The Meaning of Epstein 250


The fascinating thing about what social media calls the Epstein “client list” is that not one of the people on it appears to be a client. I have seen nobody say “I knew Epstein because he managed my funds”. Nor does there seem to be any allegation that people paid him for his services.

So what was happening?

We often fall into the trap of attempting to provide a description of what really happened, and then defending every lacuna, when all we really have to do is point out how completely nuts the official story really is. The maddest and most extreme conspiracy theory in the Skripal saga is the official story. I don’t know precisely what was going down, but I know that it wasn’t that.

Similarly with Epstein. He is described as a “financier” but what did he ever finance? What was the source of his wealth?

Epstein’s assets were worth about US$600 million. They included not one but two separate Caribbean Islands and the very substantial properties built on them. They included very real mansions in New York and Palm Springs.

But you do not only have to look at the capital he accumulated – he did this while spending also at a colossal rate, with a lifestyle more usual in a billionaire than a millionaire. He had a very substantial executive staff, and his residences were fully staffed. He had bodyguards. He ran a private jet. He treated friends lavishly with hospitality and gifts, and maintained sex slaves. How did all this money come pouring in?

If you look at other such figures, like the highly entertaining Allen Stanford or the larger scale Bernie Madoff, you can see where the money came in. There is a bank or investment house situated in physical buildings, with real staff and lots of computers. There are very real aggrieved investors. Who are Epstein’s investors?

The standard answer appears to be Leslie Wexner of Victoria’s Secret, whose finances Epstein did manage at one stage and who reportedly once handed Epstein a limited power of attorney. But unless Epstein robbed Wexner of fully 10% of his net worth, that does not explain Epstein’s magic accession of wealth. Not until 2019, 32 years after Epstein started managing funds for Wexner and 11 years after he stopped, was any claim made by Wexner that Epstein had stolen funds, and then it appears very much a distancing move rather than a serious allegation. It is also worth noting that Wexner sold Epstein the New York mansion, he did not gift it as I have seen falsely reported.

A typical wealth management fee is 1%, generally substantially less when the sums managed for an individual account are very large. If we assess the annual costs of Epstein’s staff and lavish lifestyle at around $20,000,000 – which is very conservative – Epstein would have needed to be managing billions of dollars just to keep going, let alone accrue his own substantial capital.

There just is no evidence that Epstein did have a company managing those kind of funds. Where is the company? Where are the records? Who are the clients?

In the Assange case, we know that the CIA turned to gambling billionaire Sheldon Adelson to organise and fund the spying on Julian in the Embassy through UC Global, a very dodgy Spanish-based security company which was also engaged in illegal activities in South America for the CIA (which are currently legally barred from disclosure).

Security services do operate through the world of shady businessmen. This is not conjecture: it is simple fact.

That Epstein was able, simply by lavish hospitality spending, to tempt many on his “client list” to enjoy his hospitality is hardly surprising. That the offer included sex with notably young girls appears inarguable. This obviously would increase Epstein’s influence on those who accepted the sex. I think it is wrong to consider this a blackmail scam – it is something more subtle than that: a shared bond of complicity, with an underlying frisson of danger.

The risk of exposure in such a relationship is of course mutual. It does not have to be discussed. If what Epstein was doing was as unsubtle as spoken blackmail, he would have been killed much earlier than he was, given some of those involved. Those who seriously threatened the reputations of the Clintons, for example, have been extraordinarily accident- and suicide-prone.

That the security services of both Israel and the United States assisted in funding this activity seems to me entirely likely, and a very simple explanation of the spending way beyond the apparent source of income. Epstein appears to have been an excellent “agent of influence”, well worth the money in the eyes of these states.

Here is a very simple question. How many of those powerful figures on the Epstein lists have ever tried to exert any influence to alleviate the tragic plight of the Palestinians, or acted against the interests of Israel?

Sometimes the greatest insight comes from the simplest of questions.

 

————————————————

Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

250 thoughts on “The Meaning of Epstein

1 2 3
  • Paul Citro

    Are you saying the operation was not so much for blackmail purposes but was a way of having influence with the rich and powerful by creating a kind of camaraderie of mutual mischief?

    • James Chater

      Rather like the P2 lodge in Italy a few decades ago. You get promotion because someone more powerful than you has something on you, so you are easy to control.

  • Jack

    According to the Dailymail, Ehud Barak, ex-PM of Israel visited Epstein atleast 36 times.
    Epstein list reignites suspicion the pedo financier was working for Mossad and blackmailing the elite with help of information he gleaned from ‘useful idiot’ Prince Andrew – after meeting Israeli PM Ehud Barak at least THIRTY SIX times
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12926465/jeffrey-epstein-list-friendship-israeli-prime-minister-ehud-barak.html

    And why are Ehud Barak covered up like this: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/01/04/16/79619987-12926465-image-a-8_1704385403882.jpg ? He is just meeting his old pal? Or is that the masquerade theme for the evening perhaps like in the movie “Eyes Wide Shut”?

    • DunGroanin

      Lol Jack I just posted Eyes Wde Shut above – have deleted as you got there first.

      Let’s see if the current bunch of United Artistes can form enough power to do a Kubrik.

  • AG

    within all this I have one objection, it puts way too much emphasis on the Clinton Lewinsky case.
    And frankly that had nothing to do with politics. And certainly no place in an indictment case.

    It shifted all the focus away from the real destruction he brought about.
    Who gives anything about his private life while he is destroying labour and 1000 other things (like pharmaceutical supply chains in Sudan.)

    This media frenzy over private life started with the Gary Hart affair.

    • Gordon Hastie

      It’s not just the Lewinsky case. A commentator a while back on YouTube said “we are talking about serious depravity here”. He was a frequent traveller on the “Lolita Express” and he “likes them young”. I agree that his other crimes to humanity should not be ignored, of course: he destroyed the lives and well-being of millions of his “fellow countryman” with NAFTA, destroyed Russia (something we hear nothing about, yet provides loads of context for the Ukraine catastrophe). I don’t understand the Balkans enough to fully appreciate his role with lackeys like Blair there. But he is a monster, as is Hillary, of course.

  • Tom74

    It looks like a state smear campaign, with Epstein the proxy, put up to confuse people. I very much doubt Prince Andrew and the others on the list have even done anything wrong.

