though there was no evidence that Putin had initiated the Ukraine crisis and much evidence to
the contrary, the U.S. government propaganda machine rolled into action, claiming that Russia's measures
in Ukraine would be the first step in an invasion of Eastern Europe. Former Secretary of State Clinton
dutifully
compared Putin to Adolf Hitler. And Robert Kagan provided the argument for more intervention,
producing a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire," in which he criticized President Obama for failing to maintain American
dominance in the world. The New York Times
revealed that the essay was apparently part of a joint project in which Nuland regularly edited
her husband's articles, even though this particular piece attacked the administration she worked
for.
As the situation in Ukraine continued to deteriorate in 2014, Nuland exerted herself to scuttle
several European attempts to arrange a ceasefire. When NATO Commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove
was cited as being in favor of sending more weapons to the Ukrainian government to "raise the battlefield
cost for Putin," Nuland
commented, "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver
to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"
To return to the initial question of where Victoria Nuland is, the long answer would be that while
she is not much in the news, she is continuing to provide support for policies that the White House
apparently approves of. Late last month, she was again in Kiev. She criticized Russia for its lack
of press freedom and its "puppets" in the Donbas region
while telling
a Ukrainian audience about a "strong U.S. commitment to stand with Ukraine as it stays on the path
of a clean, democratic, European future. … We remain committed to retaining sanctions that apply
to the situation in Crimea until Crimea is returned to Ukraine." Before that, she was in
Cyprus and France discussing
"a range of regional and global issues with senior government officials."
But one has to suspect that, at this point, she is mainly waiting to see what happens in November.
And wondering where she might be going in January.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
"... The pedophile scandals among the U.K.'s elite and officialdom are now well know even among the snoozers and comatose. But the snoozers can't connect the dots that infestations of pedophiles and perverts in government is by design. A number of U.K. police investigators have been openly murdered over the years for stumbling onto high-level pedophiles. ..."
"... As I have often mentioned on these pages previously, I do believe pedophiles and various other perverts are actively recruited into positions of power so that they can be compromised and controlled by the criminal cabal. ..."
The case of well-connected Jewish billionaire Jeffrey Epstein made a
splash about a year ago. Convicted of sex with under-aged girls, since
then related news has been largely suppressed. Epstein is in a position
to compromise high level people by providing under-aged girls for the
likes of Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton. Dossiers and lewd photos with
teenyboppers may be called upon as needed.
I actually believe these
activities are a requirement for entrance into the Crime Syndicate inner
circle. In fact, this goes along way in explaining how an obscure Arkansas
governor who can't keep it in his pants can go on to become president
of the United States and his wife the leading presidential candidate
now. According to John Perkins in Confession of an Economic Hitman,
the motives of psychopaths at the top of pyramid are sex, money and
power.
Now it has been revealed that Bill Clinton was in reality a dedicated
regular reveler on Epstein's jet, Lolita Express. The mainstream media
has suddenly "discovered" that instead of being an infrequent "acquaintance"
of Epstein, Clinton was listed on the flight logs 26 times in just three
years. One wonders why such a story wasn't revealed much earlier?
Curiously, faux nationalist Donald Trump also has some Epstein involvement,
including a rape accusation (at an Epstein party) that so far has gotten
little Dominant Media (aka MSM) play. Trump's other friends were described
here.
In addition, another one-two punch story is emerging of Clinton Foundation
slush funds being used for "investments" with Bill's alleged mistress,
and yet another member of the Tribe, Julia Tauber McMahon, known as
"The Energizer." With the sleaze coming in all directions, is the takedown
of the Clintons at hand; and if so, why and by whom? Is somebody else
is in the wings to replace Hillary? Does the Epstein slime blob end
up slurping Trump?
The pedophile scandals among the U.K.'s elite and officialdom
are now well know even among the snoozers and comatose. But the snoozers
can't connect the dots that infestations of pedophiles and perverts
in government is by design. A number of U.K. police investigators have
been openly murdered over the years for stumbling onto high-level pedophiles.
As I have often mentioned on these pages previously, I do believe
pedophiles and various other perverts are actively recruited into positions
of power so that they can be compromised and controlled by the criminal
cabal. For more background on this general topic, see "Belgium's
Dutoux Pedophile and Child Rape Case: A Road Map for Deep-State Criminality,"
"Crime Syndicate Sexual Entrapment Operations" and "Wikispooks: Covert
Blackmail Ops."
In exploring sex offender Epstein's background story, what's particularly
interesting is how out of the blue this former math teacher was given
important positions in the organization of Jewish cabalist multi-billionaire
Ace Greenberg during the 1970s and '80s. As you may recall, the Greenberg
syndicate included Bear Stearns, the firm that nearly brought down the
world economy. Greenberg was the plutocrat who took down Elliott Spitzer
by way of a scandal. As the U.K.'s Independent reports:
Among [Epstein's] pupils was the son of Bear Stearns chairman
Ace Greenberg. In 1976, after a few years teaching the children
of the wealthy, he accepted a job offer from Mr. Greenberg that
allowed him to oversee their money.
Four years later, he was made a partner, but by 1982 he had
left to set up his own boutique investment company, J. Epstein and
Co. He reportedly only accepted clients prepared to invest a minimum
of $1 billion, though many profiles of Epstein admit a lack of hard,
verifiable facts about his business have added to the air of mystery."
Epstein was not just a run-of-the-mill sex offender but someone with
friends in high places that he liked to entertain in a certain manner
and who shared his proclivities.
Also notable and named in a lawsuit involving Epstein is the well-known
Zionist Israeli Hasbara mouthpiece and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz,
who represented Epstein in his 2007 sex-offender case.
The claim from Jane Doe No. 3 (who joined three others) alleges that
Dershowitz himself participated in sex acts with underage girls. As
Epstein's legal representation, Dershowitz then arranged a secret non-prosecution
agreement (NPA) with the federal government in the cases of JD No. 1
and No. 2. According to the complaint, Dershowitz managed to influence
immunity from prosecution for all co-conspirators, including himself.
Prince Andrew also attempted to influence the U.S. judicial process
in the matter through lobbyist ties. Epstein served 13 months under
State charges.
Among her issues are "blinding headaches" that have "frequently plagued her," he claimed. As Radar
reported, other insiders have claimed she has had a series of strokes and
may be suffering from MS.
In fact, the friend claimed, Clinton even turned to sleeping pills like Ambien and Lunesta in
her desperation, but they offered no relief. Said the friend, "She said they made her less sharp
the next day.
"There were incidents on the campaign trail when she felt faint and nearly swooned," he claimed.
"Those incidents were kept secret."
Only the sex-obsessed writers at Cosmopolitan could try that line out... In the article
The Clintons and the Reality of a Long Marriage, the women's magazine attempts to
make the case that the Clinton marriage is actually one that everyone should look up to.
Apparently, hating philandering men is no longer a part of the feminist agenda. At least, as long
as one's wife is running for president.
... ... ...
But virtuous Hillary Clinton stuck by her man! She "could have put her husband's recklessness behind
her like a bad haircut and moved on to continue her change-making and achievements without him too.
But she stayed." And now, the sweet old couple "get to be doting grandparents together, mutually
supporting each other in their latest acts, and potentially becoming the first married to couple
to ever both be President, which will make a good Christmas letter."
Hillary shouldn't be painted
as "a doormat, a punching bag, a fool" for staying married to Bill. It's a sign of strength and nobility!
Or a savvy politician who is trying to be elected President.
The writer's marital counseling goes on. "In the Clinton's marriage model, you screw up. You forgive.
You grow. And you grow old, together, making new memories and celebrating old ones with the same
person you've known since she was "a girl," someone you fell in love with many years ago in the spring."
As gag-inducing as this is, it can't be a surprise. A serial adulterer who's still a popular national
figure and married? That's Cosmo's idea of a hero.
have to disagree with Bernie, DWS didn't do the right thing - she just got
caught, the right thing would have been to put a stop to planted stories
with no attribution and ensure a level playing field. Anyone US side want
to tell me if the thing about Bill Clinton meeting Epstein on numerous occasions
is actually true?
"... The U.S. Navy stewards who served as butlers at the White House were usually the first to discover physical evidence of Clinton's philandering, says Byrne. ..."
"... According to Byrne, the lipstick was clearly not the shade worn by Lewinsky or Hillary. He believed it belonged to a young White House receptionist who was also having an affair with Clinton. ..."
"... Identifying for the first time something he says was dubbed the 'jogging list', he recalls how, early in Clinton's first administration, women 'dressed as if they were going clubbing or working out' would wait by the White House south-east gate for him to take his daily exercise. ..."
"... His bodyguards would collect their names and carry out security checks on them. 'Agents . . . insinuated that this list was used by President Clinton to try to meet these women,' says Byrne. ..."
"... The account chimes with previous claims that the Clintons fought on at least one occasion over his affair with Lewinsky. Byrne gilds Mrs Clinton's aggressive image by recounting how - some years later - she and her husband visited the Secret Service's firing range. ..."
"... For Hillary - gaining in the polls over Donald Trump and potentially just months away from becoming America's first female President - 11th-hour revelations about how the Clintons behaved in the White House last time round may be enough to have her hurling more than vases and Bibles. ..."
The U.S. Navy stewards who served as butlers at the White House were usually the first to
discover physical evidence of Clinton's philandering, says Byrne.
One, who he names as Nel, shared that evidence with Byrne, revealing that over a period of time,
he had been finding and secretly cleaning White House embossed towels stained with lipstick.
Anxious to protect the presidency from embarrassment, Nel was washing them by hand rather than
sending them to the laundry.
According to Byrne, the lipstick was clearly not the shade worn by Lewinsky or Hillary. He
believed it belonged to a young White House receptionist who was also having an affair with Clinton.
... ... ..
There were many other women besides Lewinsky, Eleanor Mondale and the unnamed receptionist, says
Byrne.
Identifying for the first time something he says was dubbed the 'jogging list', he recalls
how, early in Clinton's first administration, women 'dressed as if they were going clubbing or working
out' would wait by the White House south-east gate for him to take his daily exercise.
His bodyguards would collect their names and carry out security checks on them. 'Agents .
. . insinuated that this list was used by President Clinton to try to meet these women,' says Byrne.
He recalls an incident in December 1997 when he heard on his two-way radio that Monica Lewinsky
was at one of the White House gates.
The guard had been instructed to delay her entrance . . . because Mr Clinton was already ensconced
with Eleanor Mondale. Suspecting the truth, Lewinsky - according to Byrne - furiously gestured at
herself and told the guard: 'What's he want with her when he has this?' (Mondale's affair with Clinton
was strongly rumoured at the time although she denied it. She died of brain cancer in 2011.)
Was Hillary aware of his philandering? Byrne suspects that she knew about some of her husband's
affairs but not Lewinsky, who, at 22, was young enough to be their daughter.
... ... ...
The account chimes with previous claims that the Clintons fought on at least one occasion
over his affair with Lewinsky. Byrne gilds Mrs Clinton's aggressive image by recounting how - some
years later - she and her husband visited the Secret Service's firing range.
Mrs Clinton chose an old Thompson sub-machine-gun and, 'smiling ear-to-ear' let rip, pumping bullets
into the male target's crotch area. Witnesses laughed, looked away in embarrassment or glanced at
the President, says Byrne.
Almost as ferocious as the Clintons' fight related by Byrne is the current battle between the
Democrats and Republicans over this explosive book.
And it's not just historic allegations being thrown around. Even at 69, Mr Clinton's sex life
is still proving controversial, with his charity foundation recently facing questions over a $2 million
donation to a company partly owned by a woman alleged to be his mistress.
The Clinton camp has dismissed the memoir as 'fantasy' without addressing specific claims. Also,
some media supporters have noted that some of Byrne's claims contradict what he told the 1998 official
inquiry that led to Bill Clinton's impeachment.
(Others argue that Byrne, who clearly likes Mr Clinton much more than his wife, was lying to protect
him at the time, but feels no such qualms about damaging Hillary).
Some former Secret Service agents allege Byrne was too low-ranking to see everything he claims,
and accuse him of recycling old rumours.
Others, however, have rushed to his defence.
Dan Emmett, a respected former agent and Secret Service historian, says Byrne spent 'many hundreds
of hours' just feet from the President, adding: 'He was without question in a position to see and
hear at least some of the things he claims.'
For Hillary - gaining in the polls over Donald Trump and potentially just months away from
becoming America's first female President - 11th-hour revelations about how the Clintons behaved
in the White House last time round may be enough to have her hurling more than vases and Bibles.
"... On Monday, Raffi Williams, deputy press secretary for the Republican Party, tweeted, "Woman Suing Jeffrey Epstein For Sexual Slavery Claimed Bill Clinton Must Have Known" and linked to a post that in turn referred to a Daily Mail story from 2011. The Drudge Report went for the more sensational "BUBBA AND THE PALM BEACH PEDOPHILE" and linked to the same story. Conservative viral news sites Twitchy and IJReview piled on, as did pundits at conservative websites, including Breitbart and the Blaze . ..."
"... But unsealed court documents revealed that he had been the subject of a much larger federal probe into alleged prostitution and could have faced 10 years in prison or more, if the case had gone forward. After his guilty plea, two of his alleged victims, who had were underage at the time of their encounter with Epstein, sued him in federal court, claiming that he had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage girls" and that he had sexually assaulted them (and many others). Epstein has consistently denied criminal wrongdoing and downplayed his 2008 conviction, telling the New York Post that he is " not a sexual predator ." ..."
"... Clinton's relationship with Epstein is old news. It's long been publicly known that Clinton and other notable figures hobnobbed with Epstein. Still, the new headlines the case has generated have given GOPers a fresh opportunity to try to link Clinton to a sex scandal. Williams, the GOP spokesman, was attempting to draw attention to a three-year-old story that does not implicate Clinton in any lawbreaking. That article, which relies on court documents, recounts the story of Virginia Roberts, who alleged that she became Epstein's sex slave at the age of 15 and that Clinton had once had dinner with Epstein and two girls whom she believed were underage (but she didn't know their ages). But, according to the Daily Mail, Roberts said that "as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait." Roberts did say that she believed Clinton had to have been aware of Epstein's alleged illegal activities, but provided no evidence to support her assumption. ..."
Conservatives think they've found new ammunition for their campaign against
the Clintons-a new Clinton sex scandal. Or sort of.
On Monday, Raffi Williams,
deputy press secretary for the Republican Party,
tweeted, "Woman Suing Jeffrey Epstein For Sexual Slavery Claimed Bill Clinton
Must Have Known" and linked to a post that in turn referred to a Daily Mail
story from 2011. The Drudge Report went for the more
sensational "BUBBA AND THE PALM BEACH PEDOPHILE" and linked to the same
story. Conservative viral news sites Twitchy and
IJReview piled on, as did pundits at conservative websites, including
Breitbart and the Blaze.
What has the right in a tizzy is a six-year-old lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein,
a former Democratic donor who
has been accused of luring underage girls to his island resort to give massages
before ultimately sexually assaulting them. Epstein, a billionaire hedge fund
manager, pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting an underage woman and served 13
months in prison. But unsealed court documents
revealed that he had been the subject of a much larger federal probe into
alleged prostitution and could have faced 10 years in prison or more, if the
case had gone forward. After his guilty plea, two of his alleged victims, who
had were underage at the time of their encounter with Epstein, sued him in federal
court,
claiming that he had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage girls"
and that he had sexually assaulted them (and many others). Epstein has consistently
denied criminal wrongdoing and downplayed his 2008 conviction, telling the
New York Post that he is "not
a sexual predator."
Last week a new anonymous allegation was introduced in the case, with a court
filing charging that Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, had sexually
abused an underage girl when he was a guest at Epstein's house in the US Virgin
Islands. (Prince Andrew has denied any wrongdoing.) And on Monday, The Smoking
Gun
resurfaced old court documents revealing that Epstein's phone book included
telephone numbers and email addresses for Bill Clinton. ("Now that Prince Andrew
has found himself
ensnared in the sleazy sex slave story of wealthy degenerate Jeffrey Epstein,
Bill Clinton can't be too far behind," the site declared.)
Clinton's relationship with Epstein is old news. It's long been publicly
known that Clinton and other notable figures hobnobbed with Epstein. Still,
the new headlines the case has generated have given GOPers a fresh opportunity
to try to link Clinton to a sex scandal. Williams, the GOP spokesman, was attempting
to draw attention to a three-year-old story that does not implicate Clinton
in any lawbreaking. That article, which relies on court documents, recounts
the story of Virginia Roberts, who alleged that she became Epstein's sex slave
at the age of 15 and that Clinton had once had dinner with Epstein and two girls
whom she believed were underage (but she didn't know their ages). But, according
to the Daily Mail, Roberts said that "as far as she knows, the ex-President
did not take the bait." Roberts did say that she believed Clinton had to have
been aware of Epstein's alleged illegal activities, but provided no evidence
to support her assumption.
Clinton and Epstein were indeed once close. The former president used Epstein's
private jet. And the presence of numerous teenage girls on the financier's private
island might have struck a visitor as unusual or even troublesome.
Most political sex scandals follow a predictable narrative: An illicit sexual encounter is
followed by exposé, and then the inevitable apology and atonement.
From what we know about Anthony Weiner's transgressions, the mayoral candidate deviated from
these stages in one key way: With copious use of the web, he appears to have satisfied his urges
without actually having sex. The X-rated photos and explicit messages he exchanged with young
women online don't appear to be a means to an end - no prelude to trysts in seedy hotel rooms or
parked cars (offers of apartments aside) - but rather, they were the end.
Thanks to technology, it's a sex scandal without any sex.
His online dalliances underscore a new age of sanitized sex, where sexual relationships have
been reduced to their most abstract elements and all necessity for physical contact has been
eliminated. In contrast to an earlier generation that experimented with spouse-swapping, group
sex and free-love communes in the 1960s and '70s, today's online generation is embracing sex with
no one. Flirtation, foreplay and consummation can be tidily reduced to a few typed sentences and
graphic photos, or perhaps even a phone call, if a couple really wants to go the extra mile. To
satisfy their desires, a growing number of people, like Weiner, don't need intercourse -
they just need the Internet.
As
Andrew Sullivan observed in 2011, when Weiner's racy pictures first surfaced, "The online
world creates an outlet for the feelings that sexual adultery or sexual adventure create - but
without actual sex, without actual intimacy, without our actual full selves."
Weiner, who
seems to have sent at least one illicit photo to a woman without any encouragement
whatsoever, seems to have a thing for exhibitionism. Some might see in his behavior the online
equivalent to donning a raincoat in an alleyway and flashing women who walk by, but others
suggest he represents something else: A man whose deviance could only exist in the online world,
which makes spontaneous flashing possible without the effort involved in the more traditional
variety. "I'd bet my whole Ph.D. that he wouldn't be standing on a corner doing that," notes
Barry McCarthy, a sex and marital therapist, and professor of psychology at American University.
Instead, Weiner, like so many others online, has become accustomed to on-demand sexuality,
where relationships with another person are convenient, controllable and entirely on his terms.
We're adopting an Amazon.com or Seamless Web approach to our sex lives, expecting that sexual
fulfillment can be ordered up over the Internet like sneakers or pad thai. And Carlos Danger's
dalliances with people like Sydney Leathers suggest that, increasingly, they can be.
"He was never going to take this into the real world, but he wanted to express himself as a
sexual being, and technology gave him the ability to do that," said Cindy Gallop, founder of
MakeLoveNotPorn, a platform for "real-world" sex videos, and author of Make Love Not
Porn: Technology's Hardcore Impact on Human Behavior. "[Sex] is like anything else on the
Internet: It's very easy to get a quick hit everywhere."
It's especially easy to get a quick hit on one's own terms. Weiner minimized the risk of
rejection by relying on social media to serve up the women to him - he generally approached women
who'd followed or praised him on Twitter and Facebook. The web allowed him to form relationships
with real women who were mostly fantasy, responsive avatars that wouldn't spoil the illusion with
annoying habits, physical imperfections or emotional demands. The online nature of the affairs
also allowed him to indulge these fantasies on his schedule, anywhere and anytime he pleased. And
he operated in an atmosphere of unreal reality, just virtual enough to seem innocent and unreal,
and just real enough to make the fantasy a fulfilling one.
These virtual affairs aren't only more convenient, but the crescendo of a sexual relationship
- eliciting desire, stoking connection and eventually reaching orgasm - requires less
participation from the people involved than ever before. There are no rendezvous in
out-of-the-way motel rooms and no heavy petting. Only typing.
What we have seen of Weiner's trysts has revolved around a kind of "sex" that was clean, cold,
practical and utterly efficient. The leaked transcripts of Weiner's chats with Leathers don't
read like the torrid, passionate correspondence of star-crossed lovers separated by circumstance.
They're transactional and to the point. Weiner seemed to indulge a fantasy, then quickly get back
to planning his political comeback.
Though these online relationships may seem as two-dimensional as the sites on which they play
out, their effortlessness and simplicity raise a key question: Will they make offline
relationships seem more appealing, or less? Is the absence of a warm body a downside or more of a
perk? A John Edwards type might have had to soothe his lover's feelings or explain why he had to
leave in the middle of the night. When Weiner had had enough, he could just shut down his
computer.
Except, of course, Weiner's disgrace delivers yet another reminder of another aspect of the
online realm. Just as it beckons as a place full of seemingly unlimited encounters achievable at
any moment, it also functions as the ultimate archive, a repository of every embarrassing
exchange, accessible to anyone connected.
The medium that enabled sexless sex scandals will also preserve them forever.
"... Seen from a French point of view, I must say that this whole Weiner story illustrates to perfection what we can call the "American hypocrisy." On the one hand, you are offended by a man sending a few sextos (which is not a devious behavior!) and promoting virtue whenever you can but on the other hand, you're doing nothing to limit the influence of Hollywood-made erotic and pornographic production, you're watching Jerry Springer trash-talk on TV on a a daily basis and you're delighted to see what teenage icons such as Selena Gomez and Miley Cirus became (they went from being stupid and delicious products to being the latest, outrageous Madonnas with no talent...). ..."
It surely is this summer's major headline! Former U.S. representative and NYC Mayor candidate
Anthony Weiner has been caught sexting with young girls again and again despite the fact he his married
to a caring and supporting woman. So what? Is this really a big deal? Does it really need to be the
most commented subject across America at a time where Detroit is falling down and leaker Snowden
is reminding us of some scary Cold War nightmares?
Seen from a French point of view, I must say that this whole Weiner story illustrates to perfection
what we can call the "American hypocrisy." On the one hand, you are offended by a man sending a few
sextos (which is not a devious behavior!) and promoting virtue whenever you can but on the other
hand, you're doing nothing to limit the influence of Hollywood-made erotic and pornographic production,
you're watching Jerry Springer trash-talk on TV on a a daily basis and you're delighted to see what
teenage icons such as Selena Gomez and Miley Cirus became (they went from being stupid and delicious
products to being the latest, outrageous Madonnas with no talent...).
This is pure nonsense!
There is something America must understand: you can cheat on your wife and still be a good politician.
Remember JFK and Bill Clinton? They both had affairs while at the White House but in the meantime,
they are unanimously considered as top of the notch U.S. presidents. Weiner, Clinton, JFK. These
men illustrate the fact that politics is dirty and so is sex! (And so is 1 in 5 readers of this op-ed
since 1 American out of 5 is said to sext on a regular basis!)
I originally bought this book in May of 2011. I can't remember exactly why it spoke to me,
but I know I was looking for self esteem boosting books. I think maybe the title resonated because
I realized I was having some trouble with perfectionism. Accepting mistakes, compassion for myself,
forgiving myself, but also pushing forward to being a better person, a better worker, friend,
girlfriend, etc. It resonates today because I see how much of a perfectionist I can be, and how
much trouble I am having forgiving myself for past mistakes, and trying not to label myself because
of them. I am having trouble sufficiently feeling the guilt enough to change, letting that feeling
in, but then forgiving myself, and not letting those behaviors define who I am as a person.
How did the book address this?
-I think these quotes from the book really get to the heart of the message: "Perfectionism is,
at its core, about trying to earn approval and acceptance.... Healthy striving is self-focused--How
can I improve? Perfectionism is other-focused--What will they think?... Perfectionism is addictive
because when we invariably do experience shame, judgment, and blame, we often believe it's because
we weren't perfect enough. So rather than questioning the faulty logic of perfectionism, we become
even more entrenched in our quest to live, look, and do everything just right." Brown, Brene (2010-09-20).
The Gifts of Imperfection (p. 56-57). Hazelden. Kindle Edition.
-What I got from this is that perfectionism tricks us into thinking we have it all: we can feel
connected and invulnerable and in control. BUT, it is ultimately unsatisfying because it #1) it
is a lie. We aren't in control or invulnerable, or perfect. And #2) it requires us to change who
we are -- and the connection we most desire is a connection based on being truly known by another
person. So in order to feel connected AND known, we have to accept the reality that we are imperfect,
and we are vulnerable, and we are not in control.
-And while connection is obviously a huge source of joy, Brene also talks about the other kinds
of joy that perfectionism halts in its tracks: meaningful work, enjoyable hobbies, creative endeavors,
etc. Again, because perfectionism tries to give us a sense of control, and thereby tries to prevent
the possibility of loss, we often don't even try to have joyful things, or we deny the level of
joy something is giving us in order to feel less hurt when it leaves.
-And the book has a lot of great suggestions as to ways get past the feelings of inadequacy perfectionism
is rooted in, and also ways to lean into the vulnerability of imperfection. Another great topic
the book covered (and that it alerted me to) was the importance of shame as a barrier to self
acceptance and love and joy. (But as you will see below, I really recommend its sister book for
more on this piece). And I love Brene's emphasis on authenticity as a goal. It is fascinating
and inspiring.
Where I still don't feel resolution:
-One of the things she mentions to get when you are feeling shame is getting connected, sharing
your story. But I have a few concerns about that:
-She doesn't explain in detail WHO has earned the right to hear your story and HOW to cultivate
those friendships. If you are reading the book is stands to reason that you may very well not
have those friendships. If you are cultivating your authenticity and dealing with feelings of
inadequacy, you may have surrounded yourself with inauthentic and judgmental people because of
your need for approval from these types.
-Even if you are at some stage where you have a few compassionate and caring friends (which I
do feel lucky enough to have), it requires them to always be open to your shame at the moment
you need them without regard to the "stuff" they bring to the day. If you are feeling shame about
X today, and so are they, your attempt at connection may trigger their shame even deeper and they
will "imperfectly" push you away. I wanted her to talk more about those situations. It is great
when you can have an empathetic ear to listen, and it feels amazing, but even with the world's
best friends, you cannot always expect that will be available to you whenever you need it.
-And then even if you catch your friends on a day where they are feeling great, or can be present
to your needs and your shame, what if you are a "gusher," and you are at the beginning stages
of dealing with your inadequacy issues, and you feel shame "a lot"? You can become an emotional
drain to them, and push them away. I wanted some more information about self-soothing in shame
situations, or how to manage connecting with friends in those moments.
I am still not sure how I am going to be able integrate this intellectual understanding into a
daily practice. When I do something "wrong", especially something I have done wrong a hundred
times before, will I be able to lean into the guilt, instead of the shame? Will I be able to lean
into the vulnerability? Will I be able to be present to the vulnerability around me?
I know a big part of this is simply practice. And finding strategies that resonate. But the first
step for me is an intellectual understanding, and this is certainly worth reading if that is something
that is important to you.
Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard.
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word.
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!
A man can be happy with any woman as long as he does not love her.
One person loves, the other person lets themselves be loved...
Find somebody over 28 who understands and likes being the receiving end of that equation. Somebody
who doesn't have to use anger and put-down and covert manipulation to justify 'allowing themselves
to be loved'. Someone who can just sit back and enjoy it. Then maybe, just maybe, I will too.The
Unauthorized Letters of Oscar Wilde - C. Robert Holloway - Google Books
Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.
Loveless marriages are horrible. But there is one thing worse than an absolutely loveless marriage.
A marriage in which there is love, but on one side only; faith, but on one side only; devotion, but
on one side only.
The very essence of romance is uncertainty.
Whenever a man does a thoroughly stupid thing, it is always from the noblest motives. -- Oscar
Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes. Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan,
1892, Act III
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly.
Life is never fair...And perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
Children begin by loving their parents; as they grow older they judge them; sometimes they
forgive them. -- Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
Men marry because they are tired; women because they are curious. Both are disappointed.
― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
When a woman marries again, it is because she detested her first husband. When a man marries
again, it is because he adored his first wife. Women try their luck; men risk theirs. Oscar
Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second
marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.
Men always want to be a woman's first love - women like to be a man's last romance.
When one is in love one begins by deceiving oneself. And one ends by deceiving others. That is
what the world calls a romance.
The one charm about marriage is that it makes a life of deception absolutely necessary for both
parties.
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry,
their passions a quotation. Oscar Wilde, De Profundis, 1905
The presumptive GOP nominee was referring to Bill's
numerous trysts with women over the years. Trump accused Hillary of being
the reason for Bill's infidelities, and shamed her for mistreating the women
Bill cheated with.
"And just remember this," Trump said. "She was an unbelievably nasty, mean
enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful."
By Nancy
Kay from DivorcedMoms.com
Could you be
dating a narcissist and not even know it? After starting to
date again after divorce , I often found myself drawn toward highly successful
professional men who are competitive in business and strongly determined to
continue to build their own financial empire. Their determined, confident attitudes
and visible business successes appealed to my strong desires for security and
stability. A recent first date I went on was with this type of guy. My date
with a dentist turned into a three-hour marathon of misery for me when he insisted
that we sit in a back booth that he had reserved in advance with the hostess
by visiting the restaurant the night before and then he told our server that
he would leave an extra generous tip if she served our meals at a very leisurely
pace. Right away he launched into a one-sided brag fest about how he got elected
president of his college fraternity and why he easily scored highest in his
graduating class on the dental board exam. He then dropped names of all the
famous people he knows who live in our city and then went on to reveal the names
of all the famous people his dad knows too. By the time the pasta finally arrived,
I wanted to collapse into my plate from sheer boredom and exhaustion. After
that mind-numbing experience, I ran to my car and swore off dating for several
months. Unfortunately this was just one more very disillusioning
date with a narcissistic man . I had already experienced many others. Several
times I dated a man exclusively for three to six months, expecting things to
become more serious over time, only to have them abruptly break things off with
very little explanation or distance themselves with vague excuses about why
they couldn't continue to spend time with me. After spending many frustrating
weeks trying to figure out how to get each of these men I had dated exclusively
to connect with me on an emotional level so that our relationship could continue
to grow, I finally discovered that there was a big disconnect between the type
of relationship I was expecting to unfold and what these narcissistic men were
able to contribute in terms of intimacy, emotional connection and respectful
two-way communications. I discovered that I was living on crumbs and pretending
it was a whole nutritious meal. Are you dating a narcissist? Here
are six warning signs: 1. He is pre-occupied with how
things around him appear and how he is perceived by others. He aggressively
pursues financial success and is not content with what he already has acquired
or achieved. He has a strong craving for admiration, praise and his home, car,
clothes and high status are a direct measurement of how successful he appears
to others. 2. He exploits or takes advantage of others to get what he
wants. Narcissists are highly skilled at using others' talents; taking
advantage of their desire to avoid conflicts and their good natured helpfulness
as a means to an end to achieve their own goals. 3. He does not appreciate
or even see your unique abilities and natural gifts. Highly self-absorbed,
narcissists are so driven by how they can use others to benefit themselves that
your own individual strengths, abilities and achievements are often ignored
or dismissed as inconsequential. 4. He resents authority and despises
correction or being told what to do. He is reluctant to accept any
blame or criticism and strongly prefers to be in control of things and those
around him at all times. Having his faults pointed out to him or even having
to admit that he made a mistake can set him off into a fit of rage.
5. Petty arguments often erupt into power struggles. The narcissistic
man thrives on being right so disputes are rarely resolved. Mediation and counseling
rarely helps to improve communications with a narcissist because this type of
person sees themselves as under attack and can't stand for their actions to
be subject to the opinions of others and held up to the light. 6. He
disregards your healthy needs for attention and affection. Since narcissistic
men often lack empathy and the self-examination necessary to create an intimate
relationship, you'll often find yourself running on empty. Attempts to get more
affection from him often leads to him creating a secret life to run to and evading
your questions about what is really happening or not happening in your relationship.
If you recognize these signs in a man that you are dating, it is helpful to
remember that narcissists have very rigid expectations (especially for themselves)
and so this type of man rarely changes his ways. Understanding or experiencing
intimacy and love within the context of a balanced and healthy relationship
is not on the agenda of a narcissist. Unfortunately, many times we keep trying
to change a narcissistic man into who we'd like them to become or the reverse
- trying to twist ourselves like pretzels into a perfect version of what he
wants instead of cutting our losses. Recognizing the traits of a narcissistic
man and realizing how deeply rooted they are is critical so that we can begin
taking back control of our own life and start to move forward in a healthier
direction.
< Have you ever had a situation that goes something like this?: You meet
someone and it feels like the stars align. This person is so into you and
lavishes you with attention, romance and gifts. The relationship moves very
quickly and it feels like you have met "the one." Months down the road when
things have settled in comfortably, things start to change. The person who
used to adore and worship you now fluctuates between needing you desperately
and devaluing you. Perhaps as time goes on, the person who you thought cared
so much becomes more emotionally unavailable, distant and cruel. The "Jekyll"
part of the personality starts to overtake the "Hyde." How did this person
who used to be so wonderful and made such an effort to be with you all of
the sudden turn out to be so opposite than what you thought? This can leave
someone confused, hurt, angry and depressed. If this situation sounds similar
to something you have experienced, you may be or may have dated someone
with narcissistic tendencies. Here are some of the warning signs:
1. They are madly in love with you right off the bat and the
relationship moves very quickly: People with narcissistic tendencies
use fantasy like projections when picking a mate. Usually it takes a certain
amount of time to fall in love with someone. Sure, you can feel chemistry
and a connection with someone but to fall in love with who a person truly
is (flaws and all) takes some time. A person with narcissistic tendencies
loves the intense feelings and the attention. Sadly, their intense interest
in you is more so about them and their needs than it is about you.
2. They fluctuate between adoring you and devaluing you:
People with narcissistic tendencies are very hot and cold. They
can be mean and critical one second and then sweet and loving the next.
This becomes very confusing because you are still seeing glimpses of the
wonderful person you first fell in love with but you are also getting to
see another side that makes you feel bad about yourself.
3. They
have little ability to empathize and everything is on their terms:
Someone with narcissistic tendencies doesn't really see things
from your world or from your point of view. Everything is about them and
what they want. They ignore your needs in the relationship and only focus
on getting what they want or what works best for them. They will always
be their number one priority and everyone else will always come after that.
4. They cheat, lie or manipulate and don't feel remorse:
Narcissists don't really empathize so when they do something to
hurt you, they don't really feel remorseful. This can actually be the most
hurtful part because it may make you feel like they never cared about you
at all. Moving on can be very hard because a lot of people feel that they
need closure or apologies that they will never get from narcissistic people.
5. When it's all over, it's like you never mattered: A
classic case narcissist mostly uses people for their own gain and has very
little emotional connection to those that are in their lives. Because of
this, they discard people in their lives very easily. I recently watched
an episode of the new HBO show Girls and in this particular episode, one
of the characters who had broken up with her serious long-term boyfriend
2 weeks prior now finds he already has a new girlfriend. Shocked that he
could move on so quickly from something so serious she exclaims. "you're
a sociopath!!" and walks away. Even though she was the one who broke up
with him, she is shocked that it feels like their relationship meant nothing
to him at the end of the day and that she was easily replaceable. People
recovering from narcissistic relationships are often in shock that someone
who once claimed to love them so much has moved on so quickly and without
any sense of remorse.
How to spot a narcissist:
I always tell my clients to take the time to really get to know the people
they are dating before getting too emotionally invested or putting all their
eggs in one basket. There are definitely fairy tale stories out there of
two people falling madly in love with each other right at the get go and
spending their lives happily ever after, but that is generally not the norm.
Keep your guard up the more intensely the person is into you and the earlier
on it occurs. Past relationship patterns are also very important to look
at. As mentioned above, people who are narcissistic are intense very quickly
and end up leaving a trail of shattered relationships and people who are
left to pick up the pieces (and often need quite a bit of therapy after
being in the destructive path of a narcissist). If you get an idea of the
dating history of someone and it follows a certain pattern, pay attention
to that. Yes, people can change, but past relationship patterns can raise
a lot of red flags. The reason people have a hard time of extricating themselves
from a narcissistic relationship is because it is hard to get past the fact
that someone who used to be so wonderful and loving can turn so cold, hateful
and lacking in remorse. These people hang on because of the glimpses they
get of the good side and hold out the hope that if they were only "good
enough" or "better", or unconditionally accepted and loved this person then
they could get the nice and kind person back.
It turns into a vicious cycle
and the more you get into a relationship, the harder it is to get out of.
Being in a relationship with a narcissist will make you feel crazy and most
narcissists actually don't actively leave relationships; they wait to be
left first. It can be really hard to get out of a relationship like this
and if you have never been in one, it's hard to know how. If someone makes
you feel worthless or crazy and you know they are not treating you with
respect, or empathizing with you, that might be hard to change. Learning
to spot negative patterns early and having the strength to know what you
deserve in a relationship is one of the best things to do if you find yourself
involved with one of these people.
Recovery after a narcissistic
relationship:
Recovery after a narcissistic relationship can be very difficult. Many
people are driven to therapy because they have been left completely shattered
and fragile after a relationship with a narcissist. The most important thing
to remember is that it's not about YOU. This has everything to do with the
flaws of the narcissist and their inability to make real, meaningful connections
with others. What they have done to you is what they have done and will
continue to do in all their relationships unless they recognize this within
themselves and get help. The problem is, most narcissistic people never
recognize that they need to change. Remember that you deserve a relationship
that builds you up, that makes you feel safe, and that brings you happiness
and warmth. A person who is narcissistic cannot give this to you, simply
because they are not capable of it.
"... "You're the prettiest. The sexiest. The skinniest. The best mom. The funniest." ..."
"... "You have such a sexy voice. Not too high, nor too low; it's just perfect. My friend Courtney's voice is super high-pitched and she has this weird way of talking through her teeth. Annoying." ..."
"... "You have a great body. I guess I'm used to having more to hug with my ex!" ..."
What do you get when you cross a sociopath with a narcissist? The least funny
joke and the worst kind of hybrid: a narcissistic sociopath, narcopath for short.
Both a narcissist and sociopath have an inflated sense of how important they
are, as well as a constant need for praise and admiration. One commonality between
the two is their ability to fool others in order to get what they want, without
remorse. But what sets them apart is that a narcopath is unable to handle criticism
or be viewed in a negative light, whereas a sociopath couldn't care less who
thinks what or how they're perceived. When you hear the word narcopath you may
picture a deranged, knife-wielding lunatic - at least that's what I pictured
before I met my own. Unfortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth.
Narcopaths are boogie men in disguise and wolves in sheep's clothing. Their
abuse is sometimes so subtle that you don't see it until the curtain closes
and your world is torn apart. Still unsure if you're in a relationship with
a narcopath? Here are ten telltale signs that you might be.
1.
Things move from zero to one hundred in seconds.
From the beginning, nothing is normal with a narcopath. Things progress at
warp speed, hop-scotching over the usual stages of a relationship. Instead of
slowly getting to know one another, you go from the first date to planning your
future together within weeks of meeting. And when your gut warns you things
are moving too fast, you tell it to shut up because you've finally found your
soulmate.
2. They're a broken record of compliments.
A narcopath will sweep you off your feet, place you on a pedestal, then worship
you from down below. They'll tell you the things you've always wanted to hear,
saying them over and over and over again. But listen closely and you'll notice
there's not much variation in these love monologues, and their sweet-nothings
sound more like a script than anything from the heart. "You're the prettiest.
The sexiest. The skinniest. The best mom. The funniest." If everything
feels staged and too good to be true, it probably is.
3. They flatter you with comparisons.
There's no period at the end of a compliment. Instead, a narcopath compliments
you by comparing you to someone else in their life. In my case, he'd say things
like, "You have such a sexy voice. Not too high, nor too low; it's just
perfect. My friend Courtney's voice is super high-pitched and she has this weird
way of talking through her teeth. Annoying." Or, "You have a great
body. I guess I'm used to having more to hug with my ex!" Praising you
by putting down others is a huge red flag, not to mention incredibly distasteful.
And while it's no doubt flattering to hear these praises, keep in mind that
one day they'll be offering them to someone else and using your name to fill
the second blank.
4. Your chemistry between the sheets is off the charts.
You've never felt this much passion with anyone else. Pushing all the right
buttons in just the right ways, it's like they're reading your mind and its
desires. The reason sex is so mind-blowing, at least in the beginning, isn't
because they know what to do with their hands; they know what to do with your
mind . They'll make you feel like you're the only one who's ever existed
to them. Yes, narcopaths are indeed that great - at acting, that is. By mirroring
your every emotion they're able to make their own emotions seem genuine and
fool you into thinking yours are real.
5. Their eyes are windows to nothingness.
My Narc-in-a-Box would stare at me with such intensity I'd become nervous,
fidget, and quickly turn away. Speaking directly into my eyes with a deadpan
and unwavering stare, I don't think he blinked once during our four months together.
At times his gaze was so piercing that his pupils practically vanished. But
sadly, behind all that intensity lied a vast amount of dark nothingness. I turned
away from that stare because it made me feel uneasy in all the wrong ways.
6. They always lead the conversation back to themselves.
On the surface, a narcopath seems hyper-focused on you and genuinely interested
in learning all there is to know. Yet the moment you begin divulging this information,
they quickly interrupt with a story of their own. It's like a revolving door:
They ask you a question to gain the opportunity to talk about themselves. They're
quick to interject with their thoughts and opinions, and always have a similar
experience to share with you. Experiences that, once dissected, are nothing
more than sweetly camouflaged one-uppers and indirect ways to let you know that
they know better.
7. They have a checkered relationship history.
I've never met anyone with such an odd and storied relationship history.
He traveled to Texas after meeting a girl online, then met his ex-wife online,
and later flew in another girl he met online (through a quiz website!) all the
way from Europe, before finally meeting me online. Narcopaths often leave long
trails of broken relationships behind them, but of course they were never the
ones responsible for breaking them. And no matter how long ago it ended, they'll
claim all their former flames still burn strongly for them from afar.
8. They use big words that have little substance.
Have you ever read something that initially seems incredibly deep and profound,
until you reach the end and realize it's nothing but a nonsensical jumble of
fancy words? A narcopath craves superiority and thrives on being smarter than
everyone in the room. The only the problem is that often times they're not,
forcing them to fake it and pray no one catches on. On the surface, a narcopath
seems highly intelligent and cultured, but dig deeper and you'll discover it's
nothing but fluff.
9. They give because it makes them look better.
Give and you shall receive. Or, in the narcopath's case, give and tell everyone
within a thousand mile radius who you gave to and exactly how much. A narcopath
doesn't give because it makes them feel good on the inside; rather, they give
because it makes them look good from the outside. No kind deed goes unnoticed,
because they'd never allow it. Whether it's helping an old lady cross the street,
giving a homeless person a buck, or donating to their children's PTA, they'll
make sure someone knows about their generosity.
10. They're no stranger to the silent treatment.
Narcopaths love to dish it out. You may see glimpses of this passive-aggressive
form of punishment early on in the relationship, or it might come on suddenly
out of left field. Either way, the silent treatment is without a doubt the most
vile and abusive trait that narcopaths possess. Like a child, anytime they can't
get their way or feel threatened, they stomp away with their arms crossed and
punish you with a deafening silence. The harder you reach out, the more you
cry, and the angrier you become, the better they feel. It's normal for your
partner to get angry, sulk, or brood sometimes. What isn't normal is using silence
as a weapon to punish and control you, then sitting back and gaining pleasure
from your pain.
Late last year, I wrote a
piece where I shared a perspective, based on
growing research , that
narcissism isn't simply a stubborn trait, but a style of coping. The seeds
of that idea turned into a
book ,
scheduled for release in spring next year. Since I promised a follow up, I'm
taking a brief break from the larger project to deliver on my promise. Here's
a glimpse at what's to come. If you think your partner's a
narcissist , you might want to try these seven strategies. Check For
Abuse : None of what I'm about to suggest is likely to help if the person
you love is physically or emotionally abusive. Not all narcissists, even those
diagnosed with
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) , resort to abuse. But some do -
and if you're on the receiving end, your first step should be to explore
what makes it hard for you to leave . If you're facing abuse, it doesn't
matter whether it's driven by your partner's narcissism, chronic pain, or drug
addiction - the problem is the abuse, plain and simple. And the abuser is 100
percent responsible for his or her choice. Until that changes, you probably
won't feel safe enough - nor should you - to take the kinds of risks I'm recommending
here. Check for Denial: Most people recognize denial when they see it.
It's easily the most famous of all the defense mechanisms. The alcoholic who
protests, "I just enjoy the taste of fine wine!"; the terminally ill patient
who assures everyone, "It's just a cough"; and the narcissist who, despite having
alienated all her friends and lost her job, proclaims, "I'm just fine" - all
are exhibiting denial. The more denial a narcissist displays, the less hopeful
you should feel about change. How bad is denial? In
adolescents , it
predicts some of the most ruthless, demanding forms of narcissism - adults
who happily admit "I find it easy to manipulate people." Make sure your partner
can admit something's wrong, even if it's as simple as saying, "my life isn't
where I hoped it would be." Contrary to what you might think,
some narcissists do seek therapy . Which kinds? The "vulnerable" ones, riddled
with shame and fear; they freely admit they have problems instead of
burying them beneath near-delusional denial. In fact, they're also
more likely to stick with treatment once they start. Beware the Manipulator
:
Across studies , narcissists who score high on measures of entitlement and
exploitation (or, EE, as researchers call it) have the highest levels of aggression,
a strong impulse to cheat, and even, when angered, a penchant for stealing or
sabotaging property at work. In fact, EE
singlehandedly
accounts for most of the worst behaviors a narcissist can display. Manipulative
narcissists are also
more likely to score higher on measures of Psychopathy and Machiavellianism.
The former is a cold callous personality linked to criminal behaviors, while
the latter, as you can guess from the name, describes a cutthroat, "do whatever
it takes" personality. Along with narcissism, these two traits comprise personality's
dark triad . Not all narcissists are cold and manipulative. But the ones
who are pose the greatest threat because they're so practiced at play-acting
and deceit you'll have a hard time separating fact from fiction. Check Their
Willingness to Change: This one might seem obvious, but it's crucial enough
that it bears mentioning. The easiest way to test a partner's capacity to change
is to seek help from a couples therapist - or any therapist for that matter.
Even people who aren't narcissists can be leery of therapy, so this one shouldn't
be considered a litmus test. If your partner's willing to work with you, though,
your odds at improving the relationship have probably jumped by an order of
magnitude. Check Your Anger: "You've always been the paranoid, jealous
type," sneers your partner after you openly wonder about the amount of time
he's spending with his attractive coworker. Our natural tendency, when faced
with such shocking indifference to our fear of losing love or needing more closeness
and comfort, is to protect ourselves. For many people, this means donning battle
armor and launching an attack. "You're the most selfish person I know! I don't
know why I'm with you!" As understandable as the protective measures are, they
cut us off from crucial information: Can our partners hear our sadness and fear
and feel moved? If there's any way at all to reach through the detachment, it's
by sharing our feelings at a more vulnerable level. Try this: "You mean so much
to me; I hear you talking to her and I'm scared I'm not enough for you." Or,
"Your opinion means the world to me; when I hear you talk to me that way I feel
so small and worthless in your eyes." Most partners, if they can feel anything
at all, will melt when they hear comments like this. They don't just convey
your pain with greater clarity; they remind your partner why the behavior
hurts - because it comes from the one person who matters most. How effective
is this kind of communication? Across decades of studies,
90 percent
of couples who learned to share the sadness and fear beneath the anger,
healed their broken bond and enjoyed happy, closer relationships. Likewise,
in multiple
recent studies , narcissists who focused on caring and closeness ("communal
behavior") actually scored lower over time on several measures of narcissism;
those who saw their partners as communal (compared to those who didn't)
even
said they'd be less likely to cheat . Check Your Silence: Say you
come home from a hard day at work, and your boyfriend, grumbling about the weekend
plans being up in the air, starts lecturing you about how indecisive you are.
"You sure take a long time to make decisions, don't you?" Condescending remarks
like this don't always enrage us. When our self-esteem is already crumbling,
they often shut us down completely; we crawl away, crestfallen, or slip into
hours of silence. But we have to find a voice again if we want things to get
better. Research suggests
that silent withdrawal is just another way of coping with feeling sad or
fearful about our connection with people we love; your best bet, as with anger,
is to go beneath the impulse to shut down and share the upset. "I'm feeling
so put down right now I'm afraid you've stopped caring about me altogether."
Why is this so important? Though they appear to be universal ways of coping
with fears about the people we love, anger and withdrawal also
ramp
up our partners' insecurities . The result? Our loved ones fall back on
their usual way of protecting themselves - like criticism or indifference -
instead of hearing our pain. If they're narcissists, that means they resort
to their favorite MO - narcissism. Be Honest with Yourself: If you've
tried a more loving approach to sharing what hurts in your relationship, and
the narcissist in your life still won't soften, you truly have done everything
you can. This might be the only hope for change. Those of you who wrote
in to say you already tried this and it didn't work have made a valiant effort;
you may have exhausted your supply of empathy from working so hard. If so, my
heart goes out to you. But staying in an unhappy relationship comes at a steep
price,
including your self-esteem. Ask yourself, honestly - are you staying because
your partner's doing his best to change - or because it feels too hard to leave?
Even if the people we love want to change, none of us should be expected
to endure the same hurts over and over. Narcissistic arrogance and hostility
elicit our worst behaviors ; they get beneath our skin, working away like
a thousand needles. The natural response is to pull away or lash back; but if
you do your best to share the pain openly, letting your loved ones see your
softer feelings, you're giving them their best - and only shot - at hearing
you. If they can't understand your pain then, perhaps they never will. As sad
and difficult as it feels, you might need to take care of yourself by leaving.
Because regardless of which habit steals their attention away from genuine love
and intimacy, if our loved ones can't risk change, their problems are here to
stay. Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) for the
National Domestic Violence
Hotline . If you like my posts, let me know! Let's connect on
facebook
and twitter. And be sure to
sign up for my newsletter, for more tips and advice, as well as information
on my forthcoming
book , about understanding and coping with narcissism in all its forms,
in our friends, lovers, colleagues-and even ourselves. HARPERWAVE AND HARPER
UK, SPRING 2015
The overall pattern of narcissistic behavior is emotional instability and aggressive behavior caused
by insecurity and weakness rather than any real feelings of confidence or self-esteem. One very interesting
and revealing feature of a narcissist (as well as several other types of psychopaths) is emotion-phobia
Notable quotes:
"... Narcissists abhor feeling influenced in any significant way. It challenges their sense of perfect autonomy; to admit to a feeling of any kind suggests they can be affected by someone or something outside of them. So they often change the subject when feelings come up, especially their own, and as quick as they might be to anger, it's often like pulling teeth to get them to admit that they've reached the boiling point - even when they're in the midst of the most terrifying tirade. ..."
Emotion-phobia: Feelings are a natural consequence of being human, and we tend to have
lots of them in the course of normal interactions. But the very fact of having a feeling in the presence
of another person suggests you can be touched emotionally by friends, family, partners, and even
the occasional tragedy or failure. Narcissists abhor feeling influenced in any significant way.
It challenges their sense of perfect autonomy; to admit to a feeling of any kind suggests they can
be affected by someone or something outside of them. So they often change the subject when feelings
come up, especially their own, and as quick as they might be to anger, it's often like pulling teeth
to get them to admit that they've reached the boiling point - even when they're in the midst of the
most terrifying tirade.
"... In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation. The "Stockholm Syndrome" reaction in hostage and/or abuse situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as unusual. ..."
"... Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships. The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority. ..."
"... In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse), or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not "all bad" and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal or physical abuse in a certain situation. An aggressive and jealous partner may normally become intimidating or abusive in certain social situations, as when an opposite-sex coworker waves in a crowd. After seeing the wave, the victim expects to be verbally battered and when it doesn't happen, that "small kindness" is interpreted as a positive sign. ..."
"... During the relationship, the abuser/controller may share information about their past - how they were mistreated, abused, neglected, or wronged. ..."
"... Sympathy may develop toward the abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with "I know he fractured my jaw and ribs…but he's troubled. He had a rough childhood!" ..."
"... Keep in mind: once you become hardened to the "sad stories", they will simply try another approach. I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I'm beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me!" ..."
"... In abusive and controlling relationships, the victim has the sense they are always "walking on eggshells" - fearful of saying or doing anything that might prompt a violent/intimidating outburst. For their survival, they begin to see the world through the abuser's perspective. They begin to fix things that might prompt an outburst, act in ways they know makes the abuser happy, or avoid aspects of their own life that may prompt a problem. If we only have a dollar in our pocket, then most of our decisions become financial decisions. If our partner is an abuser or controller, then the majority of our decisions are based on our perception of the abuser's potential reaction. We become preoccupied with the needs, desires, and habits of the abuser/controller. ..."
"... Controlling partners have increased the financial obligations/debt in the relationship to the point that neither partner can financially survive on their own. ..."
"... The legal ending of a relationship, especially a marital relationship, often creates significant problems. ..."
"... The Controller often uses extreme threats including threatening to take the children out of state, threatening to quit their job/business rather than pay alimony/support, threatening public exposure of the victim's personal issues, or assuring the victim they will never have a peaceful life due to nonstop harassment. ..."
While the psychological condition in hostage situations became known as "Stockholm Syndrome" due
to the publicity, the emotional "bonding" with captors was a familiar story in psychology. It had
been recognized many years before and was found in studies of other hostage, prisoner, or abusive
situations such as:
Abused Children
Battered/Abused Women
Prisoners of War
Cult Members
Incest Victims
Criminal Hostage Situations
Concentration Camp Prisoners
Controlling/Intimidating Relationships
In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival
for victims of abuse and intimidation. The "Stockholm Syndrome" reaction in hostage and/or abuse
situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as
unusual. In fact, it is often encouraged in crime situations as it improves the chances for
survival of the hostages. On the down side, it also assures that the hostages experiencing "Stockholm
Syndrome" will not be very cooperative during rescue or criminal prosecution. Local law enforcement
personnel have long recognized this syndrome with battered women who fail to press charges, bail
their battering husband/boyfriend out of jail, and even physically attack police officers when they
arrive to rescue them from a violent assault.
Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships.
The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role
in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority.
It's important to understand the components of Stockholm Syndrome as they relate to abusive and
controlling relationships. Once the syndrome is understood, it's easier to understand why victims
support, love, and even defend their abusers and controllers.
Every syndrome has symptoms or behaviors, and Stockholm Syndrome is no exception. While a clear-cut
list has not been established due to varying opinions by researchers and experts, several of these
features will be present:
Positive feelings by the victim toward the abuser/controller
Negative feelings by the victim toward family, friends, or authorities trying to rescue/support
them or win their release
Support of the abuser's reasons and behaviors
Positive feelings by the abuser toward the victim
Supportive behaviors by the victim, at times helping the abuser
Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment
Stockholm Syndrome doesn't occur in every hostage or abusive situation. In another bank robbery
involving hostages, after terrorizing patrons and employees for many hours, a police sharpshooter
shot and wounded the terrorizing bank robber. After he hit the floor, two women picked him up and
physically held him up to the window for another shot. As you can see, the length of time one is
exposed to abuse/control and other factors are certainly involved.
It has been found that four situations or conditions are present that serve as a foundation for
the development of Stockholm Syndrome. These four situations can be found in hostage, severe abuse,
and abusive relationships:
The presence of a perceived threat to one's physical or psychological survival and the belief
that the abuser would carry out the threat.
The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser
The perceived inability to escape the situation
By considering each situation we can understand how Stockholm Syndrome develops in romantic relationships
as well as criminal/hostage situations. Looking at each situation:
Perceived Threat to One's Physical/Psychological Survival
The perception of threat can be formed by direct, indirect, or witnessed methods. Criminal or
antisocial partners can directly threaten your life or the life of friends and family. Their history
of violence leads us to believe that the captor/controller will carry out the threat in a direct
manner if we fail to comply with their demands. The abuser assures us that only our cooperation keeps
our loved ones safe.
Indirectly, the abuser/controller offers subtle threats that you will never leave them or have
another partner, reminding you that people in the past have paid dearly for not following their wishes.
Hints are often offered such as "I know people who can make others disappear". Indirect threats also
come from the stories told by the abuser or controller - how they obtained revenge on those who have
crossed them in the past. These stories of revenge are told to remind the victim that revenge is
possible if they leave.
Witnessing violence or aggression is also a perceived threat. Witnessing a violent temper directed
at a television set, others on the highway, or a third party clearly sends us the message that we
could be the next target for violence. Witnessing the thoughts and attitudes of the abuser/controller
is threatening and intimidating, knowing that we will be the target of those thoughts in the future.
The "Small Kindness" Perception
In threatening and survival situations, we look for evidence of hope - a small sign that the situation
may improve. When an abuser/controller shows the victim some small kindness, even though it is to
the abuser's benefit as well, the victim interprets that small kindness as a positive trait of the
captor. In criminal/war hostage situations, letting the victim live is often enough. Small behaviors,
such as allowing a bathroom visit or providing food/water, are enough to strengthen the Stockholm
Syndrome in criminal hostage events.
In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse),
or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not "all
bad" and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive
credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal
or physical abuse in a certain situation. An aggressive and jealous partner may normally become intimidating
or abusive in certain social situations, as when an opposite-sex coworker waves in a crowd. After
seeing the wave, the victim expects to be verbally battered and when it doesn't happen, that "small
kindness" is interpreted as a positive sign.
Similar to the small kindness perception is the perception of a "soft side". During the relationship,
the abuser/controller may share information about their past - how they were mistreated, abused,
neglected, or wronged. The victim begins to feel the abuser/controller may be capable of fixing their
behavior or worse yet, that they (abuser) may also be a "victim". Sympathy may develop toward the
abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with "I know he
fractured my jaw and ribs…but he's troubled. He had a rough childhood!"
Losers and abusers may admit
they need psychiatric help or acknowledge they are mentally disturbed; however, it's almost always
after they have already abused or intimidated the victim. The admission is a way of denying responsibility
for the abuse. In truth, personality disorders and criminals have learned over the years that personal
responsibility for their violent/abusive behaviors can be minimized and even denied by blaming their
bad upbringing, abuse as a child, and now even video games. One murderer blamed his crime on eating
too much junk food - now known as the "Twinkie Defense". While it may be true that the abuser/controller
had a difficult upbringing, showing sympathy for his/her history produces no change in their behavior
and in fact, prolongs the length of time you will be abused. While "sad stories" are always included
in their apologies - after the abusive/controlling event - their behavior never changes! Keep in
mind: once you become hardened to the "sad stories", they will simply try another approach. I know
of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I'm beating (robbing, mugging, etc.)
you because my Mom hated me!"
Isolation from Perspectives Other than those of the Captor
In abusive and controlling relationships, the victim has the sense they are always "walking on
eggshells" - fearful of saying or doing anything that might prompt a violent/intimidating outburst.
For their survival, they begin to see the world through the abuser's perspective. They begin to fix
things that might prompt an outburst, act in ways they know makes the abuser happy, or avoid aspects
of their own life that may prompt a problem. If we only have a dollar in our pocket, then most of
our decisions become financial decisions. If our partner is an abuser or controller, then the majority
of our decisions are based on our perception of the abuser's potential reaction. We become preoccupied
with the needs, desires, and habits of the abuser/controller.
Taking the abuser's perspective as a survival technique can become so intense that the victim
actually develops anger toward those trying to help them. The abuser is already angry and resentful
toward anyone who would provide the victim support, typically using multiple methods and manipulations
to isolate the victim from others. Any contact the victim has with supportive people in the community
is met with accusations, threats, and/or violent outbursts. Victims then turn on their family - fearing
family contact will cause additional violence and abuse in the home. At this point, victims curse
their parents and friends, tell them not to call and to stop interfering, and break off communication
with others. Agreeing with the abuser/controller, supportive others are now viewed as "causing trouble"
and must be avoided. Many victims threaten their family and friends with restraining orders if they
continue to "interfere" or try to help the victim in their situation. On the surface it would appear
that they have sided with the abuser/controller. In truth, they are trying to minimize contact with
situations that might make them a target of additional verbal abuse or intimidation. If a casual
phone call from Mom prompts a two-hour temper outburst with threats and accusations - the victim
quickly realizes it's safer if Mom stops calling. If simply telling Mom to stop calling doesn't work,
for his or her own safety the victim may accuse Mom of attempting to ruin the relationship and demand
that she stop calling.
In severe cases of Stockholm Syndrome in relationships, the victim may have difficulty leaving
the abuser and may actually feel the abusive situation is their fault. In law enforcement situations,
the victim may actually feel the arrest of their partner for physical abuse or battering is their
fault. Some women will allow their children to be removed by child protective agencies rather than
give up the relationship with their abuser. As they take the perspective of the abuser, the children
are at fault - they complained about the situation, they brought the attention of authorities to
the home, and they put the adult relationship at risk. Sadly, the children have now become a danger
to the victim's safety. For those with Stockholm Syndrome, allowing the children to be removed from
the home decreases their victim stress while providing an emotionally and physically safer environment
for the children.
Perceived Inability to Escape
As a hostage in a bank robbery, threatened by criminals with guns, it's easy to understand the
perceived inability to escape. In romantic relationships, the belief that one can't escape is also
very common. Many abusive/controlling relationships feel like till-death-do-us-part relationships
- locked together by mutual financial issues/assets, mutual intimate knowledge, or legal situations.
Here are some common situations:
Controlling partners have increased the financial obligations/debt in the relationship to
the point that neither partner can financially survive on their own. Controllers who sense their
partner may be leaving will often purchase a new automobile, later claiming they can't pay alimony
or child support due to their large car payments.
The legal ending of a relationship, especially a marital relationship, often creates significant
problems. A Controller who has an income that is "under the table" or maintained through legally
questionable situations runs the risk of those sources of income being investigated or made public
by the divorce/separation. The Controller then becomes more agitated about the possible public
exposure of their business arrangements than the loss of the relationship.
The Controller often uses extreme threats including threatening to take the children out of
state, threatening to quit their job/business rather than pay alimony/support, threatening public
exposure of the victim's personal issues, or assuring the victim they will never have a peaceful
life due to nonstop harassment. In severe cases, the Controller may threaten an action that will
undercut the victim's support such as "I'll see that you lose your job" or "I'll have your automobile
burned".
Controllers often keep the victim locked into the relationship with severe guilt - threatening
suicide if the victim leaves. The victim hears "I'll kill myself in front of the children", "I'll
set myself on fire in the front yard", or "Our children won't have a father/mother if you leave
me!"
In relationships with an abuser or controller, the victim has also experienced a loss of self-esteem,
self-confidence, and psychological energy. The victim may feel "burned out" and too depressed
to leave. Additionally, abusers and controllers often create a type of dependency by controlling
the finances, placing automobiles/homes in their name, and eliminating any assets or resources
the victim may use to leave. In clinical practice I've heard "I'd leave but I can't even get money
out of the savings account! I don't know the PIN number."
In teens and young adults, victims may be attracted to a controlling individual when they
feel inexperienced, insecure, and overwhelmed by a change in their life situation. When parents
are going through a divorce, a teen may attach to a controlling individual, feeling the controller
may stabilize their life. Freshmen in college may be attracted to controlling individuals who
promise to help them survive living away from home on a college campus.
In unhealthy relationships and definitely in Stockholm Syndrome there is a daily preoccupation
with "trouble". Trouble is any individual, group, situation, comment, casual glance, or cold meal
that may produce a temper tantrum or verbal abuse from the controller or abuser. To survive, "trouble"
is to be avoided at all costs. The victim must control situations that produce trouble. That may
include avoiding family, friends, co-workers, and anyone who may create "trouble" in the abusive
relationship. The victim does not hate family and friends; they are only avoiding "trouble"! The
victim also cleans the house, calms the children, scans the mail, avoids certain topics, and anticipates
every issue of the controller or abuse in an effort to avoid "trouble". In this situation, children
who are noisy become "trouble". Loved ones and friends are sources of "trouble" for the victim who
is attempting to avoid verbal or physical aggression.
Stockholm Syndrome in relationships is not uncommon. Law enforcement professionals are painfully
aware of the situation - making a domestic dispute one of the high-risk calls during work hours.
Called by neighbors during a spousal abuse incident, the abuser is passive upon arrival of the police,
only to find the abused spouse upset and threatening the officers if their abusive partner is arrested
for domestic violence. In truth, the victim knows the abuser/controller will retaliate against him/her
if 1) they encourage an arrest, 2) they offer statements about the abuse/fight that are deemed disloyal
by the abuser, 3) they don't bail them out of jail as quickly as possible, and 4) they don't personally
apologize for the situation - as though it was their fault.
Stockholm Syndrome produces an unhealthy bond with the controller and abuser. It is the reason
many victims continue to support an abuser after the relationship is over. It's also the reason they
continue to see "the good side" of an abusive individual and appear sympathetic to someone who has
mentally and sometimes physically abused them.
Is There Something Else Involved?
In a short response - Yes! Throughout history, people have found themselves supporting and participating
in life situations that range from abusive to bizarre. In talking to these active and willing participants
in bad and bizarre situations, it is clear they have developed feelings and attitudes that support
their participation. One way these feelings and thoughts are developed is known as "cognitive dissonance".
As you can tell, psychologists have large words and phrases for just about everything.
"Cognitive Dissonance" explains how and why people change their ideas and opinions to support
situations that do not appear to be healthy, positive, or normal. In the theory, an individual seeks
to reduce information or opinions that make him or her uncomfortable. When we have two sets of cognitions
(knowledge, opinion, feelings, input from others, etc.) that are the opposite, the situation becomes
emotionally uncomfortable. Even though we might find ourselves in a foolish or difficult situation
- few want to admit that fact. Instead, we attempt to reduce the dissonance - the fact that our cognitions
don't match, agree, or make sense when combined. "Cognitive Dissonance" can be reduced by adding
new cognitions - adding new thoughts and attitudes. Some examples:
Heavy smokers know smoking causes lung cancer and multiple health risks. To continue smoking,
the smoker changes his cognitions (thoughts/feelings) such as 1) "I'm smoking less than ten years
ago", 2) "I'm smoking low-tar cigarettes", 3) "Those statistics are made up by the cancer industry
conspiracy", or 4) "Something's got to get you anyway!" These new cognitions/attitudes allow them
to keep smoking and actually begin blaming restaurants for being unfair.
You purchase a $40,000.00 Sport Utility Vehicle that gets 8 miles a gallon. You justify the
expense and related issues with 1) "It's great on trips" (you take one trip per year), 2) "I can
use it to haul stuff" (one coffee table in 12 months), and 3) "You can carry a lot of people in
it" (95% of your trips are driver-only).
Your husband/boyfriend becomes abusive and assaultive. You can't leave due to the finances,
children, or other factors. Through cognitive dissonance, you begin telling yourself "He only
hits me open-handed" and "He's had a lot of stress at work."
Leon Festinger first coined the term "Cognitive Dissonance". He had observed a cult (1956) in
which members gave up their homes, incomes, and jobs to work for the cult. This cult believed in
messages from outer space that predicted the day the world would end by a flood. As cult members
and firm believers, they believed they would be saved by flying saucers at the appointed time. As
they gathered and waited to be taken by flying saucers at the specified time, the end-of-the-world
came and went. No flood and no flying saucer! Rather than believing they were foolish after all that
personal and emotional investment - they decided their beliefs had actually saved the world from
the flood and they became firmer in their beliefs after the failure of the prophecy. The moral: the
more you invest (income, job, home, time, effort, etc.) the stronger your need to justify your position.
If we invest $5.00 in a raffle ticket, we justify losing with "I'll get them next time". If you invest
everything you have, it requires an almost unreasoning belief and unusual attitude to support and
justify that investment.
Studies tell us we are more loyal and committed to something that is difficult, uncomfortable,
and even humiliating. The initiation rituals of college fraternities, Marine boot camp, and graduate
school all produce loyal and committed individuals. Almost any ordeal creates a bonding experience.
Every couple, no matter how mismatched, falls in love in the movies after going through a terrorist
takeover, being stalked by a killer, being stranded on an island, or being involved in an alien abduction.
Investment and an ordeal are ingredients for a strong bonding - even if the bonding is unhealthy.
No one bonds or falls in love by being a member of the Automobile Club or a music CD club. Struggling
to survive on a deserted island - you bet!
Abusive relationships produce a great amount on unhealthy investment in both parties. In many
cases we tend to remain and support the abusive relationship due to our investment in the relationship.
Try telling a new Marine that since he or she has survived boot camp, they should now enroll in the
National Guard! Several types of investments keep us in the bad relationship:
Emotional Investment
We've invested so many emotions, cried so much, and worried so much that we feel we must see
the relationship through to the finish.
Social Investment
We've got our pride! To avoid social embarrassment and uncomfortable social situations, we
remain in the relationship.
Family Investments
If children are present in the relationship, decisions regarding the relationship are clouded
by the status and needs of the children.
Financial Investment
In many cases, the controlling and abusive partner has created a complex financial situation.
Many victims remain in a bad relationship, waiting for a better financial situation to develop
that would make their departure and detachment easier.
Lifestyle Investment
Many controlling/abusive partners use money or a lifestyle as an investment. Victims in this
situation may not want to lose their current lifestyle.
Intimacy Investment
We often invest emotional and sexual intimacy. Some victims have experienced a destruction
of their emotional and/or sexual self-esteem in the unhealthy relationship. The abusing partner
may threaten to spread rumors or tell intimate details or secrets. A type of blackmail using intimacy
is often found in these situations.
In many cases, it's not simply our feelings for an individual that keep us in an unhealthy relationship
- it's often the amount of investment. Relationships are complex and we often only see the tip of
the iceberg in public. For this reason, the most common phrase offered by the victim in defense of
their unhealthy relationship is "You just don't understand!"
Combining Two Unhealthy Conditions
The combination of "Stockholm Syndrome" and "cognitive dissonance" produces a victim who firmly
believes the relationship is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival.
The victim feels they would mentally collapse if the relationship ended. In long-term relationships,
the victims have invested everything and placed "all their eggs in one basket". The relationship
now decides their level of self-esteem, self-worth, and emotional health.
For reasons described above, the victim feels family and friends are a threat to the relationship
and eventually to their personal health and existence. The more family/friends protest the controlling
and abusive nature of the relationship, the more the victim develops cognitive dissonance and becomes
defensive. At this point, family and friends become victims of the abusive and controlling individual.
Importantly, both Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance develop on an involuntary basis.
The victim does not purposely invent this attitude. Both develop as an attempt to exist and survive
in a threatening and controlling environment and relationship. Despite what we might think, our loved
one is not in the unhealthy relationship to irritate us, embarrass us, or drive us to drink. What
might have begun as a normal relationship has turned into a controlling and abusive situation. They
are trying to survive. Their personality is developing the feelings and thoughts needed to survive
the situation and lower their emotional and physical risks. All of us have developed attitudes and
feelings that help us accept and survive situations. We have these attitudes/feelings about our jobs,
our community, and other aspects of our life. As we have found throughout history, the more dysfunctional
the situation, the more dysfunctional our adaptation and thoughts to survive. The victim is engaged
in an attempt to survive and make a relationship work. Once they decide it doesn't work and can't
be fixed, they will need our support as we patiently await their decision to return to a healthy
and positive lifestyle.
