Epstein and the Original Sin

 

I am not posting this story here. I am posting a link to it on SubStack. This is my clever ploy to get you to subscribe to me--for free!-- over there. 

Give it a look.

The Mark of Zorro Ranch

 

We will probably be hearing more from the Epstein files for years. Given three million pages, it will take some time for folks to mine it all, even if no more files are released. There will be books written, on different aspects and on the paticipastion of different figures. Already the files seem likely to topple one world leader, Kier Starmer.

A few initial comments from this seat in the peanut gallery.

I see the claim online that Epstein worshippedor ironically pretended to worship the pagan Philistine god Baal. His strange  blue and white island temple structure was referred to by some as a “Baal shrine,” and he had some bank account using “Baal” in the name.

Here I can contribute a bit of knowledge other commentators seem not to have; although it seems simple and obvious enough. This is not conclusive, because Epstein was Jewish and so knew basic Hebrew. “Baal” in Hebrew is a title, not a name. It means “lord” or “master.” A Christian praying in Hebrew would pray to “Baal.” A courtier would call his king “Baal.” We cannot tell from this what god Epstein intended, if any. He might have been referring to himself. 

My next observation at this early point is simply to note that “pedophilia” used to be represented as a problem virtually unique to the Catholic church. While it was indeed a problem in the Catholic church, there was never any reason to suppose it was more common there than elsewhere. By now we know it was at least as common in sports leagues, the Boy Scouts, the public schools. It seems to have been everywhere, at every level of society, and especially common among the loudest critics of the Catholic church.

Perhaps Catholics deserves some reparations; for all the reparations they have already paid out. Why were they charged and persecuted, including the entirely innocent laypeople in the pews, and no one else?

My third observation is deep suspicion to hear that aside from the notorious island, Epstein also owned a remote ranch in New Mexico. It was apparently here that the worst things happened.

That rings a bell.

I have long theorized that Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut was an expose.  Kubrick wanted to blow the whistle, but did not feel it was safe to say it outright. And perhaps it was not. He died unexpectedly soon after finishing that movie.

I indeed have previously pointed out that Eyes Wide Shut also did not seem to be the first time Kubrick was trying to blow the whistle on some Hellfire Club among the elites. His 1961 film Lolita was also about pedophilia. In the film, the underage Lolita is spirited away by a group of Hollywood pedophiles—to a remote ranch somewhere in the West. Perhaps New Mexico?

Here is the passage from the book:

“Curious coincidence—…took her to a dude ranch about a day’s drive from Elephant (Elphinstone). Named? Oh, some silly name — Duk Duk Ranch — you know just plain silly — but it did not matter now, anyway, because the place had vanished and disintegrated. Really, she meant, I could not imagine how utterly lush that ranch was, she meant it had everything but everything, even an indoor waterfall. 

…He was a great guy in many respects. But it was all drink and drugs. And, of course, he was a complete freak in sex matters, and his friends were his slaves. I just could not imagine (I, Humbert, could not imagine!) what they all did at Duk Duk Ranch. She refused to take part because she loved him, and he threw her out. 

‘What things?’ 

‘Oh, weird, filthy, fancy things. I mean, he had two girls and two boys, and three or four men, and the idea was for all of us to tangle in the nude while an old woman took movie pictures.’ (Sade’s Justine was twelve at the start.) 

‘What things exactly?’ 

‘Oh, things… Oh, I — really I’ — she uttered the ‘I’ as a subdued cry while she listened to the source of the ache, and for lack of words spread the five fingers of her angularly up-and-down-moving hand. No, she gave it up, she refused to go into particulars with that baby inside her. That made sense. ‘It is of no importance now,’ she said pounding a gray cushion with her fist and then lying back, belly up, on the divan. ‘Crazy things, filthy things. I said no, I’m just not going to [she used, in all insouciance really, a disgusting slang term which, in a literal French translation, would be souffler] your beastly boys, because I want only you. Well, he kicked me out.’

…  ‘Fay had tried to get back to the Ranch — and it just was not there any more — it had burned to the ground, nothing remained, just a charred heap of rubbish. It was so strange, so strange —'"

This seems an odd coincidence. Surely Kubrick, and indeed Vladimir Nabokov before him, could not have known then of Epstein’s “Zorro Ranch”? The novel was published in 1955. Epstein reportedly bought his “Zorro Ranch” only in 1991. 

But Epstein might not have been a one-off, some solitary evil mastermind. More likely he was raised and groomed to his role, plucked from obscurity, by some pre-existing group or invisible institution. He might have been following an established template. 

From 1957 to 1960, Kubrick was under contract to Kirk Douglas. By 1960, they had a bitter falling out.

Recently, following his death, the sister of Natalie Woods has publicly claimed that Douglas sexually assaulted that actress in 1955, when she was only 16.