    • harry law

      Tom74 “I very much doubt Prince Andrew and the others on the list have even done anything wrong”. of course not, Prince Andrew merely paid approx 12 million pounds to a victim, in order for silence her.
      Even though the amount of money set to be given by the Duke to Giuffre has not been officially disclosed, The Daily Telegraph estimated that it could be as high as £12 million ($16.3 million), with the Queen partly funding it by giving £2 million to Giuffre’s sex trafficking charity.
      https://time.com/6149123/prince-andrew-settlement-virginia-giuffre-royal-finances/

      • damien

        The key photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Guiffre at Jeffrey Epstein’s London apartment was reportedly taken in March 2001 when Guiffre was 17 and a half. This was in the UK where the age of consent is 16. Virginia Roberts Giuffre was born on August 9, 1983 and turned 16 on August 9, 1999, a full 18 months prior to the infamous photo being taken. For Andrew to have had sex with her as a minor means that he had to have done so 18 months before the March 2001 photo was taken. There is no evidence that she had sex with Prince Andrew before the 2001 photo (if at all). Critics have been saying for some time that Virginia Roberts Guffrie is a serial liar and her case against Prince Andrew fits a general pattern of false claims by her.

        ABC — “She also said Prince Andrew abused her at Epstein’s mansion in Manhattan and on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands.”

        It is not clear what evidence Guiffre claims to have for this but bear in mind that Guiffre only commenced sex with Jeffrey Epstein sometime after she started work at Donald Trump’s Mar a Lago estate in 2000, when she was 17 years of age (and sex occurred when she was probably much closer to 18). She never had any involvement with Epstein at all before that. At the time of her first meeting with Epstein the age of consent in Florida was 18 and 17 in New York. So if she had sex with Andrew at Epstein’s New York residence then it was after she first met Epstein at 17, meaning (even if the incident did occur) that she was legally an adult at the time under US law. Again, no child sex abuse involved.

        Her repeated claim that she was used as a sex slave by Epstein from when she was 14 has no verifiable basis in fact other than her word. She claimed that Epstein celebrated her 16th birthday with her and had sex with her that day, a claim he denied and one she later publicly recanted.

        • terence callachan

          damien, don’t be silly what you are saying here is absolute nonsense. these men were guilty and have been proven guilty as hell.

        • DavidH

          The point with Prince Andrew is that he started out claiming vehemently he’d never met Giuffre. Then when more and more corroborating evidence comes to light about his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell, and statements from others around them, it’s a little difficult for him to pivot and say maybe he did meet her but she was of legal age at the time. So he proceeds with his train wreck of a denial.

          Then there’s the fact that just because she’s of legal age doesn’t mean there wasn’t some kind of abuse going on. And these days it seems abuse can happen even if the victim didn’t feel they were being abused at the time but years later has come to realize they were groomed and taken advantage of. Plus we know Andrew makes an absolutely awful witness in his own defence, so there are uncertainties with any jury trial; and it really isn’t a great look if he’s getting with a 17-year-old anyway, abuse or no abuse, when he was a 40-year-old prince with daughters much nearer her age than his.

          So all in all, 12 mil quid for the Royal Family to draw a line under this, especially in the run-up to the jubilee, was very much a price worth paying. Good for her, indeed – nice work if you can get it. I think I might have bonked him even for that much.

        • Gorse

          But being trafficked across national or state borders as an under 18 year old is a crime. Plus she was groomed before she was 16.

      • damien

        There are further anomalies in Virginia Guiffre’s account. She said that she had gone out to dinner with Andrew on the night of that photo and that he had drunk wine during a restaurant meal. However, multiple family members have attested that Andrew was a lifelong teetotaler and would have been unlikely to change his habit.

        She had previously claimed that she met Pres. Bill Clinton on Epstein’s Island. In her famous 2011 interview with the Daily Mail, Guiffre offered a detailed description of Al and Tipper Gore’s supposed visit to Epstein’s island in the year 2000, the year Al Gore ran for president. Meticulous FOI searches of US Secret Service records show no such visits to the island by either Bill Clinton or the Gores at any time.

        The claim that Virginia was some sort of brainwashed “sex slave” is also not reasonable. Her father and boyfriend knew all about her relationship with Epstein. She had her own apartment, she came and went freely, she attended school, she traveled on her own wherever she pleased, she had her own friends — and Epstein had paid her plenty of money. At any time, she could have chosen a different life.

        • Paul Rain

          Except Giuffre never said what you claim she did about Clinton. That’s simply what some ‘reporter’ for the notoriously zionist Daily Mail- which had a clear interest in muddling the waters around the Mossad agent Jeffrey Epstein- s**t out onto a page. She never made any claim beyond that Maxwell told her that Clinton had visited the island.

          JIDF much?

      • Townsman

        Prince Andrew merely paid approx 12 million pounds to a victim, in order for silence her.

        No.
        He paid to avoid being dragged through a civil court case in the United States. I’d have done the same if I’d been completely innocent and in his position.
        In a civil trial, there’s no presumption of innocence, as in a criminal trial. The jury decides on the basis of “balance of probability”, not “beyond reasonable doubt”. In this case, there was no firm evidence on either side, beyond an alleged “copy of a copy” of a photograph, with no indication of who – if anyone – took the “photograph”. An American jury is bound to be prejudiced against a foreign Prince in a trial against an American. There is no chance Andrew would have got a fair trial.
        That’s why he paid up.

        • pretzelattack

          This is blatantly false. People don’t make gigantic settlements when they just want to avoid being dragged into court; you would not have done the same thing either. It’s based on a lot more than a photographs; his frequent trips to Epstein Island and earlier Epstein-orgy sites. You’re wrong about the burden of proof, too, it is a “preponderance of the evidence”, and the accuser bears that burden, not the defendant. Honestly, do you think anybody is going to believe this?

          • damien

            “It’s based on a lot more than a photographs; his frequent trips to Epstein Island and earlier Epstein-orgy sites.”

            What photographs? What documents? As I say, Guiffre was legally an adult at the times she alleges having sex with Prince Andrew. News media at the time gave endless, unwarranted credibility to unsupported claims against Prince Andrew of child sex abuse. The furore was damaging the monarchy. No wonder they wanted to settle. We are still waiting for the actual evidence.

          • Townsman

            You’re wrong about the burden of proof, too, it is a “preponderance of the evidence”

            That’s more or less what I wrote. The point is that it’s not “beyond reasonable doubt” as in a criminal trial.
            $12 million is a lot to you or me, but how much difference will it really make to Prince Andrew’s lifestyle?

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            The age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18 (where there is an age gap of more than five years between participants), Damien. Violations constitute rape in the second degree punishable by up to ten years imprisonment. Unlike in the UK, mistakes of fact as to age are not a valid defence.

            Paying circa £12 million may have made some difference to Randy’s lifestyle, Townsman, as he reportedly had to borrow several million off the king, and sell his Swiss chalet in order to be able to pay him back.

          • Tom Welsh

            “This is blatantly false. People don’t make gigantic settlements when they just want to avoid being dragged into court; you would not have done the same thing either”.

            That is blatantly rude. You implicitly accuse Townsman of lying.

            Astonishingly, you even tell him that he would not have done exactly what he says he would have done.

            It’s a sad world in which some people are so virtuous in their own eyes that they not only accuse others of lying, but presume to read their minds.

          • pretzelattack

            Tom Welsh give me one example of when somebody who can afford to pay a settlement of 12 million but was innocent elected to just pay a vast sum like that. I think the poster is lying about what he would do; i notice you don’t call him out for reading Andrew’s mind, you just object to me reading his mind. why is that? moreover, Townsman implicitly calls Andrew’s accusers liars. again, that doesn’t bother you. why is that?

          • will moon

            Townsman, damien

            The key issue is the alleged criminal behaviour surrounding the co-conspirators in the 2008 plea deal, where Epstein pleaded to a single misdemeanour. According to the investigating police officer speaking in the Miami Herald, there were scores of victims and the trafficking had been long-term offending behaviour; Maxwell was heavily implicated in the recruitment of the young girls and the day-to-day operations running the enterprise.

            Any damage to the Royal brand was done with the very public meeting between Andrew and Epstein in Central Park and at the Townhouse in 2016(?) etc. Then in 2018-19(?) photos of Maxwell and Kevin Spacey sitting on thrones in a palace and photos of her and Epstein staying in the Queen’s private chalet at Balmoral. It is bad luck if some of your friends turn out be heavy duty criminals but then to meet and show largesse to people who should be doing life without parole, like these two lowlifes – it is difficult to believe the Royal establishment got this so wrong. It is easier to believe, as Mr Murray alludes to in the above article, that some “other” rules of behaviour govern these people, when he refers to “frission” etc. To focus on Farmer whilst ignoring the context of Royal involvement, does the unnamed victims an injustice – have they not suffered enough?

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            The photo of Epstein and Prince Randy in Central Park was taken in 2010, Will, but the photo of him and Ghislaine outside the log cabin on the Balmoral Estate is believed to have been taken in 1999, the year that Randy met him and before he’d been charged with any sex offences, so royal family members would have been unlikely to know about his proclivities.

          • will moon

            Looking at the photo, she looks like a middle aged woman about to enter old age. Looking at stock photos in the 80’s- 90’s of her, I doubt the the photo is from 99. There doesn’t seem much point in speculating. She don’t look much different to her contemporary prison mugshots. Do you really think it was taken 25 years ago?

            By 2010, I think it was clear Maxwell and Epstein were child sex slavers – a corrupt judicial process leading to the infamous plea deal legally protected these degenerates but morally they were polluting filth. I am critical of any institution or individual that carried on contact with them. I am suprised the Royal establishment let Andrew meet him; they would have, like Miami Herald readers, known what the law enforcement were saying about the criminal activity that had taken place in Florida

            ” so royal family members would have been unlikely to know about his proclivities.”

            Would this statement also apply to Sir James Savile? It all seems fishy to me. Are people who holiday with the Royals at Balmoral not vetted by MI5, MI6, SIS or whoever. If not, why not? What do these “intelligence” operatives do all day? I mean, for good’s sake, Russia was not even a “thing” back in the 1990s–2000s, and these incompetents could not spot a pretend billionaire who was a real sex trafficker, who had no customers apart from Wexner, was “appointed” a teacher at a posh school – his legend reeks, and at the very best the secret police are complete incompetents, and at worst what Mr Murray describes above – participants in a political “black mass” of, literally, indescribable harm and degradation.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply Will. I’d say she looks to be late 30s/ early 40s in the log cabin photo. The photo was taken outdoors and she doesn’t appear to have much slap on. I’ve seen far worse looking women in their 20s – I told them that crack was some bad shit. I’m not sure that Randy was entitled to any royal protection officers when he was abroad and not on official royal business. Around the turn of the century, no one in royal circles (bar possibly Randy) knew what Epstein was up to, and it’s not as if he posed a mortal threat to the queen: someone with a decent sniper rifle who was prepared to lay up for days on end on a Balmoral hillside on the other hand… but then she was hardly prepared to be ensconced in Buck House all summer on the off-chance.

          • will moon

            But is that not it? Unless Maxwell and Epstein brought the monarchy something it could not do without why take the risk of associating it with child sex traffickers? Why did Andrew meet this man after the plea deal? Somebody else could have met him, that’s what servants are for after all or they could have spoken on the telephone etc., yet they had to meet. Law enforcement were saying very bad things in Florida, the victims were not told about the plea deal this was all in the public domain.

            I ask again what do these “intelligence” operatives do? You are basically saying they don’t know anything about anything. They are supposed to find things out, find out about people. Good forbid, help protect the Royal Family even from themselves. They were not busy in the 90s. This sort of intelligence should be meat and drink to the “special services”.

            Yet we have a literal Dr No, with a tropical island, kidnapping young girls, with vast mysterious wealth, probably got a flame throwing dragon-tank to catch the runaways on the island! And pools with alligators or the sharks in the bay to dispose of those who aren’t compliant; coming to stay at Balmoral and nobody in the security establishment knew anything about anything or saw fit to find out something about the unknown “billionaire” who had appeared suddenly in the bosom of the Royal Family with his patrician good looks and his infamous micropenis, mocked on teen chat forums in the greater Florida area, throughout the 90s. For me this is a cock and bull story which is hard to swallow.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply Will.

            ‘Why did Andrew meet this man after the plea deal?’

            Probably because he wanted to have sex with one or more of his girls (there’s footage of him waving one of them off from the front door of Epstein’s New York mansion with a smile on his face).

            Epstein came across as a boring financial guy who happened to be the boyfriend of Randy’s friend Ghislaine (who had a much more colourful background than he did – read her old man’s biography if you don’t believe me). Royal protection officers are there to protect the royals from physical danger (people who stay with them generally get their bags searched for weapons etc) – I think that they can be forgiven for not knowing what was being discussed in teen chat rooms in Florida in the 90’s.

          • will moon

            “Epstein came across as a boring financial guy”

            While Jeff was achieving this, British undercover operatives were having long term relationships with completely unimportant peace group types, often leading to the production of children – child abuse of the unborn! And Jimmy Savile stalked the hospitals and orphanages of this country- funnily, when I first read about the story, the police were saying coma victims formed a large proportion of his victims – 10 years later no mention of this. My faulty memory probably – Clinton from Little Rock lol! No Soviet Union, intelligence sharing with the CIA, expensive spying on completely harmless people, yet the security services know nothing about anything, apart from some middle aged women in some peace groups.

            I think they are the scum of the earth, worse than their boys Savile, Epstein, Cyril Smith etc, etc ad nauseum. Anyone who works for them, even mere analysts and pen pushers, along with all the “wet” workers and of course the “top brass”, the organisers of these “black masses” stand accused of crimes against humanity. You carry on defending them. With the money they get, they don’t need the help, yet I am sure they appreciate your deeply partisan loyalty; though to be honest, I find it inexplicable – unless of course you are able to explicate.

  • Goose

    Remove just the top soil and the corruption is everywhere. Many Europeans think Americans have no moral values and that their only concern is with winning. But it’s not a cultural problem per se, it’s a political problem, one the UK shares. Two embedded parties that are irremovable through democratic means; both equally corrupt and protective of each other.

  • Steve Hayes

    The payoff in blackmail isn’t necessarily money. It can be information, some of which may prove to be very useful in market trading / speculation. And of course the blackmail doesn’t have to be explicit. If you realised you’d done things you shouldn’t have done in a mansion or on an island riddled with cameras, you’d want to be on the best candid terms with the owner of that mansion or island, wouldn’t you? What’s particularly neat is that neither party can blow the gaff on the relationship so there’s no apparent reason other than luck and shrewd judgement for the bounteous profits made.

    • Pigeon English

      And the other way around. Suck a dick to get at the Island and give information to keep being a friend of popular powerful guy😀 and if lucky
      go shopping together.
      Nice to know that Lord Mandelson is Sir Starmer advisor!

  • Mac

    Craig, You should read Ryan Dawson on Epstein. If he is too controversial try Whitney Webb. She pretty much plagiarised his research.

    It was a total honeypot operation run with the full knowledge of western intelligence agencies… Bill Clinton I mean he knew he had to…

    • Goose

      Frighteningly easy to compromise a politician without going to those lengths.

      Remember Edward Snowden recalling how while he was with the CIA, they got a Swiss banker drunk, made sure he was pulled over driving home, then they had his DUI scrubbed; saving his career and making him their property, obtaining secret banking information from him. How many Judges, politicians are similarly compromised? The laws around intel agency interference with judiciary, press and politicians needs to be much tighter in the US and UK. Otherwise, what’s to prevent the intel folks believing they are our rightful rulers?

      • Tom Welsh

        Serious criminals can become very formidable indeed, even when they have the power of the state ranged against them.

        Imagine how powerful criminals such as those in the CIA can be when they have the power of the state behind them.

        • Goose

          The scary thing in the US, are the reserved god-like Presidential powers. Powers more fitting those of an absolute monarch than an elected politician with often negative polling ratings. It’s hell of a lot of trust to place in one individual with little to no oversight.

          Whether Seymour Hersh’s NS 2 story was true, partly true, or a deliberately planted decoy story to misattribute blame. The real story, was the part explaining the executive presidential powers, making possible such an operation. A President can act like a law unto himself or herself. It’s why I’ve never liked executive presidential systems. Also, the system allowing a President to pardon or grant clemency – bizarre to non-US citizens – seems wide open to abuse. It’s clearly already become a highly politicised process. President Biden has been pressed recently to pledge that he would not pardon his son, Hunter Biden, if he is convicted. The fact that he could seems absurd to Europeans.

      • Doug Scorgie

        Goose: “Otherwise what’s to prevent the Intel folks believing they are our rightful rulers?”
        _________________
        They already believe that Goose.
        Democracy is a sophisticated joke played on Western citizens by “the powers that be” which
        include; the military; MI 5, MI 6; the House of Lords; many MPs; senior police officers; Judges
        and of course, the rampant capitalist monstrosity that drives the whole system.
        How did Britain get a Zionist supporting, genocide supporting Tory Party together with
        A Zionist supporting, genocide supporting leader of the Labour Party and silence from
        the rest?
        All this on top of a far right MSM propaganda machine.

  • Brian Gray

    Read Whitney Webb’s books, “One Nation Under Blackmail Vol 1 and 2, sub-titled, The sordid union between Intelligence and Organized Crime that gave rise to Jeffrey Epstein… watch her interview on “Redacted” podcast… watch he interview on Kim Iverson’s podcast. A little teaser, all roads lead to, surprise, surprise… British intel circles.

  • SleepingDog

    I also wonder why a UK Children’s laureate wrote what seems to be a thinly-disguised illustrated book on the trafficking arrangement of Epstein and Maxwell. The conditioning of children to be in awe of the trappings of the rich apparently starts early.

  • Sam (in Tiraspol)

    I really do not mean to distract from the (important) thrust of this article, but there’s no such thing as “Spanish-based” just like there’s no such thing as “English-based” or “German-based.” The name of the country in question is Spain. The end 🙂

  • Fat Jon

    I don’t find it difficult at all to come to conclusions regarding Epstein’s wealth. After all, from various reports over the years (including Margaret Thatcher’s treatment of Savile) it would appear to be a common theme that the uber-wealthy and powerful have a insatiable desire for teenagers. The fact that the rich are not fingered (excuse the deliberate pun) by the security services may be due to blackmail opportunities; but it may also be because the heads of secret organisations have similar temptations where teenage performances are concerned.

    These Lolita Express trips were unlikely to have come cheap, and you don’t have to be a mathematical genius to calculate that 300–400 rich people paying £1m per throw, for a few days of pampered pleasure, are going to generate a pretty large income stream over a decade, especially if they get seriously hooked on the habit.

    My thoughts are that – given the demise of the Epstein organisation, and the unlikely scenario that his entire cabal of eager customers have now become celibate – who is running the equivalent services these days? Maybe a closer scrutiny of the current destinations of private jets is called for?

    And finally, if Andrew were as innocent as some claim, why was he there in the first place? He was a senior member of the UK Royal Household and high up in the line of succession to the throne. After all his Establishment upbringing, why in heaven’s name would he allow himself to get caught up in that kind of circle, unless he was partial to a bit of teenage action himself? It may not have been illegal, but he was old enough to be their Dad, or creepy Uncle.

    • Xavi

      I’d suggest his presence there was quite predictable – precisely because of his upbringing. Andrew was raised to regard figures like lord Mountbatten and Sir Jimmy Savile not as despicable monsters but as beloved “mentors”. That’s where his head was during the Epstein period and probably always will be.

  • Tony

    “Those who seriously threatened the reputations of the Clintons, for example, have been extraordinarily accident- and suicide-prone.”

    If I remember correctly, Roger Stone made this observation in his book on the Clintons:

    “The number of people killed in plane crashes does seem to defy statistical probability.”

  • Tony

    “Security services do operate through the world of shady businessmen.”

    After it was forced to abandon plans to assassinate President Nixon, the CIA decided to bring him down by some other means. And so, the Watergate burglary was manned by various people who had ‘retired’ from the CIA but were still secretly on the payroll as employees of the Mullen Corporation.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=bill+o%27reilly+interviews+frank+sturgis&mid=9DEFA293EE02B012E1C79DEFA293EE02B012E1C7&FORM=VIRE

    • pretzelattack

      I don’t think the CIA is good at actual assassinations. It is good at character assassination, though it outsources assassinations to people we bribe or otherwise control.

      • Goose

        Again, Snowden said they usually have links to organised crime and use these, to keep their own hands clean. He said this in relation to his time in Hong Kong where there was a CIA station : “We have got a CIA station just up the road – the consulate here in Hong Kong – and I am sure they are going to be busy for the next week.” He thought they’d use the Triad gangs to come after him, which he knew they had links with.
        You can understand why China felt it necessary to bring in the unfortunate and highly proscriptive Hong Kong national security law. This after weeks of violent street protests, protests in all likelihood fanned by the US and Britain? We’ll never know, and we probably should, by having more transparency to make sure the publicly stated values of our leaders, reconcile with the actions of covert agencies.

        • pretzelattack

          yeah they would, Fidel in fact did not die from an exploding cigar, one of the CIA’s harebrained proposals for assassinating him. He lived until 2016, despite the long history of the US trying to whack him. whacking Che in a country far from home hardly argues for any expertise in assassinating people. outnumbered and outgunned Che was an easy target. in a hostile country filled with informants. The CIA was so inept at actual spying that it outsourced spying on the USSR to the Nazi Gehlen organization. I’m glad that Fidel survived the Kennedy brothers demented obsession with killing him, it is fortunate that he was not targeted by Mossad, and that Cubans were loyal enough to him not to finger him. I applaud Che’s courage in going to Bolivia; but if he had avoided it he would have probably have escaped an assassination by an actual CIA operative, as he did in the numerous other countries he had traveled to without disguising himself.

  • Sparticus

    I think we can safely say that Epstein did not need the hidden cameras to film himself.

    Meanwhile, Change.org has suspended a petition calling for the Israeli Ambassador to be expelled.

    • Nota Tory Fanboy

      Yet another rug pull.

      When will we learn that we can’t rely on proprietary, centralised infrastructure and urgently need to migrate to transparent, decentralised tools instead?

  • iain

    Support for the monarchy falls below 50% for the first time following fresh Epstein reports.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24035866.support-monarchy-falls-50-per-cent-first-time/

    A Savanta poll shows fewer than half in all age groups under the age of 55 prefer the royals to an elected head of state. It comes as reports of Prince Andrew’s involvement with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein have hit headlines again.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24033153.prince-andrew-locked-room-amid-new-epstein-controversy/

      • Tom Welsh

        See also David Graeber and David Wengrow, “The Dawn of Everything”. A good start would be to look up “Kandiaronk” in the index.

        Graeber and Wengrow go so far as to suggest that the proponents of the European Enlightenment got their main ideas from Americans like Kandiaronk. (They logically use the word “American” for the Native Americans, referring to the white colonists as “Europeans”).

        • Nota Tory Fanboy

          I remember reading about Kandiaronk before but I would argue that he is probably an over-politicised example (by at least missionaries and the French) and also actually really the opposite of the point I was trying to make about a “third way”: not all tribes/societies were led by a single chieftain/leader.

  • Stevie Boy

    It’s all chaff, isn’t it ?
    Epstein, Royals. We know what happened and we know that no-one of any consequence is going to be punished.
    Meanwhile, the Israelis continue their genocide programme, Sunak continues to lie to the electorate, Biden continues to try preventing Trump standing, Assange continues to be tortured and the WHO continues to progress its world domination agenda with the WEF.
    Look over here not over there.

    • iain

      Look over here everyone, here’s a story about elite western child rapists being blackmailed into supporting Israel.

      (Heh heh, this should make them look more kindly on Israel and the western establishment supporting its genocide.)

  • mark cutts

    I know the Yanks don’t ‘do’ irony but the American funding of Israel to the tune of 4bn dollars (offically) per year, plus Military ‘Aid’; so as that they can spy/cajole and influence. The ironically titled ‘Land of The Free’ politicians has to be up there with Kissinger and Obama’s Peace Prize Awards.

    The vast majority in the US own no land – nothing is free, so irony at work again.

    Epstein and others were in the pay and use of those who own the land and shackle the US and World populous.

    The whole MSM are employed by the middle employers, not the real bosses.

    It is revealing that the MSM is wetting itself about public names but buried buried important stories about Wikileaks and the jailing of Julian Assange.

    I will inform anyone that everything that Julian Assange revealed has never been challenged as untruths.

    • Goose

      Financial inequality has accelerated across the West since the 1970s due purely to the wealthy shamelessly, overtly and covertly, using that wealth to lobby for things like looser capital controls, financial market deregulation and tax cuts. This period has also seen CEO pay rise by 940% since 1978, compared to just 12% for ordinary shop floor workers, taking inflation into account.

      How much of the massive surveillance infrastructure we’ve seen being built up, is really about protecting paranoid billionaires and their political elites who defend this senseless, unpopular economic model? And a status quo that has allowed them to amass such fortunes unhindered by what should be political constraints imposed by what are supposed to be our representatives?

      One of the reasons China is seen as an ultra dangerous threat, is because the billionaires and their political puppets see a successful economic model built without the laissez faire neoliberal financial model. The lack of democracy doesn’t bother them.

  • mark cutts

    I know the Yanks don’t ‘do’ irony – but the American funding of Israel to the tune of 4bn dollars (officially) per year plus Miltary ‘Aid’, so as that they can spy/cajole and influence the ironically titled ‘Land of The Free’ politicians – has to be up there with Kissinger and Obama’s Peace Prize Awards.

    The vast majority in the US own no land – nothing is free so irony at work again.

    Epstein and others were in the pay, and use, of those who own the land and shackle the US and World populous. The whole MSM are employed by the middle employers, not the real bosses.

    It is revealing that the MSM is wetting itself about public names but buried buried important stories about Wikileaks and the jailing of Julian Assange. I will inform anyone that everything that Julian Assange revealed has never been challenged as untruths.

    Irony indeed.

    • Lapsed Agnostic

      Re: ‘The vast majority in the US own no land’

      Two-thirds of US households are owner-occupied freeholds, Mark, similar to the UK.

      • Mr Mark Cutts

        I can only reply to that that the “Old Kentucky Home” is nowhere near the worth of the Land that is oiled/fracked and farmed by Cargill and Monsanto; and the New York and Californian real estate and Commercial property is an example of that.

        See The Beverley Hillbillies for details. I loved that programme as a kid. The moral was that Jed and Grandma were the wise ones and the Bankers were the greedy and weird idiots. When I was a child I would have loved to just ‘whittle’ away on the Front Porch Swing with Uncle Jed and not have anything to do with Mr Drysdale.

        There is Land and there is Land of very high value. The Homesteaders in the painting had a small farm. Epstein’s “friends” own Manhattan etc. There is no comparison per square foot or acre between the two.

        So, no it is extremely relative in a Home-owning Democracy. It’s not the area – it is its worth per square foot and acre.

