Wordt Trump vermeldt in de Esptein-files? Ja. Maar ze tonen dat hij onschuldig is. Vandaar dat Biden ze nooit bekend heeft gemaakt. Trump heeft in totaal zeven vluchten gemaakt met Epstein. Telkens ging het van Mar-a-Lago naar New York, New Jersey of Washington DC. Trump vloog nooit mee met de Lolita Express. De enige passagiers waren Trump en zijn familie, Epstein en zijn broer. Geen enkel slachtoffer van Epstein of getuige heeft ook Trump gelinkt aan Epstein's Little St. James Island.
Trump was een van de weinige personen die Epstein heeft proberen te ontmaskeren. In 2005 werd Epstein gebannen van Mar-a-Lago. In 2006 werkte Trump vrijwillig samen met de FBI.
In 2008 krijgt Epstein een zogenaamde swearthaert deal. 18 maanden cel voor sexmisdaden. De rechter was benoemd door Bush en onder druk gezet door Clinton-bondgenoot FBI. Slachtoffers werden het zwijgen opgelegd. De media zweeg. Alleen Trump werkte samen met de openbare aanklager.
In januari 2017 tekent Trump als één van zijn allereerste Exective Order EO13773 gericht tegen internationale netwerken van kinderhandel.
In 2019, onder Donald Trump's eerste legislatuur, wordt Jeffrey Epstein gearresteerd door Justitie en het eiland in beslag genomen. Onderzoeken worden heropend. In 2020 wordt Ghislaine Maxwell, zijn partner, opgepakt. Ze zit nog steeds in de gevangenis (al kan daar binnenkort verandering in komen). Obama had acht jaar om hetzelfde te doen. Waarom deed hij niks?
Intussen is er geen enkele getuige die Trump linkt aan het sexnetwerk van Epstein. Sommige onder hen steunen zelfs Trump als president. Epstein zelf, aldus zijn advocaat, heeft zelf ook nooit Trump beschuldigd. De Democraten zelf hebben intussen het vrijgeven van de files geblokkeerd.
Tot zover Trump en Epstein. Maar wat was Epstein zelf eigenlijk van plan?
Naomi Wolf schrijft dat het over veel meer gaat dan enkel blackmail:
So: systematically, consistently, major intellectuals, especially in the fields of computation, genetics, evolutionary biology, and consciousness, were being herded by gatekeepers into proximity to Epstein, who had been planted physically in their midst; and these academics were urged to accept his funding money and to meet with him and by implication, to befriend him or to accept his friendship, and even his invitations. I think this is the “Why?” that Weinstein is asking. We will return to the implications of this systematic engagement structure, later. Eric Weinstein is correct.
Jeffrey Epstein did fund cutting-edge scientists and mathematicians, especially in the fields of genetics and and evolutionary biology. He even convened them via another entity, into a community under his funding structure. Weinstein’s larger claim — that the Maxwell/Epstein nexus or “construct” served not just to fund but to direct and manage and gate-keep and put a frame around and essentially set the direction of science — is a claim that makes sense, from what I know.I
n Epstein we are not just looking at a sexual blackmail operation for US and foreign political leaders and hedge fund guys. 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.
Weinstein is sure that Epstein was an intel op. So, if he is correct — and I have no idea — those steering science, and to some extent, technology, by setting up via Epstein “kompromat” that can destroy and pressure both innocent and guilty scientists and technologists, is either our intelligence community — or not. Think about the national security implications of this, either way, if either possibility is true. Who was drawn in? The scientists targeted were the precursor minds of our current world in its more dystopian aspects. The scientists in this targeted “stable” deal with various dimensions; with pre-AI; with the management of awareness; with the difference between brain and consciousness; with genetics and the altering genes; with evolution; with ritual; with what makes humans human, and with what allows them to transcend human limitations.
“Transhumanism'“is a reductive term in this context but someone powerful, as I think Weinstein is seeking to tell us, is very interested in science taking the same directions that support and align with where the Tech Bros are seeking to steer humanity; and the Tech Bros are taking the same directions that the targeted scientists took. This is non-random cultural evolution. What is behind this? What is the ultimate meaning? What is the desired outcome? I don’t have the answers, but to me it seems that these are the key questions, and these questions may explain the megalith of internal resistance that may be facing President Trump. The dinners of 2010 and beyond, turned into our reality in 2025.
This all greatly complicates the Epstein story. It makes it a story about the corrupting and perhaps even the blackmailing and directing of science and technology, and maybe even of both guilty and innocent scientists, and maybe even of guilty and innocent technologists, as well as being an easier-to-assess story about royals and retail clothing moguls and about, above all, the sexual abuse of children. It may mean that innocent people as well as guilty — major scientists and major technologists, perhaps — may have been set up or enmeshed in circumstances that they now fear coming to light, whether they did nothing wrong at all, or whether they did something wrong. It may mean that whoever was steering Epstein — was also steering our science. That makes it a very different, very significant — perhaps culture-changing; perhaps history-changing — story. It would make it a story with which we have to be persistent and steady in our demands; but also cautious, and methodical, and discerning.
This all may be even bigger and even more worrying, than we realize.
Luister ook naar wat Eric Weinstein hierover heeft te zeggen:
