The bare bones of this essay already roughly in position, I have been aiming for a release date prior to the emerging New Year. Back in the day, I used to churn articles out by the dozen. No more, I’m afraid. Now, each one somehow predicts a laborious project. Masterpieces-in-waiting eventually collectivise fragments into precarious tomes that would be merit worthy for audiences of merit. In association not all that long ago I recall a moody critic poorly procrastinated sarcasm directed at my truthful genre.
“So who’s the most brainwashed [person of all], tell me that then, eh?”
The answer to the question is starkly obvious. Most brainwashed are the ones that believe otherwise; the ones with science degrees; the ones in positions of authority and the one that feel they are on the right track, firmly aware and in control of their destinies. 
Let’s be frank here. That would describe at least ninety per cent of my “followers” who, on the rare occasion they think they can learn, certainly won’t compromise deep rooted opinions (which ironically approximate the very fabric of their own brainwashing). When present, so entrenched is programming it is almost impossible for the genuine soothsayer to communicate with any effect.
It would be dishonest of me not to acknowledge that I have been disappointed, demoralised even, by the lack of traction, by the sheer selfish blithering nature of human beings. And here I am talking about those that are supposedly “top of the class” spiritually speaking. If they’re as good as we get, humanity is in a horrible mess. In light of this, I have honestly thought about throwing in the towel. What is the purpose of going to enormous lengths to compile the truth only for messages to be scorned, ignored or scandalized? I have become lazy, for days on end forsaking my craft. My focus on important topical drivel that pollutes the internet is nulled to zero by my acute disinterest. Strange nightmares over the transition of my way of life have contributed to spells of insomnia. Then, at my lowest ebb, along came a knight in shining armour. His name was Jeffrey Epstein.
Epstein himself is (or, rather was) no posthumous confidante of mine, but circumstances surrounding his much publicised life do provide an ideal opportunity for free expression. So I am going to begin by coming right out, and saying it freely, avoiding early misconceptions. The title of this essay could be regarded as misleading. That’s right and it is important to come clean at the start, because occasional clickers may well visit me keen on finding new angles to pointless melodrama (given parallel press meanderings). Soap opera fanatics would be doomed to disappointment if I didn’t place a “disclaimer” straight away and it would be sad to see them disappointed. Mainstream Medias may well relish confusion, but this place is firmly destined to uphold virtue and, in that capacity, could plausibly offer a final refuge for the intrepidly sane.
Permanent staging infrastructures withstanding, the pending trial and subsequent sensational “suicide” death of industrialist Jeffrey Epstein didn’t happen. You hear me correctly. It didn’t happen, but there is very visible script supporting the potential for any or all of it to have happened. That is why I don’t care about much of the detail supposedly supporting the grandest of conspiracies; a conspiracy possibly beyond all conspiracies. As a whole it is a blithering fabrication. Therefore, to do justice to respective truth, diligent must duly only care about evidence. And here evidence is so lacking; sincere commentary on it would be absurd. So let me make it clear to fossickers panning for tittle-tattle. I am hardly going to discuss Epstein at all.
Speculative sensation over hearsay does afford the opportunity to expose a monstrous system whose values fester in the gutter. But it would be impossible to blame organs of state unless they were backed to the hilt by a most vile and deliberately corrupt “general public”. The Epstein case had been bubbling for more than a decade prior to his “what should be” ridiculous entrapment ultimately concluding in that supposed “suicide” death. Are there any substantiated facts associated with the case? Well there are numbers of videos presented as evidence which would be devoid of merit but for those nauseating talk over choruses of opinions that craft “suggestive scenarios” shaping content into “applied reality”. It’s a female trick. Women “shape” their men, but that’s our secret.
Inspecting the detail, one video exhibit features an individual who looks like President Trump. The person in question is in focus because he provocatively rolls his hips in a poor imitation of Elvis Presley (an act that fortified a reputation as “king” lest we forget) at a location “we are told” is on Epstein’s private island retreat. Either side of “cut out” Trump are cheerleaders of indiscriminate age. There is no obvious watermark verifying the island location for unfamiliar viewers and why cut out Trump or the cheerleaders are present is unclear. Government agents, who wouldn’t lie about something like that “we are told”, are adamant the video marks indisputable evidence of illegal sexual activity between current President of the United Sates of American and legally underage females. The actual sexual activity is left to the imagination as is any verification as to the true ages of the females; location or whether “cut out” is Trump.
Historical development of the entrapment of Epstein waxes fabrication from conception. Be under no dissolution. Correspondingly, the video allegedly featuring Trump provides no evidence supporting illegal acts. Historically, after pleading not guilty, Epstein’s 2008 conviction for trafficking prostitutes (by a “blind” Florida judge) was shaky at best. Judgement entirely relied on circumstantial hearsay backed by a fair degree of misrepresentation (are gifts uniformly payment for services? If so, should I offer my Christmas windfall up to the taxman?). The momentum on public distortion of Epstein’s private affairs had been constructed over decades. It is likely illicit planners (behind the misinformation) aimed at capitalising on common gossipers’ general distaste at strange goings on in high places.
The reason many Brits revile their “it’s alright for some” queen is because they are jealous of her extraordinary wealth and complimenting luxurious lifestyle
As far as I can discern, the very public Epstein saga began with a Palm Beach police report (dating back to the mid 1990’s?) which apparently cites an interview with the well-connected mother of a fifteen year old girl, who had accordingly confessed to (or perhaps bragged about) absconding to Epstein’s island hideaway for the weekend without permission. Come again, a sexy, albeit underage girl “pulling off” adult status and sneaking away to an elite party with all bells and whistles? Under what circumstance could that happen today? Today’s fifteen year girls are little children that are humbled by righteous authority of laws and associated parental power. They certainly wouldn’t flaunt sexual self-respect by eloping to a star studded limelight party of the century, correct? There are, for instance, no fifteen year old trollops today? You may think I jest, but sensationally, American President Benjamin Franklin placed a newspaper advert hiring a comely fifteen year old wench in the 1800’s. And that wasn’t that long ago.