        • Lapsed Agnostic

          Thanks for your reply Mark. Being a Georgist, I’m well aware that some land has a much higher market value than other land. However, the claim that the vast majority of Americans own no land is not true. If you own land outright in the US, even if it’s just enough for a shack in the Appalachians, you’re probably not in too bad a position these days, seeing that in most states Obamacare will cover most medical bills if you’re below (or even slightly above) the poverty line, so all you have to worry about is keeping warm in winter (cheap for most households in the US thanks to fracked gas) and putting food in your mouth. The people that could be in trouble are the third of households in the US that don’t own land. Also, both Cargill & Monsanto own relatively little land compared to their overall capitalisations.

          • Mr Mark Cutts

            Lapsed Agnostic

            I’m sorry but what do you mean “own your land outright?”

            Most land as in the UK has a Leaseholder.

            Who owns the lease on Manhattan Island? Apparently in the US to be fair the outright owners of the land can sell fracking rights because it is deemed that if the landowner owns he land and you frack underneath it the fracking company has to pay the landowner. In the UK you don’t.

            The idea that there is a trade off (lucky them) and you can literally own your Old Kentucky Home but if you fall ill you have to sell it to pay your medical bills is not exactly a Freedom.

            Even though the UK Health service is getting crappier, I much prefer that to the ‘Freedom’ of the US.

            Nothing in life is free, emotionally, politically, and economically, but you have to defend certain freedoms – in the US you buy Freedom.

            By the way – if the Western Democracies are trying to sell ‘The American way’ as the way to go, then working three jobs and living in a car or under a bridge or living in Caravan park is the best offer, then not surprisingly The BRICS countries and their followers will not even give it a look.

            The American Dream – No – The American Nightmare.

            See George (slightly cynical?) Carlin for details.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply Mark. I mean the land is owned without a mortgage. Most land in the UK is freehold – technically, the monarch has allodial rights, but that only applies for compulsory purchase etc. As I stated above, people on low incomes in most US states (including Kentucky) now get healthcare free at the point of need. Most Americans are not working three jobs (or even two jobs), and those living under bridges are certainly not working three jobs – unless you count taking fentanyl, crack & meth as jobs.

            In the US, if your household consists of two adults and a child and has an income of $23,500, you are officially defined as living in poverty. In many places in America, at that level of income, there are no federal, state or local income taxes to pay, just federal insurance contributions of around $2000 per year. Here’s what you can rent for less than $7000 a year in smalltown America:

            https://www.rentals.com/Tennessee/Selmer/100037993/

            Comes with air-con, kitchen appliances, washer & dryer, plus access to a communal fitness room and pool. Living in poverty, US style – with a swimming pool. Fortunately, nearly 90% of US households have managed to elevate themselves above this hardscrabble existence.

  • Al Dossary

    Do a Google search for Epstein’s little black book. It has a damn sight more names in it than Randy Andy’s.

    Sarah Ferguson, Lady Helen Windsor, Alister Campbell, Tony Blair, Mick Jagger (and his daughter Hatti), Lord MacAlpine, many Rothschild’s, Jamie Sainsbury, Peter Soros to name but a few. 86 pages of names and numbers.

    • Goose

      There’s no way of differentiating innocent visits to that island from those alleged to have been involved in more lurid activities. Stephen Hawking visited the island, for example, someone hardly likely to have been engaged in any wild carnal activities due to his disabilities. I don’t think much will come of this story, unless actual Kompromat video proof emerges.

      • Fat Jon

        This our big problem. The wealthy are taught to always deny everything, and that they remain innocent until proven guilty. If they have destroyed as much evidence as possible, and have paid/frightened witnesses to stay silent for life; what can the ordinary person do to prove any guilt at all?

        • Tatyana

          Maybe it’s because they are very, very rich? The magnitude of this wealth is hard to comprehend. For example, I read this comparison:
          If you were born at the same time as Jesus Christ, and lived without dying until today, you would live approximately 740,000 days. If every day of your life you received $300,000 (and did not spend it), then today Elon Musk, with his fortune of about $250 billion, would still be richer than you.

  • Maria Teresa Soares

    Thanks you Mr Craig Murray. We are friends on FB a long time ago and i try to share all your articles. At this moment FB blocked me. I will share on X. Thank you very much for your magnific work.

  • A P Broomfield

    The sheer volume of duplicity dripping out of our political and media driven “Society” (for want of a better word) is now reaching critical mass. There are so many snouts in the global feeding trough now that their numbers can no longer be ignored, denied or even covered up. The big white blanket can only hide so many pigs without giving the game away, and the lack of foodstuffs the numbers have created requires them to start eating their own blanket…naked bums are poking out around the edges. Epsteins poked out a bit too far. Many others are about to follow.
    I tend to think that the CIA /MK Ultra/Tavistock brigade might well have been involved in addition to Mossad so a plethora of mind-bending nastiness may well have accompanied the blackmail.
    This piece illustrates that point very well, and as a result it needs to be read by a wider audience.
    At the Dangerous Globe we can offer a few at least.
    A small donation has been made, and Thank You Craig.

  • Jay

    The coverage of this story is one more indication of how completely owned the mass media is. It was known from the start that both Epstein and Maxwell had Mossad links and were thus most likely running a zionist blackmail operation. No other explanation outweighs this likelihood. Yet amid all the media’s Epstein coverage this key explanatory fact has been resolutely suppressed, including by its most ‘independent’ & ‘intrepid’ reporters. It is suppressed even now when the relevance of the operation has never been greater, with US & Euro elites uniformly silent or supportive throughout the depths of a high-res Israeli genocide. It is frightening that millions still trust these fkrs to accurately report the world to them.

    • Stevie Boy

      A point to consider, IMO.
      Why is Prince Andrew being made the prime suspect/sacrificial lamb in this whole Mossad operation ?
      We know of all the other American billionaires who were involved but no-one is pushing for their destruction in the same way as Andrew – who in reality is a nobody. Smells a bit like the Jimmy Savile cover up. What about Blair and Mandelson? The infiltration of the UK government by Israeli zionists appears to be involved in protecting their assets.

      • Jay

        It’s a very good point. You’d never know it from the coverage but few people had more mentions or contact numbers in Epstein’s black book than Mandelson & Blair. However no two individuals are more revered among the British political & media class, especially now they are puppeting Starmer to arch establishment ends. Prince Andrew as you say is a meaningless non-entity by comparison. He has though been a very convenient sacrificial lamb to deflect attention away from Blair-Mandelson-Starmer. Could you imagine the bedlam that would have been kicked up if Corbyn had such links to Epstein? Let alone to both Epstein & Jimmy Saville.

      • pretzelattack

        in the US Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz are attracting a great deal of attention, as they should be. There are numerous targets here, unfortunately the majority have great wealth and influence.

      • Fat Jon

        My theory is that there is a big majority amongst the billionaires, and their security service lickspittles, for creating a republic in the UK. This would provide a springboard to getting ‘their man’ (unlikely to be a woman due to handshake rules) in prime position at every UK presidential election. This would allow their ideal status quo (of syphoning as much ordinary taxpayers money into their offshore bank accounts as possible) to continue ad infinitum.