Family and Friends of the Victim
When a family is confronted with a loved one involved with a 'Loser' or controlling/abusive individual,
the situation becomes emotionally painful and socially difficult for the family. (See "
Are You Dating
a Loser? Identifying Losers, Controllers and Abusers ".) While each situation is different, some
general guidelines to consider are:
Your loved one, the "victim" of the Loser/Abuser, has probably been given a choice - the relationship
or the family. This choice is made more difficult by the control and intimidation often present
in abusive/controlling relationships. Knowing that choosing the family will result in severe personal
and social consequences, the family always comes in second. Keep in mind that the victim knows
in their heart the family will always love them and accept their return - whenever the return
happens.
Remember, the more you pressure the "victim" of the Loser/Abuser, the more you prove their
point. Your loved one is being told the family is trying to ruin their wonderful relationship.
Pressure in the form of contacts, comments, and communications will be used as evidence against
you. An invitation to a Tupperware party is met with "You see! They just want to get you by yourself
so they can tell you bad things about me!" Increasing your contacts is viewed as "putting pressure"
on their relationship - not being lovingly concerned.
Your contacts with your loved one, no matter how routine and loving, may be met with anger
and resentment. This is because each contact may prompt the Loser/Abuser to attack them verbally
or emotionally. Imagine getting a four-hour lecture every time your Aunt Gladys calls. In a short
time, you become angry each time she calls, knowing what the contact will produce in your home.
The longer Aunt Gladys talks - the longer your lecture becomes! Thus, when Aunt Gladys calls,
you want to get her off the phone as quickly as possible.
The 1980's song, "Hold on Loosely", may be the key to a good family and friend approach. Holding
on too tightly produces more pressure. When the victim is out of the home, it's often best to
establish predictable, scheduled contacts. Calling every Wednesday evening, just for a status
report or to go over current events, is less threatening than random calls during the week. Random
calls are always viewed as "checking up on us" calls. While you may encounter an answering machine,
leave a polite and loving message. Importantly, don't discuss the relationship (the controller
may be listening!) unless the victim brings it up. The goal of these scheduled calls is to maintain
contact, remind your loved one that you are always there to help, and to quietly remind the controller
that family and loved ones are nearby and haven't disappeared.
Try to maintain traditional and special contacts with your loved one - holidays, special occasions,
etc. Keep your contacts short and brief, with no comments that can be used as evidence. Contacts
made at "traditional" times - holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, etc. - are not as threatening
to a controller/abuser. Contacts that provide information, but not questions, are also not as
threatening. An example might be a simple card reading "Just a note to let you know that your
brother landed a new job this week. You might see him on a Wal-Mart commercial any day now. Love,
Mom and Dad". This approach allows the victim to recognize that the family is there - waiting
in the wings if needed. It also lessens the lectures/tantrums provided by the Loser as the contacts
are on a traditional and expected basis. It's also hard to be angry about brother's new job without
looking ridiculous. Also, don't invent holidays or send a reminder that it's Sigmund Freud's birthday.
That's suspicious…even in my family.
Remember that there are many channels of communication. It's important that we keep a channel
open if at all possible. Communication channels might include phone calls, letters, cards, and
e-mail. Scheduled monthly shopping trips or outings are helpful if possible. The goal is to maintain
contact while your loved one is involved in the controlling/abusive relationship. Remember, the
goal is contact, not pressure.
Don't feel the victim's behavior is against the family or friends. It may be a form of survival
or a way of lowering stress. Victims may be very resistive, angry, and even hostile due to the
complexity of their relationship with the controller/abuser. They may even curse, threaten, and
accuse loved ones and friends. This hostile defensiveness is actually self-protection in the relationship
- an attempt to avoid "trouble".
The victim needs to know and feel they are not rejected because of their behavior. Keep in
mind, they are painfully aware of their situation. They know they are being treated badly and/or
controlled by their partner. Frequent reminders of this will only make them want less contact.
We naturally avoid people who remind us of things or situations that are emotionally painful.
Victims may slightly open the door and provide information about their relationship or hint
they may be considering leaving. When the door opens, don't jump through with the Marines behind
you! Listen and simply offer support such as "You know your family is behind any decision you
need to make and at any time you make it." They may be exploring what support is available but
may not be ready to call in the troops just yet. Many victims use an "exit plan" that may take
months or even years to complete. They may be gathering information at this point, not yet ready
for an exit.
We can get messages to people in two ways - the pipeline and the grapevine. The pipeline is
face-to-face, telling the person directly. This seldom happens in Loser situations as controllers
and abusers monitor and control contacts with others. However, the grapevine is still open. When
we use the grapevine, we send a message to our loved one through another person. Victims of controlling
and abusive individuals are often allowed to maintain a relationship with a few people, perhaps
a sibling or best friend. We can send our loved one a message through that contact person, a message
that voices our understanding and support. We don't send insults ("Bill is such a jerk!) or put-downs
("If he doesn't get out of this relationship he'll end up crazy!) - we send messages of love and
support. We send "I hope she/he (victim) knows the family is concerned and that we love and support
them." Comments sent on the grapevine are phrased with the understanding that our loved one will
hear them in that manner. Don't talk with a grapevine contact to express anger and threaten to
hire a hit man, and then try to send a message of loving support. Be careful what and how the
message is provided. The grapevine contact can often get messages to the victim when we can't.
It's another way of letting them know we're supporting them, just waiting to help if and when
needed.
Each situation is different. The family may need to seek counseling support in the community.
A family consultation with a mental health professional or attorney may be helpful if the situation
becomes legally complex or there is a significant danger of harm.
As relatives or friends of a victim involved with a controller or abuser, our normal reaction
is to consider dramatic action. We become angry, resentful, and aggressive at times. Our mind
fills with a variety of plans that often range from rescue and kidnapping to ambushing the controller/abuser
with a ball bat. A rule of thumb is that any aggression toward the controller/abuser will result
in additional difficulties for your loved one. Try to remain calm and await an opportunity to
show your love and support when your loved one needs it.
In some cases, as in teenagers and young adults, the family may still provide some financial,
insurance, or other support. When we receive angry responses to our phone calls, our anger and
resentment tells us to cut off their support. I've heard "If she's going to date that jerk, it's
not going to be in a car I'm paying for!" and "If he's choosing that woman over his family, he
can drop out of college and flip hamburgers!" Withdrawing financial support only makes your loved
one more dependent upon the controller/abuser. Remember, if we're aggressive by threatening, withdrawing
support, or pressuring - we become the threatening force, not the controller/abuser. It actually
moves the victim into the support of the controller. Sadly, the more of an "ordeal" they experience,
the more bonding takes place, as noted with both Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance.
As you might imagine, the combination of Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance may also
be active when our loved one is involved in cults, unusual religions, and other groups. In some
situations, the abuser and controller is actually a group or organization. Victims are punished
if they are viewed as disloyal to the group. While this article deals with individual relationships,
the family guidelines may also be helpful in controlling-group situations.
Final Thoughts
You may be the victim of a controlling and abusive partner, seeking an understanding of your feelings
and attitudes. You may have a son, daughter, or friend currently involved with a controlling and
abusive partner, looking for ways to understand and help.
If a loved one is involved with a Loser, a controlling and abusing partner, the long-term outcome
is difficult to determine due to the many factors involved. If their relationship is in the "dating"
phase, they may end the relationship on their own. If the relationship has continued for over a year,
they may require support and an exit plan before ending the relationship. Marriage and children further
complicate their ability to leave the situation. When the victim decides to end the unhappy relationship,
it's important that they view loved ones as supportive, loving, and understanding - not as a source
of pressure, guilt, or aggression.
This article is an attempt to understand the complex feelings and attitudes that are as puzzling
to the victim as they are to family and friends. Separately, I've outlined recommendations for detaching
from a Loser or controlling/abusive individual, but clearly, there are more victims in this situation.
(See " Are You
Dating a Loser? Identifying Losers, Controllers and Abusers ".) It is hoped this article is helpful
to family and friends who worry, cry, and have difficulty understanding the situation of their loved
one. It has been said that knowledge is power. Hopefully this knowledge will prove helpful and powerful
to victims and their loved ones.
Please consider this article as a general guideline. Some recommendations may be appropriate and
helpful while some may not apply to a specific situation. In many cases, we may need additional professional
help of a mental health or legal nature.
Gone Girl is best watched for two of its two and a half hours.
Notable quotes:
"... The dialogue is snappy and razor-sharp. The acting is awesome, from the main characters all the way down to minor roles. ..."
"... A movie about passion, lies, obsession, the death of love, and living with sociopaths, this is a remarkable movie. It also reinforces my belief that I never ever want to get married ..."
"... Ben Affleck, a capable actor and a fine director, knows what is to be caught in the media's unforgiving line of fire and has earned poor reviews in the past for exuding a certain bordering-on-self-parody, macho-man overconfidence and self-satisfaction, so he is an ideal choice to play the husband, an individual who is either a decent man in over his head or a chiseled sociopath who can barely hide his smile in front of the cameras. ..."
"... My favorite films of his are still Zodiac and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but this plants its flag close to the top. ..."
"... Tyler Perry plays a jovial, smirky Johnny Cochran-type lawyer, who makes huge amounts of money defending men accused of killing their wives ..."
"... The Gone Girl screenplay had plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. In fairness, it was well acted and it started off well enough, shining a light on the deterioration of a marriage, how the media picks and chooses its heroes and villains for ratings, and just how easy it is to manipulate a public that thinks appearing on The Bachelor will lead to true romance. The send up of Nancy Grace and her ilk alone is worth sitting through. ..."
"... More than that, I perceive it as a condemnation of marriage, romantic relationships, and the (alleged) fakery of them. ..."
"... It is also a blatant commentary on sensational media and public hysteria/groupthink (I.e., "sheeple" and witch hunts). There is also a strange comment on parenting, if you compare nick's mother to his father and Amy's parents. ..."
"... There's another part of the movie, much smaller than what was advertised, which was why I wanted to see the movie in the first place. The role the media plays in these kind of situations. I was led to believe that it was an examination of the subject. It's not. ..."
"... Ben Affleck does a fantastic job playing Nick Dunne, a somewhat employed writer married to the no-so-right-in-the-head Amy (Rosalund Pike). The one thing Amy can do well is mess with your life. She messes with Nick's to the point the world believes Nick has killed her and he has to hire high profile attorney Tanner Bolt, played extremely well by Tyler Perry. ..."
"... Gone Girl is best watched for two of its two and a half hours. ..."
"... Great for 1.5 hours and the rest was trash. ..."
"... Gone Girl is brilliant, for 3/4 of the movie. The rest, of the story falls off the tracks and then struggles to reach the end...struggles, because it pushes the boundaries of weakness of Nick(Affleck). ..."
"... It sparks questions in you as you watch, as to just how well do you know your spouse? How well do they know you? ..."
"... It's a cast of talent with Ben Affleck Neil Patrick Harris, Carrie Coone, Rosamun Pike, Tyler Perry and others that highlights every angle of this demented story. ..."
"... There were parts that dragged on somewhat. The movie has a longer running time than most. ..."
"... Gone Girl is directed by the same man who brought you Fight Club, Social Network (the Facebook movie), and Se7en. ..."
"... In many instances, the film was making a statement (an unbiased one at that) on everything wrong with modern-day media, law enforcement, marriages, and the image of gender roles in society. Tough stuff! The only complaint I can make about the film is how it is not really all that cinematic and the film's uncertain ending. But then again, the ending can be seen both ways either as a metaphor about reality's way of saying no one is either good or bad or an attack on the senses with a strange turnaround for a particular character. ..."
A twisty and twisted new classic Nine Things About the Movie "Gone
Girl" (USA, 2014)
1. One of the best movies of 2014, this multi-layered, wickedly brilliant
film is a great adaptation of the 2012 novel.
2. It was directed by David Fincher. He collaborated with Trent Reznor
and Atticus Ross again for the smoothly foreboding soundtrack. Fincher has
developed a unique cinematic style, and this movie is a showcase of it.
3. The heart of the movie is a mystery - a wife disappears from her home
on the morning of her anniversary. But not only do we not know who did it,
we don't even really know what happened.
4. The movie flips back and forth between the husband's perspective and
the wife's, slowly unfolding its secrets like a black, poisonous flower.
5. Besides the core mystery, the movie is also a commentary on media
hype, along with trial by popularity. Nancy Grace probably wishes she could
sue somebody for this movie.
6. Perhaps more chilling than the mystery is the depiction of what has
to be the most dysfunctional marriage in cinematic history.
7. The movie is almost 3 hours long, but it doesn't feel like it. The
plot is tight - no scene is wasted. The dialogue is snappy and razor-sharp.
The acting is awesome, from the main characters all the way down to minor
roles.
8. Part of the reason the movie works so well is that the author of the
book, Gillian Flynn, also wrote the screenplay. It's set in Missouri and
feels pretty authentic, probably because the author is from Kansas City.
9. A movie about passion, lies, obsession, the death of love, and
living with sociopaths, this is a remarkable movie. It also reinforces my
belief that I never ever want to get married.
23 Comments
Gone Girl is the Complete Package. Gone Girl took the world by storm.
And I'm not just talking about the film. The book (I highly recommend this
read) by Gillian Flynn quickly became one of the bestselling novels of 2012.
Through word of mouth, people left and right were finding out about this
tale of a dark and twisted marriage. It was seen almost everywhere, so I
was no surprise that the rights would be snatched up (by Reese Witherspoon,
nonetheless). And the stage was quickly set for David Fincher to work his
dark directing magic.
The story tells of a married couple, Nick and Amy Dunne, on their fifth
wedding anniversary. That morning, Amy mysteriously vanishes, leaving behind
a rather suspicious trail of evidence.The authorities and the media quickly
swoop down on Nick, who seems nice enough, but is oddly evasive and may
not be telling the whole truth. As events unfold, you will be left wondering
how well you truly know the person you love.
With jaw-dropping performances from Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Tyler
Perry, Carrie Coon, Neil Patrick Harris, and Patrick Fugit, you will be
in for a treat. These actors portray their respective roles with such power
and perfection, and I was pleasantly surprised. I think you will be as well.
I expect to see award nominations for these players within the coming weeks.
If not, I will riot.
Not only is the acting fantastic, but the score paints a beautiful picture
as well. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (who scored Fincher's last two films--The
Social Network and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) have returned to deliver
an astounding and haunting score that perfectly suits the story. Equally
peaceful and disturbing, it mirrors the characters' behaviours as their
secrets are unveiled.
Gone Girl is the complete package. Creepy, witty, breathtaking, you will
finish this movie with your jaw open. I guarantee it. Truly beautiful, Fincher
has outdone himself. I recommend purchasing this at your earliest opportunity.
I have not read the Gillian Flynn novel Gone Girl. Not out of any particular
aversion. I just never found my way around to it. So I entered this film
adaptation by premiere stylist and suspense conjurer David Fincher quote-unquote
blind beyond a general knowledge of the story involving a suburban Missouri
man who becomes a suspect in his wife's mysterious vanishing. And beat by
beat, scene by scene, twist by twist, the film blew me away. It is an airtight
and atmospheric blend of the hilarious, the macabre, and the romantic. It
satisfies first as a crime mystery. With a perverse, yet playful hand, it
transforms the essential and inevitable questions of the genre (who is who?
who is where? who has done what? who is alive? who is dead?) into delightful
webs of opaque morality and disturbing brutality. There are other concerns
and components, too, and this joins such films as Sweet Smell of Success
and To Die For among the best indictments of media sensationalism and the
way it can bastardize humanity. It achieves this via acidic and vivid (and
therefore highly enjoyable) illustration of its points rather than didactic
condemnation.
The film is buoyed by spot-on casting decisions. In a strange way which
pays enormous dividends, many of the stars seem to be chosen based on their
undesirable traits. Ben Affleck, a capable actor and a fine director,
knows what is to be caught in the media's unforgiving line of fire and has
earned poor reviews in the past for exuding a certain bordering-on-self-parody,
macho-man overconfidence and self-satisfaction, so he is an ideal choice
to play the husband, an individual who is either a decent man in over his
head or a chiseled sociopath who can barely hide his smile in front of the
cameras.
And the beautiful Rosamund Pike can seem distant on screen, a type of
icy English rose to be admired and never touched, and she is therefore ideal
as a so-picture-perfect-as-to-be-unknowable wife pushed to unusual and dangerous
places. Hers is a particularly alarming and inspired turn (the actress'
best since the undervalued Barney's Version), and it would be a shame if
she were not recognized by the Academy with her first nomination early next
year.
This line of casting thought extends to other plays in the substantial
ensemble. Why not, for example, hire Tyler Perry, who has turned himself
in a household name with outsize charisma and a self-forged aura of spiritual
authority, to play a showboating A-list lawyer? Throughout Gone Girl, the
roles fit so very snugly.
And behind the camera, Fincher is in as fine a form as ever. My favorite
films of his are still Zodiac and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but this
plants its flag close to the top. His antiseptic, meticulous, and perfectionist
shot compositions turn the banal suburban environments into under-lit and
malevolence-infused spaces, and every scene (whether overtly suspenseful
and violent or of a quieter domestic variety) has an incisive and taut quality.
This is a long film at 148 minutes, but never an overweight or ponderous
one. It holds viewers' heads and hearts with vice-grip intensity from frame
one onward and leaves us (or me, at least) at once amused, energized, and
despairing.
The plot of David Fincher's film GONE GIRL (2014) is one more variation
of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's old Sherlock Holmes story "The Problem of Thor
Bridge." One among many ... and perhaps the nastiest.
As all the blurbs reveal, Ben Affleck plays a husband named Nick Dunne,
who is suspected of killing his wife Amy, played by Rosamund Pike, when
she mysteriously disappears under highly suspicious circumstances.
Although the cast is uniformly talented, nearly all of the characters
are unlikeable ... and several of them are downright repulsive. Tyler
Perry plays a jovial, smirky Johnny Cochran-type lawyer, who makes huge
amounts of money defending men accused of killing their wives
... the shark-like, frenzied TV scandal-mongers are totally disgusting
... and the couple who are the parents of Amy (the missing wife) are blood-sucking
horrors who have used their daughter for their own financial benefit for
years.
Only two of the main characters are "normal" and basically "neutral"
in their presentation: Margo Dunne, the sister of Ben Affleck's character,
played by Carrie Coon, and Rhonda Boney (!?), the female detective who is
in charge of the investigation, played by Kim Dickens. The only wholly likeable
character is the little orange cat of Nick and Amy, which only has about
5 minutes of on-screen time.