Maybe it’s a coincidence, but if I have the dateline correct here, the mid 1990’s was most definitely a time of puritan renaissance or revolution. “Occult” Waco (’93) and Oklahoma (’95) saved President Clinton’s hide and this was more than partially courtesy of Hilary Clinton’s lesbian buddy (lawyer) Janet Reno in her capacity as head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Reno had also demonstrated her great passion by spearheading major crusades against closet paedophiles. One circumspect customs’ chief timely implied the postal service was “awash” with child pornography and that’s all the proof Reno needed, although my sources tell me bona fide contraband was intercepted “extremely rarely”. Even so her crusade turned out to be so effectively persistent; it grew into a considerably wider enterprise committed to backing off just about every plausible waking moment of corporate Media publicity. To be honest I’m surprised pederast attack innuendo hasn’t somehow polluted the car adverts.
A couple of years ago I penned the article “Callous Abuses of the Word Abuse”. Though terms “paedophile” and “child” are nothing more than labels, their trademark use by vicious propaganda forces can incriminate great or small simply by their very mention. In Epstein’s case “exhibits” appear to have been uniformly “underage” jail bate rather than demarked infants, yet related “shit stirred” (by fabricators) has undeniably stuck. Fantasy spinners will go to extreme lengths to obfuscate truth. The game is all about “picture painting”. Albeit quite a long time ago, one American report “claim” I witnessed cast a scene with a sixteen year old girl playing in her sandpit prior to abduction. Come on now! Was she demented? It does serve to highlight how desperate some propaganda agencies are. Even so, when the judiciary begin to take notice of feeble allegations, any notion of justice is forsaken. Gauging rigged trials of British Queen Elizabeth’s artist Rolf Harris and other less sensational scapegoats, the highest civil courts have been hijacked by kangaroos.
And let’s face it, the average newspaper reader believes rogue Hugh Hefner Epstein was not only guilty, but personified the saga “in life”. Melodrama of course eventually transfused into the courthouse culminating as the now “official” murder opinion. After Robin Williams (sic), demonstrating a referenced common script contains desired plot outcomes, mainstream journalists were quick (though muted) to cast questions over the perplexing “suicide” from the outset. They were clearly all essentially given identical blueprints of fundamentals (confabulated by vile political mercenaries) to publicise with license to “make up” the rest (padding). In that respect, one extremely visible popular Media source (for my research) had even dared reference conspiracy theorists’ views that cast aspersions over the ears of “Epstein’s” corpse. It is obvious to me that agents responsible for promotion of fantasy (as fact) are compelled to believe the whole charade will be of great appeal to those that are drawn to conspiracies.
Furthermore, conspiracy theorists love to blab about matters they don’t fully understand. This would give fantasy greater tinges of authenticity as researchers wade through dross to discern “hallmarks of truth”; enough to permit lapses of sanity
Thus, convenient Medias that had been describing the event as a “suiciding” (or professional hit) now turn out to be in tune with “truth” (sic). I am being facetious here of course, because the murdered guy on the slab “as presented” wasn’t Epstein. That fact does helpfully reinforce analysis determining the whole campaign had been “scripted” from onset, so I thank those responsible for being careless. Surely even to the untrained eye (after Pizzagate), this sordid affair must wax of Pulp Fiction? What next? Will fairies, dragons and grey aliens make appearances, as they did in the “Little Rascals day care” trial debacle? Indeed does Epstein actually exist at all or is he another great Sandy Hook style figment geared to fit in with the rest of the baloney? That said, there is clearly a true and very bitter purpose behind associated shenanigans. I fear writer George Orwell prepared the way so to speak with his novel “1984”, but he couldn’t quite fathom how slippery devil’s mercenaries can be.
There is definite motive here, but before I reveal it, it is vital to capture true function of “state”, law enforcement and justice. In historic terms, using the British chronology as my benchmark, legal foundations began with Roman occupation. Common law is generally presumed to have preceded twelve articles (bronze tablets called tables) introduced by the Romans which, limited to the affairs of citizens, aimed at harmonising equality. Long after the Romans exited, original British “public” courts were called star chambers (emerging from around the eighth century AD). However, the function of arbitration appears to have been limited as a facet of privilege pretty much until the system was overhauled in 1830 (directly after slavery abolition 1829 and the same year Robert Peel established his Metropolitan police Force, coincidence?). There were some variations. King Henry II created an additional body of twelve knights (to represent local precincts) as jurors in settlement of land ownership disputes from 1160’s onwards. He further appointed five “wise men” of his personal household to act in the capacity of judges.
They morphed into a travelling circuit (assizes system), which was set up in 1166 (partially surviving until 1971 believe it or not!). For common man, the parish priest would usually double as “authority figure” to resolve local arguments. Magistrate courts hark back to Edward I in 1285 via his creation of justices of the peace. Nevertheless, I think resources would have been mostly devoted to support militias made famous by Robin Hood’s tales. Original justices of the peace were also sheriffs (as far as I can ascertain). Local criminal proceedings would have likely fallen under jurisdiction of the local honourable squire (who, in many instances, would have been victim as well). Above this was a centralised supreme court that dealt with extremely serious “national” offenses. Damningly, the court authority was beefed up in the reign of Charles I (himself causally beheaded by his own goodwill) when enemies forced him to appoint additional judges in 1642. Member salaries under these new conditions increased up to ten fold.
Corruption had ransacked the judiciary from conception, but it wasn’t until William III’s (of Orange) reign from 1701 onwards (under the Act of Settlement) that it became impossible for any monarch to suspend or remove a judge without due legal process.1215 saw common law reduced to impotence, and consistent with its draconian mandate, the Magna Carta made provision for Parliament to supplement royal legislature, which initially comprised of a House of Lords only. By 1265 government powers were widened to permit election of common members of sufficient social status (later to form the House of Commons). Prior to the introduction of parliament, legislation was commissioned at the behest of a monarch who was formally supported by a council of knights. The body, a reworking of the ancient Sanhedrin, was known as the curia regis (Latin for king’s court). Numerous failings of parliamentary authority have definitely assured violent war was the only way industrialists were going to successfully usurp power of oversight (cleverly euphemised as veto by modern day agencies of doom such as the United Nations).
Naturally, since conception, those in parliament have always run agendas in their own interests (i.e. when the royals had assumed authority, they acted in deference to, regularly conflicting with private merchants). Unsurprisingly, early government became a hotbed contest between opposing interests. For instance sensationally, in 1387 Richard II sentenced six judges to death (although only one was executed) for conspiring over a “traitorous” parliamentary commission. However, I would like to explore the significance of the Magna Carta a little further now, because it seems odd that industrialists would celebrate anything distinctly “for the masses”. Yet they place such zealous importance revering the goodness of this particular treaty or charter [allegedly] “championing popular rights”, one is instinctively drawn to “the catch”. And so here’s that “catch”. Though their dastardly plan temporarily stalled after one of the medieval King Edwards’ changed rules allocating land ownership, land ownership is what the Magna Carta was about and why the industrialists celebrate it.
Prior to 1215 only royals (and their extended aristocratic families) could own land. Under common law, you had right to live on land you didn’t own. Thus it was royalty (regularly egged on by industrialists of the day) that committed all acts of atrocity against the people, such as the (eleventh century onwards) seizure of land that belonged to but wasn’t owned by Scottish hill tribes, highlighted in part by Robert the Bruce’s epic battles. In America, native indigenous inhabitants were classed as slaves after Columbus’ “discovery” in order to strip them of land ownership rights, Thanks Giving marks a temporary amnesty when those that stole the land (imposing their own values on all in sundry) were forced to turn to natives for help or starve. In line with this dereliction of honour towards rightful occupiers (per common law etiquette), when the United States became the focus of gold speculators, greatest priority was given to [fraudulent under common law] authority of “verified” staked claims on land now free from British [royal] possession. “Red Indian” beggars were rarely given a look in.
Back in Medieval times, the English system remembered as “serfdom” (an apex of the “power pyramid” feudalism, introduced by William the Conqueror in 1066) bloomed after the ink on the various Magna Carta treaty documents was barely dry. Great tracts of British territory became instant property of newly appointed aristocratic knights and gentry (implied by Tales of Robin Hood). Free lands (of no interest to the powers) were eventually consolidated under the jurisdiction of today’s National Trust and that’s all “the people” ever preserved (they didn’t gain anything). Incidentally, peasants were able to live on what remained of “free lands” until the National Trust’s takeover. All other commoners were forced onto demarked “plots”. These, I would imagine, would have usually been where families were staked “without strings” up until the implementation of changes. In effect, the major difference was residents had less land, but were also instructed to pay rent to new land owners (for their keep).
Rent generation was achieved by farming produce, which allowed for surplus incomes (sometimes providing revenue to fund royal taxes). Via the “rates” system even modern day property owners are still theoretically tenants (pinning them to patriotic government) of “higher landlords”, so (in effect) commerce mechanisms kick started by the Magna Carta are as they were from conception. Whilst my exampled history progression may seem irrelevant in relation to the wider Jeffrey Epstein saga, there are links that provide ample basis to demonstrate politics deliberately exploit truth to cast unattainable divides between classes. There is also the Epstein royal connection, of course, which I will elaborate on later in this essay. One of the great ironies exposed by shenanigans is the so-called elites are the most vulnerable of all because apparently laws don’t discriminate. Even when aided by corrupt judges and sleazy lawyers, elites can’t merely be paedophiles because they are elite. Elites can’t commit murder because they are elite, although those with diplomatic status are formally immune from prosecution.
Conversely, those of high status consistently do have a great deal to lose facing the looming prospect of a fall
It is no wonder great American philosophic essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “the fewer laws the better” penned shortly after the civil war is immortalised by dissenters. He knew that laws lead to manipulative opportunism culminating in the monster which is that Jeffrey Epstein charade. But the “rules” (or etiquette) have changed to validate Epstein. Provided by newfangled modern custom (as of 1980’s), entertaining mass Medias dictate orders to politicians, judiciary and by God everyone had better heed their “wisdom” or watch out for tar and feather campaigns can easily be redirected against you. In that regard we must never lose sight of the baseline (somewhat muddied by the trivial nature of the Epstein saga). Everything is in place for (to support) land owners. And “land owners” are not peasants with small residential holdings; far from it. No, these conglomerates presume the rights of merchant bankers, certain aristocrats and industrialists. Epstein had to be one of them himself to magnify confusion over authenticity of associated allegations. Intrigue is such that it has also had the effect of wobbling the” safety bar” guaranteeing diplomatic immunity. No one is “safe” and Sir Ron Brierley will find that out the hard way (elaborated on later).
Conglomerates ensured special legislation was drafted for their corporations to bestow them with super human rights. Predictably, recognised governments are corporations too and their “stock” is the “tax payers”. I am hoping a few will fathom the purpose of my background now. Tax payers are slaves under a Feudal System that was devised and implemented by Jewish Zionist William the Conqueror. In 1215 a treaty called the Magna Carta transferred casual arrangements to Law. The death of Charles I in 1649 paved the way for the Westminster System (whose embryo began with Cromwell even though political theorists speculate organised detached government coincided with Queen Anne’s 1707 cessation of royal assent). History has taught us the legacy constitution failed and that is why William of Orange’s Bill of Rights was hastily drafted in 1696 and has been incorporated in all constitutions since. Nevertheless, at least the equilibrium was relatively clearly scored, well until conspirators premeditated the Epstein plot.
Epstein-gate has given slaves the license to make that which is “none of their business” their posthumous business. Corporate Medias irritate the collective into blustering judgement on all those despicable royals they have never net and have never personally known, empowering our conspirators all the while
Before us are the makings of a cartoon feature more pungent than phoney baloney Osama Bin Laden. It is essential to identify how catastrophically different this brand of deception is from anything ever seen before, Revealed mechanics will come in due course, but without sufficient explanation for “why?” the facts will struggle to speak for themselves. First we must understand how it is possible to distort and invalidate instruments of justice to such effect bias purports a veneer of sincerity. So returning to my assessment of historic British legal governance; when the first courts (star chambers) appeared, torture was considered a worthy accessory to prize “confessions from miscreants”. “Honourable” people were believed to be infallible. It was generally assumed that righteous would rather suffer death than submit to the Devil. In this context, it was thought torture actually improved the sense of nobility.
The concept may have been successful per virgin ambition, but unfortunately methods used became more and more extravagantly harmful as time went by, plausibly in desperation for prosecution victories. Suffice to say, subjects were routinely severely impaired by improvements and some even died in the torture chamber. For instance, there are pertinent records outlining events surrounding the fall of the Knights Templar. One vividly recalls a foot stove used to obtain a “confession” from one estranged knight had worked so efficiently; he carried charred remains in a pot as he hobbled to the bench on crutches, guilt confession in hand. More recently Hitler’s (creator of today’s conceptual corporation, lest we forget) Gestapo were so ruthless in obtaining desired results, innocents were sometimes miscategorised. I write this fully cognisant that Hitler has been unfairly painted as the “master of all modern evil”, almost an anti-Messiah, but enough valid documentation supports the opinion the Gestapo were a truly nasty bunch. That nastiness underscored dedication to behaving dishonourably.
Even so, but for peine forte et dure (abolished in 1772), the use of physical torture (as a British interrogation tool) petered out by the mid 1600’s. “Strangely” the reversal of standards coincides with Charles I’s fateful 1649 execution. It could be further argued that rough physical interrogation was doomed to retirement after considerably more effective attacks on the mind came into vogue. Bush’s Guantanamo Bay is a classic example of this. Inmates were put through barbaric sleep deprivation regimes but rarely sustained actual body injuries (though there are reports of hunger strikers’ ill-treatment where Feeding tubes were crudely inserted without anaesthetic). We must never forget not one of the Guantanamo inmates were theoretically proved “guilty” prior to their incarceration. Most had been duped (i.e. were no real threat to proscribed order) and at least three were there “in error”. They do also serve to highlight the current bureaucratic assumption that everyone who isn’t “ranked” must be (viewed as) a criminal-in-waiting.
Under such terms, an impossibly high wall separates commoners from those of honour. Honour “is” authority today. So when it comes to justice, obtaining evidence is an inconvenience that could well inhibit what are already “given facts”. Why give guilty an opportunity to wriggle free of authority’s judgement? For instance, imagine if there was no evidence available to substantiate a case. Then justice would have been outdone by the presiding sense of goodwill. That is why authorities have preferred to rely on necessity of confessions ether from the accused or accuser. And that summarises the nightmare in being that is “Jeffrey Epstein’s” legacy; a legacy whereby fake testimonies present dishonest allegations and despicable lies which are manufactured by the tonne. Nevertheless, flaws in authoritative philosophy should be plainly obvious. Indeed, just three days ago (as I write) the Australian New South Wales Supreme Court found ex-club bouncer Vinzent Tarantino not guilty after his “confession” to the murder of twelve year old schoolgirl Quanne Diec in 1998.
There is no doubt the court case was an intriguing one; seemly difficult to testify adequately and almost impossible to judge. Perhaps mitigated comparison of circumstances behind OJ Simpson’s trial might be applied here, other than the not guilty verdict outcome matching the plea. OJ was popularly “guilty” and that is the similarity. The trial by Medias, in both cases, had served up posthumous guilty verdicts and that is what incurred public belief. Careful scrutiny of facts supporting the murder of Nicole Simpson should cast no question as to who the real culprit was. Her son had been on a program of psychiatric drugs to combat anger management. I have lost count of the numbers of suicide murderers that were hopped up on similarly prescribed drugs at the time of their deadly insurrections against “faceless” pubic. It is known that “drug experimentation” has been one facet of CIA’s MKUltra since the 1970’s (after Watergate).
OJ Simpson and Vinzent Tarantino are two examples where the end (result) failed to justify the means, because they were popularly guilty, but proven innocent. Others (and too many to illustrate) were not so lucky. Their journeys would end in tears, each one individually supporting gross miscarriages of justice. In Anglican Peter Hollingworth’s wake (discounting raucous tabloid banter) nothing would convince me that Australian Cardinal George Pell is guilty of allegations that led to his conviction of child sex abuse. Indeed so ambiguous was the verdict, there is discord amongst viperous Medias over him; allies calling out the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s smear campaign a “witch hunt”. Ironically, past inquisitions applied equal balanced latitude towards witches. The accused needed to drown to prove their innocence, to avoid suffering the heretic’s death; burnt at the stake. No such mercy was offered to poor Rolf Harris (perfect example of tall poppy syndrome), folk hero jailed for his royal patronage.
Even so, another Australian Schapelle Corby has become the centrepiece of the dreadful self-cleansing justice system. And now they vainly attempt to bestow aristocratic status (celebrity) on her to endorse their false claims. But a frog will always be a frog; any prince knows that
Going back to basics, aside from the Epstein “operation” (and that is what it is), there runs a supplementary agenda counterpoising the aggregated script aimlessly crafting reality. For as long as I have been cognisant, the “establishment” have obsessed over impressing their authority on juveniles. However, only since last decade or so has zeal escalated into viciousness that transcends warranted innocence or guilt. Representative truth is consequentially rendered superfluous. In line with their compulsion, enemies “in power” are routinely harangued by a “captivated” judiciary. There has precipitated (which I argue is no accident) a storm of fear represented by ever present headlines obtusely reporting vagaries of processions of failed fallen celebrities (if Schappelle makes one comment out of place, we know where she’s heading). Accompanying this is a horrid sense of infection. I don’t want to be Catholic, because I might catch what my local priest got. Problem (symptoms), reaction (slander), solution (quarantine) together dance the Pied Piper’s tune
Culpability is irrelevant (hence, the bland nature of content) and that is why unsecured “confessions” are used to the limit. How else to ram home predetermined [tainted] verdicts? On the other side, a percentage of juveniles are hardy enough to ignore implied rhetoric (issued against them). This has always been the case and, as such, represents the zealots’ primary obstacle. There will be no rite of passage in their domain
Perhaps at times of great austerity (and today is one of those times) more will pretend to desire “legal” chastity while actually playing it safe. Nevertheless (factoring guilty verdicts possibly issued “on merit”) there will always be enough “victims” (sic) to fill law enforcement’s net trap. This means the Epstein operation never needed victims beyond those professional publicised distortions of (what should be) dubious information. If everyone had personal connections to Epstein, we all knew him intimately; the scam would have collapsed before it started. No right minded reporter could have embraced any of the ludicrously tragic accounts paraded as truth. Witnesses would have been quietly ushered off to the funny farm for their efforts. Instead, none of us privy to their malicious campaign have any knowledge of Epstein beyond what they tell us. For all I know, he didn’t actually exist because, but for a large trust fund (unsurprisingly) contested by various [apparently] aggravated parties after his [purported] death (is real Epstein one of the contestors?), only that confessional legacy remains. They don’t seem too keen on investigating his murder with any purpose.