        Therefore any chance they get, to put explosives under the royal family’s reputation, will be grabbed with both hands. Two birds with one stone – killing off the royals while deflecting attention from their own activities.

        Job’s a good-un.

        • Bramble

          Well, they have already ensured that only candidates serving their interests are available for support in our so-called “democracy”, so you are probably on to something there.

          • Mr Mark Cutts

            Bramble

            There was an American Senator who was asked – How do you Republicans secure a majority? His reply was: we don’t need a majority – we just need enough voters in order to win.

            In the UK and the US we are in ‘enough’ territory.

            I think most voters will stay at home in both elections due to disgust with politics and the politicians that claim to be the practitioners of ‘Changing Lives’.

            The question being: Who’s lives – Theirs or Ours?

        • will moon

          You could be right Fat Jon, maybe a new “democratic” veneer is the aim.

          It does strike me that the monarchy would be gone with a modest alteration in the tabloid coverage, e.g. move it to “generally neutral or hostile” from “generally favourable or neutral” – a few years at most, they exist on sufferance

          Can you imagine the larks hostile tabloids could have with this story? E.g. “As the shades of Saville and Epstein haunt the Palace, cleaners threaten strike because of fears of incorporeal molestation” etc. etc.

        • Bayard

          “My theory is that there is a big majority amongst the billionaires, and their security service lickspittles, for creating a republic in the UK. ”

          I would say you’ve got a point there, except that this would require said billionaires to be conspiring and no-one has ever done that since Kennedy was shot. We can’t have people believing in conspiracies, otherwise we might think that the whole idea of “democracy” is so that the “right” people can be put in charge of the levers of power.

  • Mickey

    Great article as usual. But could I ask Mr Murray why he was hiding away in Switzerland and why he found the money to take his ENTIRE family to Bali over the Xmas and New Year??=

    • Aguirre

      Why are you using the past tense re Switzerland – have we missed something?

      Also, I find your use of the expression “hiding away” rather strange. It implies that Craig was keeping out of sight, whereas that is/was certainly not the case, he was seen in public for most of his waking hours.

      Finally, I think you’re an idiot.

    • nevermind

      If it is a great article, Mikey, how about giving us your views on the substantive arguments to Epstein’s case or telling us why the frequent visitors to his abodes – such as the ex head of Mossad, Mandelson and Blair – took it upon themselves to share his hospitalities?
      We have enough negative tittle-tattle in tabloids you can read up about; no need to ask silly questions here which are not on topic or any of your business.

  • Aguirre

    It does seem true, as another poster has (more or less) said, that political and high-income blokes tend to go for ever younger women as they get older themselves. But this phenomenon is of course not limited to the decadent, corrupt West, it obtains everywhere. For example, look at various Russian oligarchs’ wives, or even President Putin himself, who junked his wife to marry a much younger woman (a gymnast, inappropriately enough).

    • David Warriston

      Who are these ‘Russian oligarchs’ of who you speak with such knowledge. I suspect you have never at any time ever been inside the Russian Federation otherwise you would not resort to such a crude analysis. Imagine what a Russian blogger could make of Johnson, Truss and Sunak since the last UK election; plus an inherited Head of State in King Charles.

      As some Scandinavanian writer mooted many years ago: ‘Smell your own arse first!.’

      • Aguirre

        Normally I wouldn’t reply to such a silly post, but I feel I must point out that one doesn’t have to have been in Russia to talk about Russian oligarchs (including their marital proclivities), in the same way as one doesn’t have to have visited the US in order to talk about Bill Clinton’s sexual activities.

        How is your last sentence pertinent, by the way, given I’m neither BillClinton, nor the Russian Numero Uno, nor a sex pest, not married to a much younger woman, nor aware of the sex lives of Johnson, Truss and Sunak? To me it merely confirms that I don’t have to have met you in person to judge you to be a twit.

    • Tatyana

      These are not exclusively oligarchs, but all people, of both sexes.
      The fact is that young people naturally have more optimism, are more energetic and experience emotions more vividly. This is simply in stark contrast to older people, who tend to develop inactivity, grumpiness, a desire for peace and quiet, constant fatigue and a general dissatisfaction with what is happening around them.
      I tell you this with complete confidence, since a very close female relative of mine, over 40 years old, had such a young boyfriend of 22 years old. And she is very far from oligarchs, celebrities or anything like that and she isn’t a fashion model either. Just that people are attracted to each other’s energy and charisma.
      This is if we talk about choosing a partner, and not about short-term acquaintances for sex.

      • Aguirre

        Agree in general, but don’t overlook the importance of tokenism.
        Also, perhaps, the need for the man to “prove” himself (even if most of the proof rich and powerful men dispose of is precisely the fact that they’re rich and powerful).

    • Bayard

      That is a particularly fatuous comment: first you say that the desire of older men to consort with younger women is universal (which it is) and then you make a point about Russians doing it. No shit, Sherlock! If it is a universal behaviour, of course Russians would be doing it; it would be very odd if they didn’t.

      • Tatyana

        Bayard, I’m listening to lectures on formal logic, and from there I learned the definition of “propaganda” – it’s a speech without real verifiable arguments, appealing to emotions. This type of speech is contrasted with “reasoned speech”, which is logical and consistent.
        I also learned that contradiction is a sign of untruth, that is, a lie. You’ve noticed a contradiction in that comment. I noticed an appeal to emotions (“junked his wife”), unconfirmed theses (“to marry a much younger woman”), and another contradiction: namely, a very strange comment about Putin’s private life under the blog, where the main photo is of the Clintons! 🙂
        Apparently the commentator is too young and the name Lewinsky means nothing to them. Or maybe they believe that Putin is bad, because he divorced his wife to marry another woman, while Bill Clinton honored his wife by hiding his affair with Monica.

        • Aguirre

          I’m also trained in formal logic as it happens and therefore must reply to your comment in a little detail.

          Firstly, I agree I could have used another word than “junked”, if only because that word could give the impression that Mr Putin left his former wife destitute As we know, that is very far from the case. So I would now use the word “divorced” and hope you’d agree that that word is innocent of the emotionalism you read into “junked”.

          Secondly, on points of fact, it is not an “unconfirmed thesis” that Mr Putin is much older than his new (second) wife. Will you please confirm that as fact, by supplying us with the ages of the two (it would sound more believable to most readers coming from you).

          Thirdly, I refer you to my answer to Bayard in order that you may better understand why I mentioned Mr Putin when the photo at the head of Craig’s article is of Bill (and Hillary) Clinton.

          A small hint to you : you don’t have to rush to Mr Putin’s defence every time he’s mentioned, you know. Most people on this excellent blog are already favorably inclined towards him.

          Peace, goodwill and a very Happy New Year to you!