The solution to Amy Dunne's disappearance gradually comes to light over
the next TWO AND A HALF HOURS, and without giving any spoilers here, I will
assert that it is a repulsive conclusion to the film.
I viewed the film with a small group of adults (approximately 55 people),
and especially during the final 45 minutes some parts of the film caused
nearly the whole audience to laugh at the preposterous events and new revelations.
The scenes with Neil Patrick Harris seemed to get the highest number of
unintended laughs.
In my judgment, this film is quite smarmy and a huge waste of one's time.
Not even the sweetness of the little orange cat can compensate for the general
nastiness of the characters and their actions.
The Gone Girl screenplay had plot holes big enough to drive a truck
through. In fairness, it was well acted and it started off well enough,
shining a light on the deterioration of a marriage, how the media picks
and chooses its heroes and villains for ratings, and just how easy it is
to manipulate a public that thinks appearing on The Bachelor will lead to
true romance. The send up of Nancy Grace and her ilk alone is worth sitting
through.
But then it all falls apart. I won't spoil it for those who haven't yet
seen it, but the complete unraveling of film after the "twist" actually
became laughable with such huge gaps in common sense, implausible occurrences,
security camera footage that not a single cop decided to look at, and just
plain linear storytelling of getting from A to B that it's actually boggling.
It wasn't the twist itself, that was actually pretty clever, it was all
the lapses that came after.
Even in a work of fiction there logic rules that need to be followed,
and therein lies my issue with Gone Girl. It's difficult to elaborate on
everything that's wrong with the last third without revealing what happens
after the so-called big twist. (Just google Gone Girl plot holes and you'll
find plenty of examples). But the film ends with an eye roll instead of
a bang. There's suspending disbelief, which I'm happy to do if there is
other convincing evidence, and then there's beating disbelief to death with
a tire iron--which is what Gone Girl gives you in the end.
I understand that Gillian Flynn translated her book to screen and reworked
the whole last third, which is exactly where it all falls apart. Perhaps
being a staff writer at Entertainment Weekly for 20 years -- where the emphasis
is clearly on get it out fast rather than get it out right -- dulled her
logic and skills! Either way, while some Oscar snubs are occasionally puzzling,
I'm not in the least surprised that there were none for this screenplay.
At the end of this movie, I found myself very confused. Not about the
mystery but whether I liked the movie. It wasn't because the characters
were so complex or multi-layered that they pushed my perceptions of "good"
and "evil." In fact, I found Amy and Nick strangely two-dimensional.
I was so mystified by my mystification that I did a first: I read a bunch
of professional reviews to see if that would help me put my finger on it.
I was further surprised to see a common theme among them: is this movie
misogynist, misandrist, or misanthropic? If it is any of these, I think
it is the latter.
More than that, I perceive it as a condemnation of marriage, romantic
relationships, and the (alleged) fakery of them. In that vein, I found
it spiteful rather than satiric. It is also a blatant commentary on
sensational media and public hysteria/groupthink (I.e., "sheeple" and witch
hunts). There is also a strange comment on parenting, if you compare nick's
mother to his father and Amy's parents. That one was a bit lost on
me, and perphaps it is clearer in the book where there is more detail on
that (note: I haven't read the book).
At this point, I'm still baffled by my reaction to this movie, and the
best way I can rationalize it is that I think this is a solid suspense/murder
mystery but I didn't buy the "psychological" part of this psychological
thriller.
That part seemed forced to the point that it detracted from the good
things. I admit that I liked Basic Instinct more (maybe I'm just getting
old and need to rewatch that one).
Some positives: I thought the casting was superb and the directing was
also very strong. I thought the actress who played the twin sister was particularly
good. On a final note, I found the end rather abrupt. Don't know if this
will help people who haven't watched it yet, but maybe this will help validate
other viewers who wish they could have "cracked open" their own skulls at
the end of this movie.
This movie isn't anything you'd expect. I think that's why my review
is mixed. I liked that it was not what you expected, I guess. I think I
was irritated at the female character. All of them really, but the wife
really annoyed me. It was kind of sick and really twisted. I kept saying
to myself, "okay well lets appreciate it for what it is and keep an open
mind." That was really difficult. This isn't an easy movie for me to pin
down for you. Especially because I don't want to give anything away and
to really give you a mental picture, I almost have to give stuff away. I'm
going to try to stretch my creative muscle here, though, and give you some
kind of perspective.
One half of the picture is the hero and he screws up bad, but the punishment
is horrific compared to the crime. I'm not crazy about those type of movies.
The kind of movie where the hero just keeps getting hit with new bad stuff.
Too much like my life, I guess.
The other half of the movie is a revenge thriller. You want to get behind
it, because you kind of think, "well, they deserve it.' But it's not that
cut and dry. You want to get behind it but it's hard because the way the
revenge is executed is so sick and twisted and over-the-top. It comes so
close to the edge of being completely unbelievable and so sick that the
sympathy you once held is lost completely. But a part of you still wants
the revenge taker to succeed and wants to be on their side, moreover, there
are a lot of folks out there that didn't lose their sympathy at all, which
says a lot about society in general and ones friends in particular.
There's another part of the movie, much smaller than what was advertised,
which was why I wanted to see the movie in the first place. The role the
media plays in these kind of situations. I was led to believe that it was
an examination of the subject. It's not.
So look, I don't know that I would recommend renting it 100%. I am very
much on the fence about this movie. I'm sorry. I would suggest watching
it with a bunch of your friends. It's one of those movies that you go to
with those friends who like to talk about movies. You'll have so much to
talk about so you don't want to see it all alone.
Wanna watch a great movie? Quit this one 2/3rds of the way through. Wanna
watch something turn from very good to stupid? Watch this all the way.
Ben Affleck does a fantastic job playing Nick Dunne, a somewhat employed
writer married to the no-so-right-in-the-head Amy (Rosalund Pike). The one
thing Amy can do well is mess with your life. She messes with Nick's to
the point the world believes Nick has killed her and he has to hire high
profile attorney Tanner Bolt, played extremely well by Tyler Perry.
The acting is quite good, with the exception of Neil Patrick Harris,
who just seemed miscast as Amy's high school friend Desi Collins to whom
she turns for "help". Here's the part where everything turns weird. Shortly
after her time with Desi is the best time to stop the movie and enjoy what
had been made. Any further, and I'm not spoiling anything here, the movie
hits a wall.
Gone Girl is best watched for two of its two and a half hours.
I really like David Fincher movies. They always have a lot of action,
a little suspense, and a sense of humor. And this one is no different. I
was confused by some parts of the movie, and displease with other parts,
mainly the ending. It was a book before it was a movie, so that's no ones
fault who were involved in the production of the movie. But I can see how
in a novel the ending would've been handled in a better way. In a novel
there's more character development, so you get to see the motivation behind
each decision that a character makes. Any movie you only really see what
the director wants you to see, and what the actors are capable of portraying.
Ben Affleck was out of his league with that powerhouse of a actress Rosamund
Pike. If she doesn't get at least a nomination, the whole system is flawed.
Had the movie been handled with a bit more care, it probably would have
been one of the greatest movies I've ever seen... that's saying a lot because
I really don't like Ben Affleck and he's on screen 80% of the movie. He
does add a snarky lightness that's needed in such a heavy movie. It's a
solid 3.5 stars. Definitely must see for originality.
Ok you want an honest review. Here goes. Well acted, excellent plot...up
to a point, then it falls apart. The twists no longer are logical, they
are just dark and twisted, taking you on a journey that has lost its way,
but determined to land you at the end, an end already prepared. So it gets
there, but by the time you get there, you wonder, what happened? That's
because you are waiting for it to take a right, on to the road of plausibility.
Gone Girl is brilliant, for 3/4 of the movie. The rest, of the story
falls off the tracks and then struggles to reach the end...struggles, because
it pushes the boundaries of weakness of Nick(Affleck).
So my rating is 3 stars. I walk away feeling like I wasted the last 45
mins on junk. Prior to that, it was fascinating. The high rating is what's
wrong with people today...everyone runs in packs and no one, no one dares
to be honest, less they are an outcast. Go see it for yourself and then
dare to put an honest review here.
As someone who has read the book prior to seeing this film, I may have
a slightly different take on the movie then others. I found it difficult
to decide how many stars it deserved. The first act and most of the second
act are well edited from the book. The changes that are made make sense
in order to condense a complicated story into a film. But somewhere in 2nd
and totally the 3rd act the motivations for the characters gets muddled.
The book spends a lot of time letting you read what Nick and Amy are thinking.
The movie. though it tries at first, seems to give up on that element. But
it is a crucial element in understanding the ending at the very least. Nick
is self-centered and deeply flawed in the book. Amy is, a sociopath. The
depth of her manipulation, cruelty and insane notion of punishment and justice
is not explored near enough in the film. Her crazy and expert manipulation
is intense in the book. Nick never really worries what happened to her when
she vanishes and hates her. I wish the movie was able to flesh out more
of these massive personality flaws. Without this the movie in the end falls
flat. However, I don't have a good idea as to how the movie might have done
this given the time restrictions.
My husband and I heard so much about this movie. I am very fond of true
crime and we both like drama movies. We gave it a go.
It is dark. It is twisted.
A marriage of hope, happiness and on the fifth wedding anniversary it
all vanishes. Hope, sorrow, and mystery. Amy Dunne is missing the trail
of evidence leads to suspicions of her husband Nick Dunne.
It sparks questions in you as you watch, as to just how well do you
know your spouse? How well do they know you?
It's a cast of talent with Ben Affleck Neil Patrick Harris, Carrie
Coone, Rosamun Pike, Tyler Perry and others that highlights every angle
of this demented story.
There were parts that dragged on somewhat. The movie has a longer
running time than most. My husband wasn't impressed--until the ending.
I was sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time saying, "you've got
to be kidding!"....it was intense. it was well executed. It was dark. It
was great!
"Did he or not kill his wife? Is this all a set-up? More questions can
be unraveled in one of the most surprisingly complex yet straightforward
mystery-thrillers of the year. Bear in mind, I was never anticipating to
see this film just by chance after some friends brought me.
Gone Girl is directed by the same man who brought you Fight Club,
Social Network (the Facebook movie), and Se7en. A purveyor for dark,
brooding films, Gone Girl is no stranger to this with a knack for complexity
and disturbing emotions channeling through the central performances by Ben
Affleck (whose career escalated to much more respectable degrees after State
of Play and Argo) and Rosamund Pike (an up-and-coming British actress) playing
two conflicted souls frustrated over their relationship only to then, days
on end, leave a field of investigation and suspicion into the lives of Affleck's
character whether he or not had any part into the disappearance of his wife?
While the premise sounds absurdly ordinary and entirely like something
from Lifetime but unlike some of Lifetime's corny products, this film feels
more uncertain and depressing in tone and is more graphic in content. However,
any comparisons to Lifetime can be set aside with the film's surprisingly
self-aware nature and persistent dark humour, which albeit odd for a film
of this calibre, works in some ways to break the tension and melodrama.
Using Neil Patrick Harris from "How I Met Your Mother", the model from
the Robin Thicke "Blurred Lines" music video, and Tyler Perry from the "Madea"
films maybe the most bizarre choices for a high-stakes drama but it works
in a surreal way.
In many instances, the film was making a statement (an unbiased one
at that) on everything wrong with modern-day media, law enforcement, marriages,
and the image of gender roles in society. Tough stuff! The only complaint
I can make about the film is how it is not really all that cinematic and
the film's uncertain ending. But then again, the ending can be seen both
ways either as a metaphor about reality's way of saying no one is either
good or bad or an attack on the senses with a strange turnaround for a particular
character.
Without giving much away, Gone Girl is aimed at the more ambitious viewer
and for anyone who likes their Lifetime or Investigation Discovery TV shows
with a bit more class, acting skill, and raw spirit. It sure knows how to
be pessimistic and insightful without remorse. And the message is relevant
and important too with a nice look into how marriage and relationships just
aren't a realistic goal in today's society which I wholeheartedly promote."
The author is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. After 22 years of counseling, she wrote
this book to "identify certain behaviors on the part of unfaithful partners that tend to determine
the success or failure of their efforts to save their marriages, post-affair" (p. 9).
These behaviors include:
Understanding the wrongness of his unfaithfulness
Understanding the depth of pain he has caused his spouse.
Three barriers to understanding the damage he has done.
How to remain resilient in spite of setbacks during recovery.
Being realistic about recovery taking time.
Respecting the betrayed spouse by allowing her to set the pace and type of healing needed, such
as a temporary separation.
Telling the truth about one's unfaithfulness rather than waiting to be discovered.
Showing remorse and shame rather than defensiveness.
Breaking off all contact with the affair partner, including phone calls, texting, emails, and
face-to-face.
How to end the affair.
Stumbling blocks to severing ties with the affair partner.
Undoing the damage from one's lies and rationalizations.
Accepting full responsibility for one's affair.
Being patient with the betrayed spouse's emotions and time needed to recover.
Being more sorry for the betrayed spouse's pain than for one's guilt of unfaithfulness.
Growing in expressing true empathy and heartfelt apologies.
Doing whatever it takes to rebuild trust.
Successfully responding to the betrayed spouse's "triggers".
Making amends with your children.
Changing your core character.
Origins of Marital Infidelity
The following marital conflicts contribute to a vulnerability to marital infidelity.
Loneliness and sadness
An emotionally distant spouse
Selfishness/materialism
Lack of a moral code
Lack of confidence
Controlling and disrespectful behaviors by spouse
Compulsive use of pornography
Lack of balance in married life with failure to attend to romantic aspect of marriage, the
marital friendship and sexual intimacy/betrothed love
Seriously disordered priorities with the placement of work, others, sports, children, etc.
before one's spouse
Strong resentment and anger with a desire to punish
Attempt to escape from responsibilities and pressures
Strong mistrust and anxiety
Weak faith with a failure to engage in the struggle against temptations
Modeling after an unfaithful parent
Failure to address marital stresses
Close friendships with others who have been unfaithful
Lack of understanding of the sacrament of marriage
Unresolved family of origin sadness, mistrust or anger
Failure to find fulfillment in fatherhood or motherhood and as a protector of one's spouse
and children
Previous infidelity
Failure to communicate the Church's teaching about marriage and sexual morality.
A number of chapters on this website address these specific conflicts and hopefully will be helpful
to you.
Prevalence of infidelity
Research studies demonstrate that the majority of married couples are faithful and loyal. Marital
infidelity with another person is not as common as some believe. However, a major factor in the growth
in infidelity is the use of internet pornography.
A survey of 884 men and 1,288 women found that 77% of married men and 88% of married women remained
faithful to their spouses, Wiederman, M.(1997) Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national
survey. J of Sex Research 34:170.
A University of Chicago national survey found that that 75% of husbands and 85% of wives never
had sexual relations outside of marriage, Laumann,E.O., et al. (1994) The Social Organization of
Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Table 5.15,
216.
A highly regarded survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of
Chicago has found that 22% of men have had a sex partner other than their spouse while married,
compared to 13% of women. (The figures are an average of the years between 1991 and 2004, Whisman M.A., et al., (2007) Predicting sexual infidelity in a population-based sample of married
individuals. J Fam Psychol. 21(2):320-4.
Another study revealed an annual prevalence of infidelity was 2.3% . In controlling for marital
dissatisfaction and demographic variables, infidelity was predicted by greater neuroticism and lower
religiosity, Whisman M.A., et al., (2007) Predicting sexual infidelity in a population-based sample
of married individuals. J Fam Psychol. 21(2):320-4.
Mistakes made after infidelity
A number of serious mistakes can be made after marital infidelity including,
Insistence upon immediate separation
Failure to see the goodness in the offending spouse
Refusal to identify each spouse's emotional or character weaknesses
A need to blame one's spouse exclusively for the infidelity
Failure to identify the extent of the infidelity
Refusal to try to understand and forgive
Insistence upon divorce
Unwillingness to face family of origin conflicts
Fear of correcting the offending spouse
Failure to love the vocation of marriage
Failure to obtain expert advice from those loyal to marriages
The expectation that the offended spouse should "get over it" quickly
The lack of understanding as to how difficult it is to heal the infidelity wound
The failure to realize that faith is essential in re-establishing trust and the marital friendships.
Acute stress disorder in the victim spouse
The victim spouse not infrequently develops a group of symptoms that constitute an acute stress
disorder. These symptoms include anxiety, dissociative and other symptoms that occurs within one
month after exposure to extremely traumatic stress including:
a sense of detachment or unreality
a sense of being in a daze
inability to recall aspects of the trauma
a regular reexperiencing of the trauma
sadness/despair
intense anger, rage, hatred, impulses for revenge
profound fears
severely damaged self-esteem.
An acute stress disorder can lead over time to the development of posttraumatic stress disorder
in which one obsesses about the past betrayal, has great difficulty in trusting and at times feels
intense betrayal anger.
Post traumatic stress disorder
Marital infidelity is one of the most traumatic life experiences leaving spouses stunned, dazed
and profoundly wounded. The proverb, no wound worse than the wound of the heart is applicable.
The infidelity profound wounds the ability to trust and can lead to the anxiety disorder of a post
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Effective marital therapy that incorporates a faith component
can often diminish the severity of this conflict. However, the wound is so severe that painful
memories associated with profound sadness, mistrust, anxiety and intense anger can be recurrent under
various types of stresses for many years or even decades. Offending spouses need to understand
this and they attempt to rebuild the marital trust.
When obsessional thinking about the betrayal memories occur in association with intense anxiety,
medication such as a serotonin reuptake inhibitor can be helpful as a chemical crutch while the trust
is being rebuilt.
The four phases of healing
The healing process includes first uncovering the extent and the causes of the infidelity, next
making a decision about addressing what has been uncovered and third doing the hard work of resolving
conflicts and anger and of building trust. The final phase is accepting the trauma and believing
that some good can come from it.
Uncovering phase
In this phase it is important to identify the state of the marriage before the infidelity, particularly
in regard to the ability of each spouse to give to the marital friendship, to romantic love and to
betrothed love, which includes but is more than sexual intimacy. During this phase it can be helpful
to complete checklists the evaluate self-giving, trust, selfishness, anger and parental legacies.