You know, law enforcement is no longer about police work. That was a thing of the past. Idolised by Al Pacino’s Serpico, law enforcers are now criminals. And that is okay, because they are policemen trained to do their duty; duty that includes counterfeiting morals, deceiving public honour and embezzling righteous trust. As all commoners are “criminals-in-waiting”, the crime business is booming. No wonder scripts supporting Epstein’s sham life are so compellingly farfetched; any sane human being should question his very existence. They’re not “a bit dodgy”. Accounts are accordingly “off with the fairies”. I return to the 1989 Little Rascals’ Day-Care court case (all charges withdrawn and verdicts quashed in 1997) and recommend everyone research proceedings with upmost due diligence. Taking a parallel position in an attempt to discern “feasible guilt”, under different circumstances Rolf Harris has made my mention. Now, let’s make light of things and pretend victim confessions were in tune with his guilt “as charged”, how much did he have to lose by his reckless carelessness? But it’s not only suicide Rolf under the spotlight here. There are endless precessions of outlaw social glitterati, rank and peer “they” tell us arrogantly brag of twilight illicitness. But there’s rarely any more than what tell us to back up their spiteful claims aimed at ones with apparently sincere political death wishes.
On that point, though I do not know Epstein at all, I have met with Sir Ron Brierley personally on several occasions and was invited to one of his Christmas parties (which I vaguely recall was awash with the finest Bollinger champagne). Ultimately, he went out of his way to do me disservice, so no love was lost when we ceased communication back in the early 1990’s. Brierley is neither a friend nor an ally of mine, but under no circumstances could I affirm his apparent tendency towards paedophilia. Sensationally arrested attempting to flee Australia (which smells like a “set up” to me), Medias announced “100,000’s of illegal images” had been found on [his] computers which had been seized by authorities. Back when I knew him, he lived in a giant house and, but for a conscientious housekeeper, would have passed as a hermit. If there was any family, by all accounts, they weren’t regular visitors. With no feasible “associations with kids”, if accusations supporting findings by authorities are valid, his private research was for “other purposes”.
Innumerable exotic theories may be speculated as to what these “other purposes” are, but I have compelling firsthand experience of Sir Ron’s bent as a mad philatelist. He would have spent millions of dollars on this passion. By all accounts, he had album stock pages crammed with hundreds of skimmed duplicates of the 1892 $5 black Columbus commemorative (a desirably rare American postage stamp) and equal numbers of Australia’s sought after 1932 5/- Sydney Bridge in mint condition. Banker at heart always, I believe this was his committed attempt to synthesising greater rarity (i.e. by suppressing market numbers available for sale) with the objective of increasing the item’s market value. “Rarity value” fits in with a possible link with his alleged child porn collection.
Quite some time ago, I read of a thesis written by some B-grade US academic who concluded that “child porn collectors obsessed over fills”. Taking that idea, there seems to be some possible synergy with Sir Ron’s “other purposes” here. Stamp collectors obsess over fills and if the truth be known, many become mesmerised by “rarity”. That’s why Sir Ron hived away the American and Australian gems I exampled. Of all porn genres, there is nothing scarcer than paedophilic content (there are claims it exists on the “deep web”, a place I have never found). I would further argue that child porn is the most illicit of all contraband. I don’t overstate here. A British policeman on the first Gary Glitter trial publically announced that “paedophilia is worse than murder”. Perhaps that is also why it is so regularly used as the ultimate excuse to blame limelight poppies that grow too tall for the comfort of authorities.
Though to me pathological voyeurism seems somewhat creepier than honest love between adult and juvenile stereotypes, anyone that does nothing more than investigate smutty literature for “personal reasons” is sexually invalid. There was no physical connection between Sir Ron and any children photographed he allegedly witnessed. As far as I can ascertain, contraband had been accumulated in the same manner a philatelist hoards postage stamps. In specific relation to Sir Ron’s arrest, a supplementary point is worth mentioning. Hall of Fame rock star and convicted [voyeur] “paedophile” Pete Townshend disputed numbers of illegal photographs law enforcement claimed he had possessed. At the time, his more precise words were “there’s no way I had as many [photographs] as they said”. It’s only a theory of mine, but worth elaborating to potentially explain inconsistences that bloom into accidental propaganda. If each moving picture was calculated frame by frame, a thirty minute film compiles “45,000” photographic stills (based on 25 frames a second). If that is a common law enforcement calculation in support of “evidence”, do all frames display offending images?
Were law enforcement intent on being transparent here, they may as well come out and tell the truth as it is for once, but I guess, compared to 45.000 photos, one video’s a pretty puny marketing haul
Views on guilt/culpability aside, Sir Ron, after dear Rolf, is another useful exhibit to force Queen Elizabeth’s abdication or, at least, that appears to be one of the utopian goals of those that craft reprisal initiatives such as the Epstein saga. Equilibrium that upholsters the nasty agenda relies on reusable formulas (i.e. hypotheticals). Will Sir Ron’s “defence” oddly mimic Pete Townshend’s “coming to terms with his own abuse as a child”? In my vigour to expose the puppet masters, I regularly single out the Pharisees for everything politically maligned. They are the creators and supporters of a prison planet blueprint idealised around a conceptual phoney occult Messiah ruling under dictated terms of Zionism. For Zionism to function as planned, societal conventions must be entrenched. Epstein has been used to firmly accent (in formulaic terms) the “divide between acceptable free expression and perversion”. We need to be clear on facts and, currently, everything is foggy (a staple for unproven idealism).
Believe it or not, sciences and evidence of historical preservation can be found in the very earliest records of humanity, and I am not just talking about ancient “extra-terrestrial” legacy documents NASA engineers paw over. However, for the large part, until circa 1780, accredited sanity was guided by what sceptics attempt to demote as superstition. There is a better term which has come into fashion again, courtesy of the New Age movement. Our deep ancestors were primarily guided by intuition, but we (or, rather, our sceptics) know better now were that to be true. The reality is cultures determining directional initiatives have radically changed to promote perception backed sciences as the best way to impose formulas, sorry, I mean improve humanity’s lot. The fact your average scientist couldn’t find his ass with both hands in a darkened toilet booth will remain our secret. Nevertheless, it is useful to note that modern science (which is the science of today, somewhat accounting for the lack of fundamental new ideas and innovation being produced) was originally corporatized by Rothschild French banking agents directly after the supposed “peoples’ revolution”.
