Epstein Photo Release

Before the official release of Epstein documents, which might be ruinous for the Democrats, they are trying to spin the narrative by releasing over a dozen new photographs of  Epstein "parading around" with Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, among others. I am reminded of this piece from Dr. Naomi Wolf back in July, entitled: "'The Network" in the Worlds of the Elites." Wolf was trying to explain why Trump was so reluctant to release the Epstein files because Epstein, by the nature of his activities, was going to be seen as having not just associated with powerful deviants, but also many people that were innocent of participating in Espstein's honey trap. She explains:

    I think that it is likely that multiple people who are critical to this administration’s success — my guess is, that these are mostly guys from the Silicon Valley community, who have been the ones to put the fuel of their billions and their technical and media support into President Trump’s campaign and administration’s engines — whether they are innocent or guilty, are in the Epstein files. (Remember why Mrs Gates broke up with Mr Gates?) And I think this nation’s most important scientists, innocent or guilty, are in the files. And my guess is that the funders have confronted President Trump.

    Why do I think this? There are several clues.

    One is the interview of the late Epstein’s former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, with Chris Cuomo. Remember, Dershowitz used to represent President Trump as well. Dershowitz confirmed that there is a redacted list of people accused of improper conduct, stressed that no one who is a public figure who is in office currently (you get it) is on the list, and called on AG Pam Bondi to ask the New York Courts, who have custody of this list, to release it.

    If you read the hieroglyphics here correctly, what you should see (this is why it is useful to have been a political consultant; you can read the code, which often involves triangulation or “deniability”) that A/ President Trump is not on this list. B/ President Trump does not wish the horrific baggage of being the one to infuriate all the powerful people who are on this list, by releasing it himself via his AG. C/ They — the Trump administration — want it released by others, ie, the New York courts, so that they themselves don’t receive the appalling blowback.

    I also believe that there are make-or-break tech bro Trump supporters on the list, because of a moving interview given by Eric Weinstein on July 14, 2025— interestingly, in the midst of the Bondi furor — to Steven Bartlett, on the “Diary of a CEO” podcast.  

She continues:

    On the podcast, he stated that “[s]ex offender Jeffrey Epstein was a "product of one or more elements of the intelligence community." Weinstein, who said he had met Epstein, described him as "certainly was not a financier in any standard sense. That was a cover story."‘

    “British entrepreneur Bartlett asks about Weinstein having met Epstein, and he says, "He wasn't a financier the day I met him." Weinstein goes on to describe Epstein as a "weird guy," who "didn't seem to know a lot about currency trading."

    Weinstein also describes Epstein as a "construct"‘.

    This interview has been seen by 2.4 million people. It is riveting. I felt a deep sense of recognition when Weinstein was speaking. My sense is that Weinstein was speaking extremely carefully; that his goal, among others, was to establish that one could be enmeshed in documentation around the Epstein community and “lists”, without being a pedophile — indeed, one could be enmeshed in those documents simply for being a cutting-edge scientist; and that one intention of his was to put this situation on the record. 

 What did he mean by "construct"?

    Weinstein argues that the Epstein “construct” was what the military calls “dual use” --that is, that Epstein had multiple missions running concurrently.

    One mission, of course, was that of running a grotesque sexual honeypot, exploiting minors, for purposes of blackmail.

    But another, Weinstein argues, is the management and direction of Western science itself. Weinstein notes that Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, the late publishing magnate/reputed intelligence asset Robert Maxwell, founded the scientific imprint Pergamon Press, the Oxford-based imprint that published medical books and journals, which was bought by Elsevier, which is the main scientific publishing imprint (and the advance guard scientifically for the COVID/vaccine narrative; indeed, Elsevier created a “resource hub” about COVID for “librarians, campuses and health professionals”, an oddly activist offering from what is supposed to be a neutral scientific platform).

    Weinstein notes that Epstein funded a number of important scientists, and that he had an office at Harvard. Weinstein says in the podcast, with what looks like suppressed rage, that he wants to know why Epstein was aware of his, Weinstein’s, work, and why Epstein was embedded in the Harvard mathematics department. 

 And he directed and managed the direction of science, or at least certain fields, by bringing together scientists with the wealthy, powerful, and influential in finance and technology and other fields. She expounds on this a bit more:

We are also looking at a “construct” that seduced and lured scientists; that was institutionally set up to seduce and lure scientists; and that may have created conditions that look compromising on paper, whether the scientists did anything wrong or not. We are also looking at a machine constructed to entrap and perhaps pressure, whether they are innocent or guilty, a generation of the most important scientists of our time.

Why? Perhaps, as Weinstein is suggesting, to steer science itself. 

Unfortunately, she does not know the purpose of this steerage of science and the large tech companies, although she alludes to the idea of trans-humanism. I will add that while the concept of trans-humanism can be rather benign and pedestrian--improving humans through genetics and cybernetics to get rid of diseases or enable us to live in environments in which we otherwise would be unable to survive--it can also be seen as a means to achieve a kind of godhood: extreme intelligence, immortality, physical capabilities beyond anything possible today. And since the common person will never be able to enjoy these extreme benefits, the elites will truly be godlike, lording over a lessor humanity. 

    But back to Trump: 

    What you need to understand, taking this all back to what I believe is President Trump’s dilemma, is that that calculation about the power of “the network,” and the scary losses sustained by crossing “the network”, let alone losing its protection and resources, are not restricted to the Edge Foundation.

    All of liberal elite society works in this exact same way.

    It is all kind of like the mafia — you may not agree with the capo or some of the dons around you, but you know very well that crossing them means certain destruction for yourself.

    So: everyone aligns.

    I think this is what President Trump is also trying to explain, though of course he cannot state all this overtly.

    Understand, too, what Weinstein and Dershowitz are separately trying to tell you. The Epstein files probably contain many innocent people as well as many guilty ones; but again, they are very likely to contain, innocent and guilty, some of the most powerful of President Trump’s current supporters; and some of the greatest of scientists and some of the most influential technologists of our time.

    And even someone as powerful as the American President, in my calculation, can’t cross that most powerful of all powerful “networks.” 

 Her piece is lengthy--well beyond what I've quoted--so I would encourage you to read the whole thing.