Was this a one-off? During the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic church, we were assured that pedophilia was never one-off. Pedophiles were incurable. This was why it was culpably wrong of the church to accept claims of repentance and simply reassign accused clergy. The only solution was chemical or physical castration, we were told.

So it seems fair to assume the same of Kirk Douglas. He was presumably a serial pedophile, and a member of a pedophile ring in his day.

Probably then there was some attempt, while Kubrick was under contract, to introduce Kubrick to the ring and its activities. As with the Epstein operation, this would have been a kind of initiation, allowing for blackmail later if anyone strayed from the established path. And so Kubrick became aware of what was going on.

Kubrick broke with Douglas, as noted, in 1960. The next year he filmed Lolita—then left for England, never to return. That move to England might have been career suicide—he deliberately took himself away from all the action in Hollywood.

Perhaps out of disgust. Perhaps fearing for his safety.

An interesting timeline.

Lolita and the Hellfire Club

I have long suspected that Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, was blowing the whistle on some kind of Hellfire Club going on among the prominent and wealthy.

Revelations since about Jeffrey Epstein and P Diddy and Hillary Clinton’s Russia hoax seem to confirm this. There really has been some sort of immoral cabal at the top running much of the society. And this explains many things, like large corporations seeming to act against their own self-interest, politicians going against the popular will and fearing free speech, and, not least, Trump Derangement Syndrome.

But for how long has this been going on? Is it new, or are we only hearing about it now?

 Kubrick’s far earlier film, Lolita, 1962, might also have been a blow on the whistle. It deals with ephebophilia, which seems the dominant obsession of the Epstein cult. That is, having sex with young, but post-pubescent, women. An obvious attraction for the rich and powerful: all societies and cultures see youth and innocence as highly desirable in women. So it is reasonable to foresee this as an ideal commodity for a corrupt blackmail cult.

Kubrick filmed Lolita as his first independent production, after breaking a multi-film contract with Kirk Douglas. The two had a bitter falling out.

In the opening scene of Lolita, James Mason asks Peter Sellers, “Are you Quilty?” And Sellers responds, “I am Spartacus. Why, have you come to free the slaves, or something?”

The film is relatively sympathetic towards Mason as Humbert for his obsession with underage Lolita. It is a natural enough desire. But Quilty is the real villain. As the movie’s plot unfolds, he kidnaps the underage Lolita and takes her to a “dude ranch” full of his “weird friends.”

It sounds so much like the Epstein arrangement.

Spartacus, in Kubrick’s previous film, was played by Kirk Douglas. By saying “I am Spartacus,” Quilty/Sellers is identifying himself with Douglas. And implying Douglas in some sense kept slaves, as Quilty does. Perhaps young female slaves, as Quilty does.

In 2021, soon following his death, Douglas was accused by the family of Natalie Wood of having brutally raped her when she was a child star of sixteen. She and her family had kept silence all these years due to fear of his power and influence.

There are suspicions around another starlet, Jean Spangler. Not underage; but she disappeared. Her purse was found, with signs of a struggle, containing an unfinished note that read “Kirk: Can’t wait any longer, Going to see Dr. Scott. It will work best this way while mother is away,” She was three months pregnant. Like the pianist in Eyes Wide Shut, there has been no sign of her since.

Whatever his experiences with Douglas, as soon as he was able to get out of that contract, Kubrick decamped to England for the rest of his life, a very strange move in terms of career. Although Lolita was set in the US, Kubrick awkwardly filmed it in England, using what American or Canadian actors resident in the UK to get the accents right. As he did for all the rest of his films. Surely a striking eccentricity. As if there was something in Hollywood he feared or needed to escape.

Kubrick’s wife has said he had wanted to make Eyes Wide Shut for years, but felt he was not ready to yet. Not ready? What held him up? It was not an expensive story to film in terms of special effects, like some of the other films he made before it. It did not require great historical research, like some of the other films he made before it. And as soon as he did make it, he suddenly died. A heart attack in his sleep, age 70, six days after the film’s final cut.

Did they get to him?

Did he let go and die knowing he had finally said what needed to be said?

Did he die of the stress of possible reactions from powerful quarters?

I hope one day we know.

Epstein Didn't Kill Himself. James Bond Did.

 

In 2008, state prosecutor Alexander Acosta cut an illegally generous plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein, later overturned, granting Epstein immunity from federal prosecution. Rather like Ray Epps. Asked why later, Acosta explained he was told by the relevant authorities, presumably meaning the CIA or FBI, that Epstein was an “intelligence asset.”

And that explains everything. It’s not complicated.