The notion that a “child” (at the borderline, essentially a wobbly “branding”) miraculously morphs into an adult precisely eighteen years after the moment of birth (one presumes infant must be fully clear of mother) is a superstition which, of course, is anything but “scientific”. Sciences have ambiguously shambled together “evidence” that might appeal to ambitious believers. Collective formularisers decided the body begins to die “from age eighteen” so that must the fortuitous “missing link” (so to speak). Though evidence is generally disgracefully at odds with this vaporous conjecture, the intuitive adage has stuck and all I can say in response is “fancy that”. Tyrannical obsession over childhood is one of the best indicators for culpable insanity we call “governments” masquerading as slave management agencies. If “accountants rule the world” as the popular proverb illuminates, billowing formulas were perennially destined to coagulate into absurd absolutist bureaucracies.
One such symptom of absolutism would involve stakeholders behind calculation of the Epstein saga. Beyond the deliberate inflammation of the universal divide separating impoverished from tall poppies, have they not actuated fantasy that relies on sacred belief in adult baffling “theoretical” childhood? In effect we have two sinister things running simultaneously here. Questionable truths and dubious standards scorn public patronage, vilifying the assumption commoners are criminals-in-waiting
Perhaps that knowledge alone adds justification for my use of the vernacular “Pulp Fiction” at the entrance of this essay. Defence is as important as attack to the people behind the Epstein con scheme. Any accused’s fortification options have had to be taken down as well. Of course Prince Andrew will lay claim his victims tell a pack of bare faced lies. Of course he will blame his staffers if all other arguments fail. But the truth of the matter is this. Those in positions of esteem have far too much to lose to allow indiscretions to ruin their lives. So, as much as I dislike him, I believe President Trump is innocent of all conspiracies levelled against him. He has merely played along with tabloid tattlers because it improved his image as a “go getting, get it done” bad boy. If there is anything he should be remembered for, it is taking on the Medias and beating them at their own game. Trump is a teetotaller and I have personally known many of these sorry individuals. For instance, no one I have interacted with has been prepared to take life adjusting risks in any measure. Bad boy maybe, but Trump plays it ultra-safe too.
That has not stopped those illustrious Medias bombarding the general public with accusations against him pre-presidency, all throughout the race, and then on from day one of his tenure. Thus your average mesmerised viewer must presume unlikely misogynist Trump’s hari-kari misdirection could only end in political suicide, but it is the Medias that set that up, not the man himself. Then again, people are welcome to speculate as much as they like. Some compellingly blame Wall Street, but I wonder whether AIPAC had a hand in Trump’s impeachment. In Australia, as far as I’m aware, it is “illegal” (sic) to boycott Israeli product. Thus, surely any vocal supporter of Palestinian Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (against Israel) is an obvious terrorist suspect, right? And, by way of background here, for those that bother to read the article I have referenced, I feel I need to clarify that AIPAC, from the cultural justification standpoint, is an odd association. I’m told letters represent American Israel Public Affairs Committee (its prior incarnation, American Zionist Organisation or something similar ended up being disbanded after it was deemed treasonous by the few righteous Americans in authority).
For me American Israel Public Affairs Committee makes no sense at all, as AIPAC’s mission was, is and will be clearly to improve Israeli stranglehold on world affairs via solidarity (its “contained” American puppet). By not banning two Muslim agitators from congress, Trump (a former AIPAC golden boy by the way) bit his puppet master right in the ass. It would be interesting to know what AIPAC’s stance on Jeffrey Epstein is, don’t you think? Yet, after scouring the tabloids, I could not find a single word issued by AIPAC on the world’s most visible Jewish-American industrialist. This is one of the many reasons I find the organisation odd, in a murky sense. I can say, while I was conducting research, I did come up with this unexpected little gem, which illustrates how the former tycoon’s pending trial managed to make centre stage in Jewish politics, encapsulated by a bitter war (of words) between right wing failed redundant militant-butcher Baby Netanyahu and lefty ex. military general-butcher Ehud Barak.
Unsurprisingly Israeli debate has done little more than consolidate Media opinion making, and all genres, mainstream or otherwise, have definitely taken sides over Epstein allegations, which I guess will have added to the impact of fortifying fantasy. And if that was not bad enough (I mean, what happened to transparent journalism?), obvious shills are routinely masqueraded as Messiahs for virtue by the spinners of bullshit. Prince Andrew’s accuser is a classic example. A cursory view of her salient points highlights glaring fraud (bearing in mind, “evidence” exclusively comprises her word against his). In a short clip of one of her prepared interviews, a hysteric lapse “revealed” how they (as children) were “passed around like bags of oranges” (I’ve changed words slightly but not to the detriment of the overall message). So, from that, how might we discern she is a detestable liar? Well, back in the 1990’s there was another woman who was given opportunity to publically sensationalise her treatment as “property of” a secret gang headed by the Bush family. These cocaine runners (what else?) used to congregate at unknown wilderness hang outs (fusing Bush’s cowboy confession and Charles Manson legacy?), armed to the teeth. Normally “kept in cages” children (in this case infants, rather than borderline adults) accompanied outings and were “…..wait for it…..passed around like bags of fruit” by their hosts.
The Bush family accuser (who I refuse to identify lest she gain from the endorsement) was your typical 30 or 40 something bleach blond (can I say tart?), oh, chick, who would strut about stage while “in character” until around the mid 2000’s. When beating up on Bush went out of vogue, the woman just vanished. After claims that she was in a supportive relationship with a member of the (politically pro Democrat Clinton) CIA helping her though her ordeal, I totally switched off even though no one else seemed to bat an eyelid. I feel sure the Bush clan put her down as some loose nut as I don’t recall any litigation moves. Anyway, so as with that miraculous 1919 post WWI US headliner “Six Million Jews Dead”, karma comes back to haunt Prince Andrew. After a tyranny of fantastical accusations (including access to “reptilian technologies”) levelled against the Bushes and (ironically) the Clintons as well, information has boomeranged forward to 2019. According to the bleach blond, Mrs Clinton, a known lesbian, regularly had sex with infant girls. That irony is compounded by the CIA’s (well, I never) support of Russian loving Bill Clinton. Even a rookie agent will confirm when it comes to anomalies, there’s officially nothing to see here or, rather, “law enforcement” (sic) has dead eyes for anything potentially damaging to its own creed.