The most common resistance we find in this phase is in men whose infidelity is the result of weak
male confidence due to the a weak father-son attachment in the husband (with his father.) These men
tend to misdirect their anger and deep unhappiness from their father relationship onto their wives.
The confidence of many husbands may also have suffered because they did not experience success in
team sports as boys and teenagers that, unfortunately, can leave a lasting wound in the male psyche.
We ask spouses to complete the confidence checklist in the evaluate your marital friendship chapter.
This checklist attempts to reveal the many problematic behaviors and emotional responses that develop
in an unconscious attempt to escape from the pain of having a weak male or female identity.
The second most common conflict we find here is in women with controlling tendencies and secondary
disrespectful behaviors toward their husbands as a result of the failure to have a trusting relationship
with their fathers. These wives also misdirect anger meant for their fathers at their husbands.
The third conflict that is difficult to face is loneliness for comforting parental love which
contributes to infidelity. Spousal love is very powerful and comforting but it cannot resolve the
wounds of loneliness from childhood and adolescence. This childhood loneliness leads
spouses to engage in numerous harmful behaviors in an unconscious attempt to escape from this intense
pain including:
attempting to find old boyfriends or girlfriends on the internet
spending excessive time on facebook
using drugs or drinking excessively
engaging in compulsive sexual behaviors
spending excessive time outside the home in pleasurable activities
because the childhood home is associated with unhappiness.
Finally, selfishness, the major enemy of marital love, can be difficult to face but, it is a leading
cause of marital infidelity.
We regularly reading the chapters on this website which discuss the treatment of controlling behaviors,
the parental legacy of weakness in male confidence, loneliness/sadness and selfishness and anxiety/mistrust.
Decision phase
This is a very difficult phase of treatment for the victim spouse who has been so wounded that
he/she fears becoming vulnerable again. Also, the rage toward the unfaithful spouse can be so strong
that what is desired is distance from the spouse rather than a commitment to work on the marriage.
For Catholics the sacrament of reconciliation can be helpful in diminishing this intense anger.
The decision to work on the healing of the infidelity trauma in the sad, angry and fearful victim
spouse can be motivated by the desire to protect children from the trauma of separation and divorce,
by a compassion for wounded child within the perpetrator, and by the belief that it is God's will
to strengthen the marriage.
Fortunately, most unfaithful spouses are open to try to understand and address their conflicts
with the exception of those who are overly proud, selfish or controlling.
During this phase of therapy we present our own positive views about the possibility of resolving
the conflicts that cause infidelity. Also, we cite the work of Dr. Linda Waite on the benefits from
persevering to resolve phases of marital unhappiness.
Her research was based on analysis of data from the National Survey of Family and Households.
It measured both personal and marital happiness of 5,232 married adults during the late 1980s; 645
or 12.3% reported being unhappily married. They were re-interviewed in the mid 1990s. Some of the
findings of the University of Chicago analysis were:
Among those who rated their marriages as "very unhappy," 80% of those who stuck it out reported
themselves as happily married five years later.
Those spouses who separated were, on average, no happier than those who stayed married.
Those spouses who separated and remarried were also no happier than those who stayed married.
Dr. Waite stated, "Results like these suggest the benefits of divorce have been oversold."
Work phase
Full disclosure
The early steps in the work phase include being assured that extramarital relationship has ended
and that their will be no further contact. Also, there should be full disclosure of the entire history
of the adulterous relationship including examining phone records and text messages. Then, the perpetrator
should understand the depth of the wound to the marital covenant and request forgiveness of God and
of the spouse. In addition there should be a strong commitment to self-knowledge, a willingness to
change and to practice fidelity. Each spouse should be able to discuss any weaknesses in their personal
lives or in their marital friendship.
The offending spouse needs to be open to discuss the affair on a regular basis in order to resolve
mistrust and anger symptoms in the victim. However, prudence is required in regard to amount of time
discussing the affair.
Anger resolution
In this phase the first issue most often addressed is the sadness, mistrust and anger in the victim.
When the process of understanding and forgiving the offending spouse, who is motivated to change,
does not diminish the level of anger, this reaction is often the result of the fear of trusting and
becoming vulnerable to the spouse again with an associated concern of further betrayal. Those with
faith can be helped by meditating, "Lord take my anger and sadness and help me to grow in trust."
Unfaithful spouses often discover within themselves intense guilt for the harm they have inflicted
upon loved ones. They often recognize, too, they fail to address weaknesses within themselves or
within the marriage such as a lack of balance or lack of healthy self-giving to the marital friendship.
Also, the offended spouses can have sudden flashbacks to the emotional trauma as do those with
posttraumatic stress disorders. At these times the betrayal anger can return with such a great intensity
as though the marital betrayal had just occurred. Many spouses report that the only approach which
is effective dealing with such anger attacks is spiritual forgiveness, that is, giving their justifiable
anger to God.
As they come to understand themselves more unfaithful spouses may discover strong resentment within
them toward parents who spoiled them or were insensitive to them or toward a spouse who was controlling,
emotionally distant or manipulative. Then they recognize that the process of forgiveness is essential
in resolving this strong anger and in purifying the memories of the past.
Building trust
Marital infidelity severely damages a spouse's ability to trust. The restoration of trust
is essential since it is the foundation for loving. One simply cannot be open to give and to
receive love unless one feels safe with one's spouse. Understanding and forgiving the offending
spouse not only diminishes anger but it also diminishes fear. However, it is not enough.
The full restoration of trust is nothing short of miraculous. That's right, we need a miracle
to restore trust so that a betrayed spouse can open his/her heart to the offending spouse. The wounded
heart of the offended spouse screams out, "Protect yourself, put up a wall!" The wounded spouse
needs to feel that his/her spouse truly appreciates the depth of the wound and is sincerely motivated
to understand and to resolve the conflicts present.
Addressing loneliness
Marital loneliness can also play a role in infidelity. The major causes of this pain from the
marital relationships are emotionally distant behaviors, lack of balance with failure to attend to
the marital friendships, selfishness, mistrust and anger, controlling behaviors and a lack of faith.
While most adults who struggle with significant loneliness and unhappiness tend to blame spouses,
it is possible that a degree of marital loneliness can also arise from unresolved childhood sadness
in relationships with parents, siblings or friends. In many marriages the loneliness that leads to
vulnerability to infidelity arises from both marital stress and unresolved childhood loneliness.
We have worked with a number of couples in which the major conflict was the result of each spouse
being in different rooms in the evening with one watching TV and the other reading or working on
his/her laptop. A sense of feeling isolated and alone develops and husbands, in particular can became
involved in internet pornography and then may develop an affair with someone whom they met on the
internet.
Addressing family of origin sadness
Unresolved childhood loneliness can be a significant source of unhappiness, irritability and criticism
in married life, as well as in priesthood and in religious life. This emotional pain can lie dormant
for many years of decades and then emerge later under various types of stresses.
A major mistake many spouses make is the result of the belief that a loving, giving marital relationship
should protect one from unhappiness and anger. Although spousal love is very powerful and comforting,
it has limitations and cannot enter an earlier life period and resolve childhood or adolescent loneliness
and sadness that is encapsulated by anger as a result of having an emotionally distant or angry father,
mother or sibling.
Spouses regularly become angry with their mate because of their sadness and look for ways to blame
them for it. The lonely spouse's anger grows and trust diminishes. The loyal, faithful spouse then
becomes the scapegoat for unresolved childhood anger that intensifies over time along with the sadness.
He or she is no longer treated as a special gift from God and as one's best friend, but, instead,
as an enemy who has inflicted great pain upon them. Unconscious hatred of a parent's behaviors deeply
wounds the sacred union.
Also, as the anger drives the couple apart, intensifies in the lonely spouse who may attempt to
remain loyal to the marriage for a time by engaging in numerous feel-good behaviors in a futile attempt
to escape from the childhood pain. When these behaviors fail to bring freedom from the wound of loneliness,
comfort and love may then be sought outside the marriage.
Men with rejection and pain in the father relationship usually turn unconsciously to women for
comfort although a small percentage will turn to other males, particularly those who were also rejected
in childhood by a brother or same sex peers. Women with the father disorder or brother rejection
will turn to other men for love. Some women who did not experience comforting love with their mothers
will be unfaithful with a woman in an unconscious attempt to fill an emotional emptiness in their
lives.
Spouses are encouraged to grow in self-knowledge and to examine honestly their parental and sibling
relationships in order to determine if a degree of their loneliness and irritability may be locked-in
from childhood. The most common sadness that emerges in our experience is due to an emotionally distant,
unaffirming or angry father. However, we have been seeing increasing number of young adults bring
into their marriages sadness with their mothers whom they viewed as being turned in upon themselves
because of selfishness.
When disappointments are identified, then an attempt is made to understand and to forgive the
offending parent. Since anger is strongly related to sadness and in our view in a sense encapsulates
resentment, the resolution of this powerful emotion is essential so that spouses do not remain, in
John Paul II's words, "prisoners of their past." This forgiveness process is demanding because of
the degree and intensity of the resentment that has been denied. It is described in the angry spouse
chapter on this site.
The role of faith becomes helpful, if not essential, in addressing the childhood loneliness. The
chapter on the lonely, depressed spouse on this site discusses its benefits in the healing process.
Strengthening confidence
Male confidence is essential to being a loving spouse and protective parent. The cultural view
of masculinity differs radically from the Christian perspective in that it focuses on success in
sports, on a muscular physique, on sexual conquests and on financial success. The Christian view
is that male strength comes from the pursuit of a life of virtues in which the goal is to become
another Christ to one's wife, children, family, friends and colleagues.
Some men initially pursue the path of virtue, yet fall into marital infidelity because of their
failure to address their emotional conflicts. Weaknesses in male confidence from unresolved conflicts
with fathers, male siblings and male peers are major reasons for such behavior. While a wife's love
is wonderful and strong, however, it cannot enter into the childhood and adolescent stage of development
when the damage to male confidence occurred and heal the male identity wound.
Catholic husbands and fathers rely particularly on the theological virtues of faith, hope and
love and upon graces received from the sacraments.
The Father Wound
We have worked with many marriages in which they husband can at some stage of the marriage experienced
deep unhappiness and irritability because of the emergence of an unresolved father wound with a failure
to identify and address it. They then blame their wives for their unhappiness, misdirect anger at
them and engage in pornography or in adulterous behaviors in an unconscious attempt to escape from
their pain.
I discussed the father wound in an interview on the Fathers For Good website, www.fathersforgood.org/ffg/en/month/index.html.
The path of healing involves admitting disappointments in the father relationship, understanding
the father's childhood and then working at forgiving him. This forgiveness process is arduous but
essential because without it the husband can remain, in the words of John Paul II, a prisoner of
his past for the rest of his life.
Other strategies in healing the father wound include:
admitting powerlessness over insecurities and anger and turning them over to God
identifying one's own special God-given gifts and being thankful for them daily
maintaining healthy male friendships
asking the Lord daily to protect one's confidence
developing a relationship with St. Joseph as another loving father throughout childhood, adolescence
and adult life
joining Catholic men's groups.
A regular reflection upon what Catholic authors influenced by St. John Paul II refer to as the
male genius can also be beneficial.
This includes:
greater distance from process of gestation and birth that enables him to act more calmly on
behalf of life;
acting to protect life and guarantee its future;
being a father in a physical and spiritual sense and
being strong, firm, reliable and trustworthy.
Peer, Sports Wound
Peer acceptance is a major factor in the development of healthy self-esteem. Unfortunately, many
gifted males experience significant emotional pain due to lack of eye-hand coordination. They may
be ridiculed because of their weaknesses in throwing a baseball, kicking a soccer ball, shooting
a basketball or passing a football or hurt regularly being chosen last on a pick up game. This peer
rejection can result in a strong weakness in male identity and in deep sadness.
The healing of such peer/sports wounds can occur by resolving anger with offenders through a process
of forgiveness, identifying and being thankful for positive male gifts/strength, reflecting that
male confidence is not determined by sports or body image, engaging in some type of athletic activity
weekly that does not require eye-hand coordination such as swimming, hiking, weight lifting, etc,
working on healthy male friendships, and for Christian husbands meditating upon the Lord being one's
best friend and as being present during painful memories during recess, on athletic fields, etc.
in childhood.
When the weaknesses in male confidence are resolved, husbands regularly seek forgiveness from
their wives and from God for misdirecting them anger meant for fathers, male peers and others and
no longer blame them for their insecurities and associated sadness.
In this healing process some husbands discover anger with God for allowing them to have such a
heavy cross as a lack of eye-hand coordination in childhood. Some husbands report benefit from taking
their deeply seated resentment into the sacrament of reconciliation.
Acceptance
Acceptance of the pain and reality of marital infidelity is very difficult, however, it is essential
to the healing process. Some spouses try to believe that good can come from the terrible trauma.
However, those victimized by adultery can struggle with profound mistrust and rage which is difficult
to resolve. This severe betrayal pain has been shown to respond to low doses of serotonin reuptake
inhibitors, such as paxil or zoloft, and we recommend their use for severe rage and mistrust in the
victim spouse. Also, we have observed this pain diminish in Christians by uniting their suffering
to that of Christ on the cross. In addition, spiritual direction can be helpful also in coming
to acceptance of this trauma.
Facing the guilt
Human nature desires the honesty that looks squarely at the sinful situation, acknowledges it
for what it is, and recognizes oneself as being in need. As Psalm 32:5 reminds us, "Then I declared
my sin to you; my guilt I did not hide. I said, 'I confess my faults to the Lord,' and you took away
the guilt of my sin" and "If you, O Lord, laid bare our guilt, who could endure it? But with you
is found forgiveness; for this we revere you," Psalm 130. For Catholics the sacrament of reconciliation
can be helpful in overcoming this guilt.
Communication about the healing process
A discussion of the process of the healing of the emotional, personality and spiritual conflicts
which contributed to the infidelity should be discussed several times per week. Such communication
is essential so that the victim spouse can be reassured that intense work is being done to protect
the marriage and the family.
Rebuilding the marital friendship
After working on identifying the origins of the infidelity and the diminishing anger, then it
is important to work on rebuilding the marital friendship. In this vital process it is important
that the perpetrator should have constant availability by phone and check in regularly. Also, it
is important to work on the marital friendship by improving the marital communication and time together
in the evening while at the same time improving both the romantic & intimate aspect of the marriage.
Finally, couples report benefits from daily entrusting their marriage to God and from daily committing
to trust one's spouse.
Recognizing the benefits of monogamy
Dr. Brad Wilcox, the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia,
wrote, "Monogamous, married sex is more likely to deliver long-lasting satisfaction than the quick
thrill offered by infidelity,
According to the renowned
University of Chicago Sex Survey, a monogamous sexual partnership embedded in a formal marriage
evidently produces the greatest satisfaction and pleasure. This study found that both women and men
like the emotional security that fidelity affords, and are more likely to report that they are anxious,
scared and guilty when they have had sex with multiple partners in the last year."
Freedom and loyalty
While some claim that it is not reasonable or possible to expect spouses to be loyal over the
many years of marriage, John Paul II has described the many benefits of loyalty to one's spouse in
The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World. He wrote, "The institution of marriage is not
an undue interference by society or authority, nor the extrinsic imposition of a form. Rather it
is an interior requirement of the covenant of conjugal love which is publicly affirmed as unique
and exclusive, in order to live in complete fidelity to the plan of God, the Creator. A person's
freedom, far from being restricted by this fidelity, is secured against every form of subjectivism
or relativism and is made a sharer in creative Wisdom," n. 11.
J.R.R. Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings, and marital stress
J.R.R. Tolkien has written about marital fidelity, "Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails
great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify and direct
to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle
remains. It will not satisfy him--as hunger may be kept off by regular meals. It will offer as many
difficulties to the purity proper to that state, as it provides easements. No man, however truly
he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and
body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial."
"Those who see marriage as nothing more than the arena of ecstatic and romantic love will be disappointed,
When the glamour wears off, or merely works a bit thin, they think they have made a mistake, and
that the real soul-mate is still to be found. The real soul-mate too often proves to be the next
sexually attractive person that comes along."
The Role of Faith and Infidelity
The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a great deal of wisdom on marriage. Here are
some powerful statements on infidelity.
"Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He undermines the
institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of
human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents' stable union," Catechism of
the Catholic Church, n. 2381.
"By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the
consequence of the gift of fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves
which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement "until further
notice." The "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the
children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them,"
Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1646.
"The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself.
From their covenant arises 'an institution, confirmed by the divine law..' The covenant between the
spouses is integrated into God's covenant with man: 'Authentic married love is caught up into divine
love,'" (CCC, n. 1639).
"The twofold communion with God and with one another is inseparable. Wherever communion with God,
which is communion with the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is destroyed, the root and source of
our communion with one another are destroyed. And wherever we do not live communion among ourselves,
communion with the Trinitarian God is not alive and true either." Pope Benedict XVI, 2008, (Jesus,
The Apostles, and the Early Church, p. 18).
"We can realize how important prayer is with families and for families, in particular for those
threatened by division. We need to pray that married couples will love their vocation, even when
the road becomes difficult, or the paths become narrow, uphill and seemingly insuperable," (John
Paul II, Letter to Families).
Finally, a number of believing couples report benefit from asking the Lord to deepen their trust
in Him and in each other; to help them grow in self-giving and love, that is, to truly wish for the
good of one's spouse; to heal the sadness and anxiety and to strengthen the marital communication
and friendship. Also, Catholic couples report being helped by going to the Eucharist more often and
by saying a rosary together for the healing of their marriage
Conclusion
We believe that in the majority of marriages the severe wound of infidelity can be resolved and
divorce can be prevented.
Our webinar on divorce prevention has helped many couples in their struggle to heal the wound
of marital infidelity,,
Divorce Prevention.
Research studies demonstrate that couples in troubled marriages who commit themselves to improve
them are often happier five years later than couples who divorce. The process of healing deep
emotional wounds of mistrust, betrayal, sadness, loss of confidence is arduous but worth the effort.
Also, the role of faith can be particularly helpful in the process rebuilding marital affection and
the marital friendship.