Of course Epstein was an intelligence asset. He was running a honey trap operation. He would tempt important individuals into having sex with minors. The girls had to be underage, to make the act sufficiently scandalous. This would open the marks—possibly willing marks, like those who undergo an initiation to join a secret society, a Hellfire Club-- to blackmail, and they were then under the agency’s control. 

The agency might also further their political or business career as well—now that they were initiated, and could be relied upon to toe the official line.

The unspecified agency is not out to prevent espionage by some foreign power. Of course not; to assume so is naïve. What’s in that for them? The agency is out to control the government of their own country or countries, apparently the US; although the UK also seems to be getting a lot of attention.

Only some conspiracy among the powerful, after all can explain how Epstein managed to “hang himself” with violence in his cell. With all the security cameras turned off, and the guards “asleep.” Caught and caged, he was no longer an asset: now he was a security risk. He might talk.

This explains why there is such resistance to Trump within the deep state; and specifically, one must notice, within the intelligence services. He was presumably never honey-trapped, for all his faults, and so he is, for them, a loose cannon.

This explains the strangeness of the last Democratic presidential race, how Bernie Sanders abruptly folded his tent and fell in line behind Biden—as, at almost the same time, did Buttigieg and Bloomberg. The word had come down; and the puppet masters had something on them.

Of course, it also makes sense to subvert the press.

How else explain the mysterious and sudden transformation of Matt Drudge from right-wing Trump supporter to just another mouthpiece for the left--killing most of his business. They must have something on him.

This explains the transformation, too, of Anne Coulter. She seemed to fall silent, and when she writes now, it is in defense of Ray Epps.

This might even explain why big companies like Google or Facebook have gone along so readily with government calls for censorship, even though it damaged their business. We know Bill Gates was involved with Epstein. Chief executives may have been compromised. This explains especially the case of Jack Dorsey, who actually seemed to welcome Musk’s acquisition of the platform. He seemed to endorse Musk’s goals, but was incapable himself of achieving them. Presumably because the invisible hands had something on him.

This perhaps even explains why democratic governments elsewhere—the UK, Canada, the EU—are doggedly pursuing unpopular policies. They are clearly answering to some master other than the people. A master who holds more power over them than the mere threat of losing office.

I wonder if Ted McCarrick’s operation within the Catholic Church, alternately bribing senior figures with large amounts of cash and holding sex parties, was only run on the same principles, or if it was an arm of the intelligence conspiracy. Might they want to control the Church, with its influence, for the same reason they would want to control the press? Where did McCarrick raise all the money that he was famous for being able to spread about? One suspects it was US taxpayers’ money, expropriated for some intelligence agency without oversight.

For that matter, where did Epstein’s money come from? He rose from nowhere.

Once you see it, it’s not subtle; it’s barely even hidden. The honey-trap is the time-honoured technique for turning foreign spies. It is an intelligence agency’s standard MO. 

Everybody knows J. Edgar Hoover kept files on important figures for possible blackmail. Why not his successors?

I suspect Stanley Kubrick was aware of it all, and was warning us with Eyes Wide Shut. He held off for many years, his wife tells us, on making this film, not feeling he was ready for it. Perhaps he waited until knew he was likely to die soon. So he had less to lose.

Or perhaps they got to him.

Keep your eyes open. Wide.

Conspiracy Theory and Practice

Francis Dashwood, a leader of the Hellfire Club, by Hogarth.

I hate to comment on the Jeffrey Epstein case, because anything about it is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies are inherently rare, and it is easy to go off quarter-cocked.

But sometimes conspiracies are real. There really was a Bavarian Illuminati. There really was a Hellfire Club.

There is an alternate danger, too. That, faced with evidence of evil, we avert our eyes and walk away. It is the more comfortable thing to do. And Edmund Burke’s advice still holds: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

It is pretty definite that Epstein was murdered. The known circumstances put the claim of suicide beyond reasonable belief. We now also have the public testimony of a highly respected coroner who was at the autopsy; although couched in typical legal-medicalese. The results were “consistent” with homicide. They were not “consistent” with suicide.

And the murder of Epstein requires a conspiracy.

Moreover, the official autopsy report did not say homicide, and, according to the coroner who has now come forward, failed to include obvious things like a test for DNA. That too seems to require a conspiracy.

Now Project Veritas has come out with a “hot mic” video of an ABC news anchor lamenting that she had all the goods on Epstein and his Fantasy Island three years ago, and the story was spiked by the network. Fear of litigation by powerful people might explain it; but such fears did not stop the networks from reporting quite wild allegations against Brett Kavanaugh or Donald Trump, without much or any corroboration.

Owl of Minerva, crest of the Bavarian Illuminati

Three years ago—that would mean the story was spiked during the last presidential election, more or less. Might have been relevant. Again begins to look conspiratorial.