          • Tatyana

            With respect, but you are violating the first rule of logic, which in Russian is “тождественность”, and the nearest suitable translation into English should be “sameness”
            Namely, now you change the subject from “leaving an old wife to marry a young woman” to another point, “he is much older than his second wife,” again without confirming your position, but for some reason you are asking me to prove your statements.
            You were taught some strange kind of logic, obviously.
            And please, I lived until now without your hints and advice and somehow managed to survive and be happy.

      • Aguirre

        @Bayard

        I pointed to the phenomenon and went on to say that the phenomenon wasn’t limited to Westerners (nb – the photo at the head of Craig’s article was of Bill Clinton) but was also to be found with, for example, Russians (in which context I cited the Russian Numero Uno). So what makes the comment fatuous? Could it be you’re pissed because of the mention of the Russian Numero Uno?

        • Tatyana

          Perhaps the reason is that out of 220 countries existing on this planet, you chose Russia, the very country that the West designated as its enemy, and allocated huge funds to spread the negative narrative.
          I have a personal theory that common corruption intervened in the allocation of these budgets. This would explain why, instead of professionals capable of conducting a reasoned discussion (who need to be paid decently), ordinary people were recruited from the street through advertisements.
          Obviously, someone put a nice sum in their pocket, and as a result, we – so to speak, consumers of the information product “fighting Russia on the Internet” – come across wild theories and outright nonsense here and there.

        • Bayard

          “So what makes the comment fatuous?”

          It’s fatuous because there was never any implication that such behaviour was confined to the “decadent West”. That was entirely your construction in order to have a dig at Russia. Perhaps you were pissed off that the ex Numero Uno of the USA was singled out as an illustration of the preference of older men for (very much) younger women, but it is the case that Bill Clinton has gone to Epstein’s island and this is a post about Epstein, whereas, as far as I know, Vladimir Putin has never been a passenger on the Lolita Express.

          • Tatyana

            I think they tried to equate the two situations: on the one hand, marriage to a younger woman, which is absolutely legal. On the other hand, sexual exploitation of minors, which is completely illegal. They clearly put these two situations on the same level, arguing that old men are attracted to young women.
            It is wrong to equate marriage and pedophilia; these are incomparable things.
            I think that Putin and his imaginary marriage were brought in here for one reason: if there are those willing to point out a logical inconsistency, then the commentator in question can use the “you are defending Putin” counter-argument (exactly what they did).

            Actually, since “decadent West” was used, I wish Pigeon English could comment to continue the old discussion about degenerates and the justification of pedophilia.

          • Pigeon English

            Tatyana

            I will respond more tomorrow!
            To my knowledge of Logics there is no rule number 1 or 2 or 3!!!!
            Some people number the Logical Fallacies as Fallacy no 1 X fallacy no 2 Y etc.
            Logic is based on premise and conclusions you can make out of it or them!
            I changed my mind and will comment.

            You and Putin are right! We in the West are degenerates .
            GOD Bless America and Russia.
            Any kids on the way after new stimulus for breeding?
            To my knowledge we in the degenerate West do not support Paedophilia so I really don´t know why you imply that I defend or advocate for it.
            If you knew about Logics (reasoning) as much as you claim, you would never come to those generalisations and conclusions based on what Putin claims!

            Premis:
            Some of the Westerners are Paedo.

            Russian logika :
            All westerners are peados or peado-apologists.

            Is it true that homosexuals are an extremist organisation in RF since not that long?

            Have a nice evening and keep breeding/procreating!

          • Tatyana

            Hi, Pigeon English 🙂 I didn’t imply what you suggest, I mean defending pedophiles. Really sorry if my invitation made such an effect, I didn’t have in mind anything like that.

            Ah, and thanks for your kind regards re. breeding/procreating! 2023 brought 2 new boys. Peter was born into my second cousin’s family, and George was born in the family of my nephew Nikita. Since I am not only Nikita’s aunt but also his godmother, so I believe I’m now a godgranny 🙂

            Yes, LGBT is now extremist organisation here. I wonder why. What did they do to win this prize?
            Well, let me end with a joke 🙂
            The son says to his mother:
            – Mom, I’m getting married
            – Oh! and who is the lucky one?
            – William
            – so it’s a boy!
            – He’s not a boy! He is 50 years old!

          • Pigeon English

            Tatyana 12/1 17: 58

            ¨and the justification of pedophilia¨

            What did you have in Mind?
            Sorry for not reading your mind and not answering your question!

          • Pigeon English

            Tatyana @ 12 of January 17.58

            The joke is not funny at first to a retard like me because I do not understand.,
            So I put my East European( bigoted) shoes on and I understood a so called Joke!
            Putin and Tatyana logika
            Gays are Paedophiles.
            HA HA HA HA. It took me 2 days to understand this Joke.
            BTW how old you have to be to marry in Russia?
            Are Russia supporting paedophilia as long is between Man and Women .
            How old was THE BOY getting married?
            Was he 40 still living with his Mom?

        • will moon

          An unconventional relationship wouldn’t you say Tom?

          Many schoolboys have this dream yet so very few actual live it as fully as Emmanuel.

          • Pigeon English

            😂
            I would never imagined that simple comment would bring back memories (I mean fantasies) from 46 years ago when we were about 12-13. And others I remember vividly are arssholes!
            Geography teacher just good looking and Music (supply teacher) with massive DDD.

  • Jay

    Further to my comment on the complete ownership of mass media, neither BBC nor Sky news has even mentioned the ICJ trial at the Hague this morning, let alone broadcast any of it.

    Perhaps they don’t know it’s happening? That seems the most likely explanation.

    • Pigeon English

      Better than having former Ambassador having a time to argue against presentations. BBC is disgraceful! Anyway I followed proceedings on Al Jazeera and IMHO was interesting and good. Apart from arguments they presented videos and quotations from leading personnel.
      I haven’t seen the video of destruction of 30 houses in the village cheered by IDF.
      BBC did quote some politicians, but not BIBI and AMALEK “speech”.

      • Pigeon English

        I am sure that tomorrow we will have better coverage when Israel will present their case! Post Office scandal will have to wait 😏

        • Fat Jon

          Although the UK/US have suddenly decided to fire military weapons on the Houthi rebels.

          This will keep the MSM occupied with propaganda until the ICJ trial is over and the judgement is being considered.

          • Stevie Boy

            Every time the technologically superior West takes on tribesmen it comes away with a bloody nose, I don’t see this fiasco being any different.
            The UK navy certainly doesn’t have the capability to stop the Houthis, and I cannot but imagine the effect of all those loud bangs and flashes on the diverse crews. The laundry is going to be busy.

    • Coldish

      Jay (10.45): They know it’s happening. the hearing was briefly reported this morning in Germany on BR24 (Bavarian talk radio). And there must be quite a few MPs and media people who watch skwawkbox.org, which today showed in full two of the South African legal team’s speeches at Den Haag. .

1 2 3