MommyReviewer, February 26, 2014
Blames the victim
To be fair this book probably isn't intended to blame the victim. But it manages to come across
that way just the same. It is very much written to make it palatable to the cheater, to stop them
throwing it across the room in defiance. And there's a place for that. But probably that's best done
by a therapist face to face so that they can pre-empt the derision and the blameshifting that goes
with it. A book is too remote for that unless it is very lucky and very well written.
I much prefer Janis Spring's book "How can I forgive you?" which has no overtones of blaming the
victim, and which completely lets us off the hook from forgiveness-pressure. The fact that she wrote
both suggests that this book had better intentions than it realizes in the execution. But nevertheless
it does more harm than good.
I would recommend "How Can I Forgive you" a hundred times over this.
This book is clearly for those who intend to save their relationship after an affair. I cannot
imagine how you can live life knowing that the person you loved and trusted has betrayed you in the
worst possible way.
The first half of the book is useful, as it provides reassurance that what you
are going through is normal.
The second half is total crap, as it tries to convince you that the
fault of the affair lays with both spouses. I can't possibly wrap my head around that! Having a relationship
and having issues to be resolved in that relationship/ marriage is one thing. CHEATING is an entirely
different thing that has NOTHING to do with ANY problems.
If you don't like the relationship you're
having, pack your stuff and head for as many other people as you please. If you stick around, then
keep your pants/ skirt on!
I wouldn't waste your money to just read about feelings you are already
experiencing, cause you know, no matter who says what, what YOU are feeling is something NO ONE in
this world should feel, it's worst than torture and only a LOSER can cause that to another human
being.
And you know what? If you're feeling something that no one else felt, it's your damn right
to feel as angry and as upset as you do - because the other party didn't give a rats about how you
would feel. They deserve nothing but the door!
Amazing book - helping my husband and I work through a recent devastating discovery of his infidelity.
I went to therapy after the revealation and she actually recommended that we both read this book.
I
bought it immediately, within days of finding out, and I can't tell you how much it helped me
(and him). I was feeling so lost... unsure if I would be an idiot to take him back... and this
book provided me with the light I needed.
It put so many things into words that I was having trouble
with. My husband now understands how I'm feeling and what I'm thinking better than he ever could
have without this book.
And I'm gaining a better understanding of his frame of mind as well. I've
always been someone to say "if he cheats, I'm done"... but trust me, if you think there's a chance
you could work through it, give it a chance!
It never hurts to try and although I don't know if
he and I will make it, I am hopeful. Worth reading FOR SURE.
I purchased this book after reading reviews which portrayed this book as helpful in healing work
after a betrayal. I found this book to be nothing close to the reviews. This book appears short on
both empathy and any real insight - the book approaches affairs using the attitude of blame the betrayed
spouse. The book repeatedly suggests that betrayals happen only after a spouse has been trying and
trying to reach the other spouse who is unable or unwilling to be empathetic or nurturing. There
are copious examples. One example is Ryan, who hadn't been looking for an affair but three years
into his marriage he was "ripe for the plucking by any woman who showed the promise of affection."
Dawn, Ryan's spouse was supposed to be a fun loving take it easy kind of gal but she turned out
to be "ambitious, hard working highly organized person". As Ryan had "never seen this side of her"
he discovered that Dawn has turned into "a tough taskmaster". Obviously the author feels strongly
that Ryan was entitled - even thought the author herself states that Dawn never tried to hide her
personality. Really?? Wow how sadly vested is the author in excusing infidelity and hide Ryan's ownership
of his own behavior. Obviously in the author's opinion, Dawn fell down on the job and Ryan had every
right to have an affair in reaction to his unmet needs (instead of communicating them to his spouse).
I finally put this book down when I reached the section entitled "The Top Six Solutions that Prevent
Betrayal".
Ms. Kirshbaum glosses over the devastation of betrayals, states that blame is not useful and then
goes on to spread blame on the spouse. While a marriage has two sides and break downs in communications
are typically shared, if someone cheats or lies that is a choice that is made by that person. Stating
that there are ways to prevent someone else's choices, including betrayal is simply NOT a reasonable
statement and it is highly inappropriate and inflammatory to suggest that the betrayed spouse has
some kind of role in `causing' betrayal.
Restoring trust in relationships after betrayal takes serious work- honesty, transparency and
building a new foundation. A cornerstone of this work must involve owning behavior and, if needed,
making amends and understanding upset. Blaming and excusing behavior does not provide helpful guidance
but continues to obfuscate the situation and prevent healing.
I strongly recommend skipping this book. There are many wonderful books on healing and re-building
trust. This is NOT one of them.
Peggy Vaughan is no marriage counselor (or psychotherapist) and it shows--she actually makes sense.
Ms. Vaughan has drawn insightfully from her extensive work with her Beyond Affairs Network. Unlike
many self-styled or state-sanctioned (i.e., licensed mental health) experts, Ms. Vaughan actually
uses more reality than dogma to inform her advice. For instance, her research shows that the leading
variable in managing to stay together well after an affair is the willingness and ability to talk
(and talk and talk and talk) about the affair for as long as needed to detoxify and demystify it.
(Her research also shows that most people trying to deal with the aftermath of an affair find mental
health types considerably les than informed or helpful, despite their beliefs in their great expertise.
As a trained and experienced psychotherapist, and a well-respected scholar, I can tell you that the
mainstream training and professional literature--not to mention self-help--on infidelity is mostly
just dogma that mental health types have concocted out of thin air, not anything anyone has actually
discovered through research.)
I do find a one thing a bit troubling. As I see it, she does not give due weight to issues of
individual moral responsibility. There are two sides to this. First, she generally denies that adultery
reflects personal failings, placing far more emphasis on social factors to explain why adultery takes
place. She does not produce an argument, so far as I can see, against the idea of personal failings;
rather she poses an alternative to that idea. But to pose an alternative to an idea is not to show
the idea wrong.
Second, while she is surely right that our culture has come to glamorize affairs rather than condemn
them, and while she is certainly right to place more emphasis on this than conventional "wisdom"
allows, it is not all that clear just what causal role social factors play, or which is the chicken
and which is the egg.
The same social forces act on ALL of us, but only SOME of us cheat. Thus, the social forces
cannot explain why cheaters cheat. Differentiating cheaters from others requires looking at variables
on which they differ from others, not on forces common to all.
Ms. Vaughan's "evidence" that adultery has increased significantly in the last few decades,
when sex has become more public and less closeted, depends to a great extent on generally-unrespected
researchers like Shere Hite. Her figures on the rate of adultery are higher than others I've seen
(and I've read a lot on this subject). So far as I can tell, we do not really know that there has
been a meaningful rise in adultery to accompany the rise in glamorized sexuality (including glamorized
icons of adultery).
Even if there is a rising rate of adultery, and even if it correlates the social forces Ms.
Vaughan mentions and a rising rate of adultery, it does not follow that one causes the other. Alternative
hypotheses can explain both. One such alternative would be that both are results of increasing egoism
and hedonism, which could result from any of a number of factors--consumerism, the decline of Heaven-oriented
religious belief, decline of community life, commodity-centered views of the person growing out of
capitalist ideology, etc. Another might be that both reflect the decline of patriarchal social structures.
Surely others could be framed. The point is that we just don't know.
I nonetheless think that, on balance, she is the wisest person writing on the subject. Ms. Vaughan
possesses good data on the effects of adultery, and she possesses good sense. She also possesses
a crusader's heart. If, maybe, she goes a bit overboard, as compared to us academic types--well,
there never was a successful crusade led by timid generals. I want to add that several months after I read this book and wrote the first version of this review,
I called upon Ms. Vaughan for help in dealing with my own situation in dealing with my wife's adultery
with my "best friend" of thirty years. Quite honestly, I believe she saved my marriage. My gratitude
to her is beyond words.
And by bizarre coincidences, it turns out that we grew up in the same place, her dad and mine were
fishing buddies, I used to buy gasoline at her dad's service station, my dad preached her dad's funeral,
and our lives have run eerily parallel courses.
As a result, as you can imagine, I thought about removing from this review any criticism whatsoever.
But I decided not to do so. I hope my heartfelt endorsement of this book means all the more precisely
because I don't simply find it ratifying my own beliefs.
I am altogether certain that this book and Ms. Vaughan's counsel did more to save my marriage than
all the dozens of other things I read in recovering from the most horrific devastation of my life.
A court filing in a civil case in Florida last week included new allegations against Jeffrey E.
Epstein, a businessman who pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, and two other high-profile
men: a member of the British Royal family and an American lawyer.
The motion filed in United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida alleges
that Mr. Epstein forced a teenage girl to have sexual relations with several men, including Prince
Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, and Alan M. Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard
Law School. Both men have denied the allegations.
Jeffrey Epstein is not just a businessman. He's a billionaire, and he has already been convicted
of soliciting underaged prostitution.
About the royal: Some of you may argue that if there was
an encounter, the Prince may have been unaware of the girl's age. He has people. People who
make arrangements for him. One can see how such a fellow might hear the same knock on the door that
Neil Bush once heard. Perhaps, upon opening the door, his first reaction was something other than
"May I see your ID, Miss?"
That scenario seems plausible. However, as we shall see, that scenario is not what
has been alleged.
We will get to the Prince in a bit. For now, let's focus on Dershowitz.
On Saturday, Mr. Dershowitz said he "categorically and unequivocally" denied all of the allegations.
He said he would file disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who filed the motion, Bradley
J. Edwards, a lawyer in Florida, and Paul G. Cassell, a former federal judge and a law professor
at the University of Utah.
"They are lying deliberately, and I will not stop until they're disbarred," Mr. Dershowitz
said in a phone interview.
The very predictability of that furious reaction means that no lawyer would have filed such charges
against Dershowitz frivolously. Cassell has an impressive resume. He's not a young go-getter out
to make a name for himself.
I understand that there are a lot of women who have made iffy claims
against famous people. But this case seems different. Epstein has already pled guilty. Moreover,
Dershowitz was part of Epstein's legal team.
The full court filing was published on
Mondoweiss
a couple of days ago. We learn that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age,and that she
was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late
news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who seems
to have been Jane Doe #3. Allegedly, the shot was taken by Epstein. (Note: In what follows, the term
NPA refers to non-prosecution agreement.)
Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her
into what is commonly referred to as a "sex slave." Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave
from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign country and hide out from
Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 and 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused
Jane Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
in international airspace on Epstein's private planes, and elsewhere.
Epstein also sexually
trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and
financially-powerful people. Epstein's purposes in "lending" Jane Doe (along with other young
girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political
and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations
with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known
defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowiz on numerous
occasions while she was a minor, not only in Flroida but also on private planes, in New York,
New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane
Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors
by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant
role in negotiating the NPA on Esptein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement
that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to
Epstein, but also to "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped
negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal
prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have
been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other memebers of Epstein's defense team)
and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein's victims and
the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
There's a third named participant in these doings, one Jean Luc Brunel, a close Epstein friend and
a scout for various modelling agencies.
He would bring young girls (ranging from ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual
purposes and farm them out to his friends, especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls "modeling"
jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or impoverished backgrounds, and he lured them
in with a promise of making good money.
The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her
as a victim in the attachment to the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation of Jane Doe
#3's relationship with Epstein would have revealed the fact that she had been trafficked throughout
the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the Government secretly
negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any Federal prosecution in the
Southern District of Florida of Epstein and his co-conspirators. As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane
Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement from Jane Doe #3 -- all in violation
of her rights under the CVRA -- to avoid Jane Doe #3 from raising powerful objections to the NPA
that would have shed tremendous light on Epstein and other powerful individuals that would likely
have prevented it from being conlcuded in the secretive manner in which it was.
The document also mentions a Jane Doe #4, an impoverished sixteen year old who was told that she
could make $300 by giving a "massage" to an old man in Palm Beach.
This matter seems very serious. We have too many details, too many corroborating witnesses (in
the form of four Jane Does). We have a photo. We have reports of the existence of many, many more
photos. The hugger-mugger involving the NPA seems downright ghastly -- yet all too credible.
Frankly, I would not rule out the possibility that Epstein was working for an intelligence agency
-- either Mossad or one of our own. The Maxwell connection points to Mossad.
This whole business has "honeytrap" written all over it.
The Clinton connection.
The
Daily Mail discloses that one of Epstein's, er, protegees was a woman named Johanna Sjoberg.
Since the story links her to Prince Andrew, it is tempting suppose that she is the aforementioned
Jane Doe #3. However, British newspapers have named another young woman, Virginia Roberts.
Miss Sjoberg worked for Epstein for four years, often massaging him as he lay on a couch in his
giant bathroom making phone calls to friends such as Bill Clinton and Cate Blanchett.
He kept
a little black book, containing the numbers of all his masseuses by a phone in the bathroom, she
said. She left after he started becoming 'more aggressive' in his demands that she 'do sexual
things to him'.
She said she was aware that the girls recruited by Epstein and his acolytes were not paid just
for massages but for 'sexual favours'.
Virginia Roberts revealed that as a 17-year-old 'erotic masseuse', she was flown by Epstein
to London to meet Prince Andrew,
Miss Sjoberg said: 'I'm not surprised he was sending girls abroad. I just did not think they
were so young.'
The Prince strongly denies any claim of impropriety, of course.
What about Epstein and Clinton?
Obviously, there is nothing wrong in taking a man's phone call, even a call from someone like Epstein.
However...
Bill Clinton was also named dozens of times in lawsuits against Epstein and was alleged to have
flown on his private jet more than 10 times.
Flight logs in lawsuits detailed that between 2002
and 2005 the former US President traveled around the world courtesy of his friend and stopped
at Epstein's Caribbean island Little St James where young girls were supposedly kept as sex slaves.
Clinton was deemed to be so close to Epstein that he was nearly deposed during the investigation
into his paedophilia.
Before he was jailed Epstein's other acquaintances are said to have been former Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Barak; former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and former Treasury Secretary Larry
Summers.
Let's make the obvious point. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing against Bill Clinton, then Hillary's
chances at the nomination are over. A candidacy can withstand many things, but a statutory
rape scandal involving one's spouse? No.
Over the years, the casually-dressed, globe-trotting financier, who was said to log more than
600 flying hours a year, has been linked with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Manhattan-London
society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late media titan Robert Maxwell.
Epstein reportedly
flew Tucker and Spacey to Africa on his private jet as part of a charitable endeavour. Clinton,
meanwhile, flew on multiple occasions in the same plane to Epstein's private Caribbean island,
Little St James, between 2002 and 2005 as he developed his philanthropic post-presidential career.
It would later be alleged in court that Epstein organised orgies on that same private island in
the US Virgin Islands.
Reports in the US media say many of the A-list names broke off any links with the former maths
teacher after his arrest and conviction in 2008 of having sex with an underage girl whom he had
solicited. His arrest followed an 11-month undercover investigation at a mansion in Florida's
Palm Beach that Epstein owned.
In 2008, he pleaded guilty to a single charge of soliciting prostitution
and was handed a 18-month jail sentence. He served 13 months in jail and was obliged to register
as a sex offender. A 2011 report in the New York Post said that he celebrated his release from
jail and his return to a property he maintains in New York – a 45,000-sq-foot eight-storey mansion
on East 71st Street – with Prince Andrew.
The story goes on to give much useful information about Epstein's business dealings.
The financier, who was jailed for 18 months in 2008 after pleading guilty to solicitation for
prostitution, kept a sickening stash of images on a computer seized at his Palm Beach mansion
in 2006.
The six-year-old papers, seen by the Sunday People, state: "Some of the photographs in the defendant's
possession were taken with hidden cameras set up in [Epstein's] home in Palm Beach.
"On the
Day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer
in the defendant's home.
"[He] may have taken lewd photographs of Jane Doe 102 with his hidden cameras and transported
[them] to his other residences and elsewhere."
Court papers also allege that Maxwell presented nude pictures of her she had taken herself to
Epstein as a birthday present.
They add that Roberts' claims that she was forced to tell Epstein
all about her sexual encounters so he could use the information to "blackmail" the royal.
She further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful men, including numerous prominent
American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known Prime Minister,
and other world leaders".
And now let's play our game: Who was that Prime Minister?
To-neeeeee...! If that's
you, you're gonna have to say so many rosaries that even the Virgin Mary will get sick of hearing
your voice.
This scandal places our right-wing media in a bind. Obviously, the right-wingers will want to
leap on anything that dirties the Clinton name. On the other hand, anything that reeks of Mossad
involvement is untouchable.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
,
can also help couples navigate this trespass and gain comfort from hearing the stories of those who
have been through a similar ordeal, as well as knowledge about what their partner may be feeling.
Ultimately, it is rarely the act of sex outside of a relationship that makes or breaks a couple’s
ability to survive an infidelity. It is the meaning we attach to the act and the way we proceed with
the information once it has been made known.
Good point, Pucker. All the pro-Podesta apologists can't explain away the
code language. Especially, disturbing are remarks (I think by owner James
Alefantis) about 4 sick pizzas left over from the last session on sale for
$1000. Be sure and dispose of them properly."
I have pages of Word docs and have listened to too many facts,
Most intellectuals hate Conspiracies for two reasons: one good and one
bad. On the good side, there is just too much lunacy and crackpottery
once conjecture and Freud's "primary process" (fantasy) get going. On
the bad side, they hate not having full information or at least a
partial store of consensus information from which to analyze. But Life
is Conspiracy – and sometimes we have to go with what we have. In this
regards, detectives are superior to intellectuals: they do it all the
time. Ditto scientists. It's the inductive process. Once you get
enough you form a hypothesis. Then you test it. That's all we're
asking for in regards to this case. And I think we both agree: what
they would find would bring down the System.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
The utilization of "Conspiracy theorist" came about after the
common man on the street started waking up to the fact that he was
being screwed by those in power and lied to consistently. Did you
know that during World War II, President Roosevelt, was onboard the
battleship USS Iowa in route to North Africa when it was
"accidently torpedoed" (the fish detonated in the ship's wake and
did not actually impact the ship) by the US destroyer, the William
D. Porter? Well it's the first I am hearing of it so I guess that
these people are pretty good at keeping things quiet when they go
wrong, especially REALLY wrong