But then, we already know that the mainstream media is involved in a political conspiracy. That cover was blown years ago, by “Journolist.”

All of this in turn tends to prove the basic truth of the wild allegations regarding what was going on with Epstein’s pedophile ring. There obviously must be some very powerful people who risk some very grave consequences if the full truth comes out. Powerful enough to reach in and control the US Prison Service, ABC, or the NY coroner’s office, as needed. Consequences grave enough to prompt them to murder almost openly—to take such a risk.

Now we must also worry—is it possible to ever get this properly investigated? We no longer know who’s in on the fix, and who is clean. It seems to me too there are other troubling matters in recent years that have been more or less ignored—the matter of Hillary Clinton’s emails, for example. I find it hard to believe that mere incompetence can account for it. More likely, Clinton was deliberately feeding information to some foreign power. The matter of Hunter Biden, China, and the Ukraine looks pretty outrageous, now that Trump has raised it—yet the damning basic facts have been in public view for years. And when Trump calls for an investigation, the Democrats act as though he has done something wrong, not Biden. Then there are longstanding unanswered questions about Juanita Broderick’s rape charges and the “Clinton death list.”

Perhaps sordid things have been going on among the upper crust at all times. Perhaps what is different now is that we have the democratization of information flow thanks to the Internet. No doubt that is at least partly true. On the other hand, the democratization of information has recently been very drastically throttled in again by Silicon Valley overlords.

These sorts of revelations may explain why.

The malfeasance does seem to fall heavily on the left side of the political spectrum. I don’t think I am being partisan here; it’s pretty obvious. If there is the slightest charge, moreover, against a Republican, it is more than thoroughly aired.

This moral imbalance between the sides seems to me to stand to reason: it is the left that has embraced “moral relativism” and postmodernism, in which you get to say or do whatever you decide is in your interest, regardless of truth or morals. Leaving aside Trump, who is at best hard to read, many leading Republicans do tend to at least publicly commit to moral traditions: Pence, Romney, Ryan, Cruz, Huckabee, Perry, Jindal, and so on.

Or, in Canada, Scheer.

Epstein's Eyes Shut

Jeffrey Epstein

I really don’t want to write this post. But I think it would be cowardice not to. I hate to speak of formal conspiracies, because they are intrinsically improbable, and the stuff of paranoia.

But the death of Jeffrey Epstein seems to require it. The level of incompetence required in prison officials in order to allow him to commit suicide in his cell is wildly improbable. At this point, that he was murdered by some group powerful enough to subvert prison management becomes the likeliest explanation.

It all makes me think of Stanley Kubrick’s final movie, Eyes Wide Shut, which involves the premise that there is a secret sex cult of the rich and famous—like the one Epstein is claimed to have run. The movie leaves it ambiguous whether this cult will go so far as to kill to preserve its secrecy; but this is a possibility clearly raised. 

The original story on which the movie was based was set in Vienna. Kubrick moved it to New York—the same place from which Epstein was operating.

Did Kubrick know something? Was he issuing a warning? Rather as he called out the madness of the elites in Dr. Strangelove? Veiled, perhaps, because he feared repercussions if he were too explicit?

This may also be why Eyes Wide Shut was his last movie. His wife has said he long wanted to make this film, but was not ready yet. He may have known he was ill when he decided to make it—he died just after filming, but before release—and figured now he could risk it, having less to lose. Or, worse, his sudden death just after finishing the movie might not have been natural, as Epstein’s seems not to have been. And just as the death of one of the characters in the film looks like murder masked as a drug overdose.

Makes a really good conspiracy theory, doesn’t it?

And here’s another faggot for the fire. I just saw a piece pointing out that Andrew Breitbart’s sudden death at 43 of a heart attack followed soon after a tweet that suggested he had some salacious information about such a sex ring:

“How prog-guru John Podesta isn’t household name as world class underage sex slave op cover-upperer defending unspeakable dregs escapes me.”

Less than a month later, he was dead.

There are other such suspicious deaths, if one looks; some keep a tally of what they call the “Clinton body count.”

It does seem plausible, given our lax sexual morals in the last several generations, that such a high-level sex ring is a real thing. Consider the recent #metoo revelations; consider the recent scandal in the US Catholic hierarchy over a homosexual sex ring.

Consider now that we are speaking of people with immense power and a great deal to lose if this all came out in public.

We kidded ourselves in the fifties and sixties that sexual morality had nothing to do with morality in general. But when we dropped our sexual ethics, especially when the upper class and elites did, we implicitly dropped morality in general. This is now perhaps at last dawning in the public consciousness.

The strongest argument against such a conspiracy is that it is improbable that so many people could keep an important secret for a long time.

But then, maybe it was not being kept a secret. Maybe Kubrick was telling us.

Eyes Wide Shut indeed.