Let’s face it; if you believe the hogwash about the Clintons, Bush, Trump and [well] why not stretch it to Epstein too; then you deserve a spell at Bedlam
I don’t admire Mrs Clinton, but I neither need to stoop to zealous foul depths to admonish her. In other correspondences, I have stated George Bush senior set up the CIA, which isn’t true in the strict sense (but I’ll I explain what I mean by that when I wrap this up). Formally, the organisation was created by Truman after WWII (on 16th September 1947 to be precise). Hinted at earlier, compelling criteria provide “basis” for the “concept” being a reaction from Wall Street. Even so, I am of the opinion that the CIA was actually conceived as insurance against the planned reformation of Israel. Thus, agents would have naturally created tight liaisons with Wall Street to spy on international executives. George Bush senior’s concentrated involvement with the CIA was throughout the 1960’s and, in that capacity; he has been implicated in both Kennedy assassinations. Good friends of the Bushes, the Clintons have been there all the way through. I suppose that’s why their dealings with Russia (notably selling weapons grade refined uranium) were deemed “patriotic” by the CIA, whereas Trump’s surreptitious involvement with vapid shills who had apparently “destroyed Mrs Clinton’s election hopes” was definitely “treasonous” (and basis enough for impeachment).
Trump “on form” mocked the impeachment process, demanding it [to be] “over quickly”, but proceedings should be a serious matter. They highlight Epstein’s true posthumous purpose for one. To offset miscarriage of justice, this article is dedicated to remedial virtue. Inasmuch, following that spirit, I have come right out and said it “as it is”. Phoney baloney exorcized Russians and “commie plot” McCarthyism, faking elections, running guns or drugs in no particular order all add up, but they’re not individual “clinchers”. The clincher, an accusation whose utterance alone should be enough to put dread into any limelight figure, is paedophilia. Though paedophilia (as used) is a scam, it precedes life destructive extortion powerfully convincing enough to arbitrarily take down authority figures that defy corrupt mandates. Notably in circles that govern “morality”, such as religious institutions, no mercy or quarter is either offered or given to the irredeemably tarred. In this regard, a little snippet from “Prophecy, Prediction and Consensus View – Preconditioning for Spirited Souls” might help those committed to envisaging how impetus (for conspiracy) began (and I personally feel sure content would make the honest detective blush).
“Imagine if the Pharisees had contacts in the prison system. Crime networks are other resource pools for undesirables. Would it be possible to not only hire strategic paedophile priests, but also throw in some extra shekels and promise of “protection” should any of the kids “blab”?”
I didn’t touch on potential for confessional blackmail and extortion, but that would certainly provide tinder for a white hot ferocious fire, would it not? Obviously, if true, decent priests of all shapes and sizes have been set up and falsely persecuted (verdicts hinging on flimsy confessions or spiteful allegations) on the back of a covert fraud operation. There is no pertinent argument to counter-justify the visible domino effect the vicious operation has had on strategic senior priests that needed to be removed. Once false precedence is rooted, it becomes almost impossible to dislodge. It is as though lower grades are deliberately knocked down one by one in the build-up to bring enough to the table to defeat a “kingpin”. As for transparency, interrogation and court proceedings have been reduced to Medieval Star chambers without the torture except, if only that was true. Any suspect in custody is given a deliberate rough ride, tantamount to psychological torture, something viperous Medias will sketchily acknowledge as “the ordeal”. Given we are told paedophiles inflict irreparable “psychological trauma” on children which is retrograde of murder; clearly psychological must be worse than physical torture.
Nevertheless, there is something else which really highlights the illusory nature of paedophilia. In the “consensus view” article I referenced earlier, I philosophised over possibility for the “sexual child” (considering turn of sexual consent was age twelve in parts of the first world until only a few decades back, prompting considerable “ambiguity” surrounding current popular rationalisations) . Suffice to say; according to bureaucrats that draft laws, it is impossible for a child “to be sexual” which makes debate even more memorable. Per these “terms”, legally underage cannot lure adults into sexual alliances even though there are many, many “inexplicable” records of children making successful sexual advances towards other children. That grand contradiction exacerbates moral standards applied to published materials labelled “child pornography” as well.
I make many useful points to illustrate the paradox in my writing project “The ‘Powers’ Great Accolade – ‘Brand Pedo’”. Notably, if a child is not sexual, how can any unaccompanied “pose” (regardless of genre) be sexual either? Expanding this assumption, for a normal person (i.e. one that isn’t paedophile), no child pose could be sexual even it was deemed erotic. But there is a greater associated inconsistency. For any normal person to recognise a child’s “sexual pose”, whether he or she has been personally aroused by it or not, is superfluous, because the child’s pose that arouses IS arousing by its seemly erotic nature. Thus, either children are incapable of formally exuding sexuality (and summarily un-erotic) or they are (at the very minimum) inertly sexual. For “justice” to be transparent here, defining standards have to be radically reviewed. Simply put, if children are capable of carnal expression, then normal people are capable of succumbing to reflective lust. You see, contrary to popular religious persuasion, it impossible to null lustful intent, although spontaneous body reactions (such as male erections) can be “managed” accordingly. It is only possible to deny lust. And those that deny stand by their deceit. Where does deceit fit into a transparent judicial system?
There is one other associated item deserving of scrutiny. If children are sexual after all, wouldn’t that imply legal bureaucracies actually persecute a child’s (God given) right to self-expression? If society isn’t elitist, why do heterosexuals, gays and lesbians have genre support when others remain unprotected? On the other hand, was society to be elitist, then public affairs would predictably encourage fabrication of a crooked, unfair justice system, bereft of justice, built on authoritarian double standards. In that light, returning to my theme, the Epstein saga, were allegations to be taken as partially believable (i.e. there has to be at least a little fire to cause that much smoke), then certain shady tales tendered as evidence, rather than being strictly “untrue” per se, might not be as presented. Considering the crusading inquisition’s pathological desire to collect scalps, were (in most instances) relationships between now estranged parties consensual at the time? Divorces are commonplace and often end bitterly. Surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility that bitter exaggeration has tainted Epstein’s witness accounts? That would explain implausible scenarios touted by desperate Medias. Even so, obvious fraud, such as those exampled bags of fruit confessions, warrants deserved sarcasm.
That is why when dumb allegations were made by loose nuts years ago (when mind your own business meant something) they were rightly routinely ignored
In fact this provides the vital clue to the real motive behind the establishment of law courts. Star chambers were not set up provide a vehicle for accused to establish their innocence. They were created to legitimise “justice” dealt out to anyone that defied leading authority. Accused were always presumed guilty as charged whether nobleman or pauper, but why the need for legitimacy? One can but speculate over the truth here, but I would hazard to guess that family revenge missions against perceived dishonour would have been normal practice until a “divine” override was accepted. Initially divinity would have been limited to “shielding” aristocratic affairs beneath an honour system paraphrased as “the fair trial”. Much later (formally 1830) the motif was widened to include “the public at large”. Industrialism was no coincidence. It began with the fraudulent “abolishment” of slavery (which made everyone slaves of sorts), to which the creation of career criminals was a symptom (beautifully symbolised by Charles Dickens’ “Fagan” in Oliver Twist). Those that commit crimes have no specific ambition to become criminals. Instead, they spurn morality that supposes laws are just. To expand clarity here, conditioned slaves. the “fodder”, are not willing to challenge unjust, unfair laws or, indeed, any authoritative measures that victimise.
Epstein “the vehicle” has reduced morality to crud. Building up to this, populations have been gradually ordered into civility via shallow, sometimes obtuse directives. Politicians’ market rhetoric which predetermines negotiation is always “slant”. Therefore laws are shamelessly biased and courts that uphold them partisan. Reflectively, Epstein appears to have resolutely empowered corporate (industrialist) aligned Medias in their roles as appointed judge, juror and executioner. That is why I insist his output is the grandest conspiracy the world has seen to date, but I think I need to back that statement up with logic if I am appeal to others. For logic, I would like to return to the earlier CIA theme and reintroduce George Bush senior. But before I do, just so we are aware, when formalisation of legislature came into being, already power brokers were moving to covert status. In this instance extended families would have members that were not widely known who could travel relatively incognito. These guys were the movers and the shakers, the string pullers. Ones in the firing line, such as personable royals, generally behaved very discreetly. If they did anything radically disaffecting, it was going to be behind an army of backers.
General Smedley D Butler may well have published his 1935 paper “War is a Racket” as a direct response to displaced WWI veterans huddled in “tent cities”, but now the racket it everywhere. George Bush’s involvement with the Central Intelligence Agency converted supporting ethics to transform it into a racketeering organisation from the 1960’s onwards. Undoubtedly, one of Truman’s objectives would have been to ensure the CIA infiltrated and influenced governments to “keep America safe”. Mandates changed under Bush, which allowed international cooperation for mutual business purposes. Quintessentially (though practice sometimes defies promise) the CIA extorted foreign domains whereas the (Roosevelt’s 1908) FBI looked after the home roost. For instance, in that capacity the CIA has regularly partnered with Israel’s Mossad. Nevertheless, certain joint initiatives have focused on home turf matters, such as Epstein “Inc.”. Maybe parallel agendas conflict with the FBI from time to time, but Israel’s association with Epstein dictates America is their turf.
William the Conqueror’s Feudal System made an introduction earlier. I can confirm it is still alive and well, except those that run the pyramid take ultra-safe covert positions. David Rockefeller was a “front man”. It was felt he had the gift of the gab and was endearing enough not to get himself killed for his efforts. Thus, it is also sound to presume that organisations such as the CIA, FBI and Mossad follow an identical “rule by the few” model. In that respect, lowly agents should be viewed as bunnies that distinctly follow orders. Once, at a dinner party, I discussed the prospect of all out nuclear war. My left wing counterpart tried to argue that no decent person could ever “press the button”. My sad duty was to inform him that those that created supporting infrastructures must have been of similar opinion too; for they run constant drills, operators never given latitude of forethought as to which events might be genuine live attacks. They are at liberty only to follow orders as “monkeys”. So, perhaps, in this manner, lowly enforcement agents are managed from above by like manoeuvres.
There is no question as to the deceitful nature of slander posthumously attached to Epstein. However, while “the pyramid” says otherwise, agents would have no alternative but to uphold their duty diligently. Unfortunately, after George Bush senior, “diligence” equates to “use any means to win”. Here, I can only speculate as to who is ultimate behind fraudulent confessions exampled and how they escalated from limelight to public judiciary, but I can hypothesise why and what templates were used to craft intrigue. So, to be fair to our dutiful enforcement agents, let us presume they believe that evidence IS representative of truth. How did they arrive at the current junction? Well, we’ve all seen those movies where the key witness is shot dead, potentially jeopardising court processes, justifying a frantic hunt for “reinforcements”. Maybe, in Epstein’s case, law enforcement hit brick walls all the way down the investigation path. Maybe none, not one, of their potential witnesses wanted anything to do with the investigation or due diligence. Do our valiant agents give up or press on against all odds?
“Using any means” (which is the modern method) provides agents an enormous amount of political license. Remember, as far as they are concerned, any criminal is as guilty as sin and, when complicity is lacking, he must have “corrupted” vital witnesses. As far as our valiant agents are concerned, he also still must pay for his crime and, consequentially, they are at liberty to be as deceitful as they like, if the greater good is avenged. Particularly in the US, there are a whole bunch of actors that always seem out of work, sorry, rehearsing between assignments. Why not put them to good effect? They could become surrogate star witnesses that should have been “real” had the devil not corrupted virtue. Whereas I may feel the nature of the greater portion of information justifying affirmative action is obviously “flaky”, dedicated law enforcement likely doesn’t share this opinion. However, there is no doubt in my mind key witnesses have been “prepped” by external arbiters who, highest common denominator logic prefers, are either CIA or their associates. Let us be clear on what’s at stake here. For the fake witnesses the risks are high. Though revenue wise they can receive lucrative incomes from chat shows, if any slip of the tongue was to ever compromise things, ensuring public renege on “truth”, well, the whole charade would turned back on them as violently as it did to poor “Jeffrey Epstein” (if it was him).
So I missed my planned pre-New Years’ release date but, all things considered, that’s something I can live with. I mean…..I am alive.
ozziethinker 