Zohfry III - the Wrath of Walter

...and other tall tales of today, tomorrow and mostly yesterday, put in context and seen through the lens of Jeffreygate

Jul 19, 2025

After the wave of the Zohran sudden “Israel no” amazement was caught by the tidal wave of Epstein outrage it’s been swallowed up and now it seems like only Jeffrey is left on his board as the lead in all political discussions, and so Fredo’s big brother can’t even make it above the fold by declaring he doesn’t know when to quit. Maybe he thinks he’s the next Joe Lieberman, who knows. Cuo Mentum!

My method of managing this flood is to not manage it, btw, so this is going to be a longie among longies, but rest assured while it starts gently it’ll seriously pick up before the end. And I’m not here to cover the play-by-play like so many others, but rather to evaluate how the story impacts existing, longer-term proposed narratives and denials, and how those in turn impact the story.

But Jeffreygate really is fascinating, and so unlike in my last few pieces ol’ Jeff the kosher corpse will step into the lead here, and the civil war on the Dem left will take a back seat to the civil war on the GOP right. But unlike on the Dem side, it seems to me that the oppositionalists are losing, as much as the alternative media tries to make it an even if not fair fight.

Walter Goes Full Establishment Republican

First, to tidy up, I will start where I left off in my last piece, where I said this about Matt Taibbi:

That makes me wonder how he’s addressing Epstein, if at all. My guess would be somewhere between a mild version of MAGA outrage and Sam Harris’ mocking relief that there’s no there there in the end. Which is a lot of ground, I know. Taibbi is known for his mocking of 9/11 truth back in the day, and he didn’t give any credence to JFK until relatively recently, when it became professionally advantageous, so conspiracy theory is very much not his thing.

I did listen to the part of the most recent Racket livestream with Matt and Walt where Epstein was discussed, and here is the beginning of that:

I thought featuring Tulsi from the TP (toilet paper?) USA conference was an odd choice - most ‘heads have chosen Tucker or some other Trump oppositionalist, going for the headline acts. And what she says hardly seems like something to highlight, including the notion of the existence of the deep state within federal agencies, which seems kind of contrary to the very definition. But she is DNI, so I guess she’s suggesting that within agencies like the CIA she trying to purge them of the deep state influences, fundamental to their design from the beginning, and bring them into public state control.

Walter doesn’t say much of substance until he get’s to “her base” wanting trials, wanting “the List”, which left me wondering what he thinks her base is - I thought it was people opposed to endless neocon wars like me back in 2019-20. If anyone was to be put on trial it was people like Cheney and Crooked Hillary and Pompeo.

They end up confused over even what the definition is of Trump loyalists versus Trump oppositionalists on the Epstein Files matter. Which seems like in their combined HS Thompson/Seinfeld manner a way of making light of the whole affair. An uneven start to me.

There’s another 7-8 minutes on Epstein before it got to this:

I assume Walter is talking about Naf Bennett (more on him later) when he says Israelis intelligence is denying any connection with Epstein, and Matt’s reaction is the right one, “okay, whatever”. But then he shifts to Ukraine - whaa?? Nothing wrong with talking about Ukraine of course, it’s not getting enough attention these days, but what happened to Epstein? Is the last word gonna be Israel denying they ever heard of the guy? Again Matt is dismissive of the Epstein story in a way that only he can be, as the most dedicated Jew’voider I know of in the independent media space.

On the other hand, Walter seems to want to talk about it, at least more than Matt. But on Ukraine he defines Putin being an asshole as a “primary fact”. Matt displays buyer's remorse over what I assume was at least a somewhat pro-Trump position prior to the election (I don’t know, I wasn’t paying attention to him then, but that’s what some people say).

Walter gets to what seems to be the heart of the matter on Trump, that between the E-files and Ukraine Trump has emerged as a more conventional figure that made out to be, or in other words, more neocon-compliant. And he doesn’t really seem to be critical of that. Overall an uncertain take by these guys, or at least it seems that way to me.

Not satisfied, I saw that there was an available livestream from a week before this one, so after the original Epstein outrage had taken place, and here is part of that:

So Walter speaks of overreaction to Trump bombing Iran, suggesting that it wasn’t the assassination of archduke Ferdinand (yet), which I guess is fine if clearly premature. He says he’s profited as if he’s making money on this stuff, and is that literal or will it just enhance his reputation as a cooler head? Walter is sounding very Republican.

Then he’s into Epstein, as if trying to draw a parallel. The Trump administration declaring that there is no there there in the existent/non-existent files is something he cannot interpret until we know more, even though what the administration is saying is that you will never know more if they have their way. Or at least that was the case when I wrote this sentence, things change by the minute.

Walter goes in multiple odd directions from there, including Blondi, Kash-Only and Bon Jovi not being in control of their own FBI and his dragging of the pandemic crime into it. And he ends with the outrageous notion that Trump is a tool of Israel!

This goes on for another 8-10 minutes or so, and there remains this kind of tension between them. My impression is that Walter is glad that Trump is settling down and becoming a more conventional Republican: passing BBBs with huge tax cuts toward the top of the brackets, backing the neocon agenda in Europe and western Asia, and stamping out antisemitism related to Epstein. So calm down and give him a chance, and let’s evaluate the situation in another year or two. Fuck you, Walter.

Matt’s not comfortable with this (as a “Bernie guy”) but he also doesn’t wanna talk about the Jews, so he’s left swallowing back the puke in his mouth and not saying much of anything in response.

I felt like this was a particularly odd reaction to the Epstein MOAB in the GOP, and it made me think about this odd couple in a similar manner to the Tim Kelly-Joe Atwill odd couple, where certain narratives (Freemason-phobia in that case) get pushed with little resistance out of an undeclared agreement no doubt somehow rooted in money.

An aside on no World War III - I am always exceedingly cautious about making specific predictions about where events will go in the future, and particularly when it comes to war. Really the only prediction I’ve made about Trump in this regard is that, contrary to MAGA doctrine, he would not quickly bring peace to Ukraine and the middle east, if he would play a role in ever doing those things. Ukraine wasn’t going to end on day one or anything close to that, and the inauguration day ceasefire would not hold, with the Gaza situation at least as likely as not to be worse under Trump than it was under Biden. That has little to nothing to do with being pro-Trump or anti-Trump, rather it’s an evaluation of much longer term patterns in US foreign policy combined with an evaluation of a president’s personal politics and motivations.

Hanging with Charlie at RetardFest

A lot of conversation this week has been sourced from Charlie Kirk's MAGA rave, and one of the oppositional figures allowed to air it out there was the libertard Jew Dave Smith, FotS at Rising Points, here covered by RP-in-law Kyle Kulinski:

Again we get the silly Trumptard line about no World War III, an incredibly low bar, like saying Trump's tariffs haven’t created a worldwide depression yet so any criticism is invalid.

The question I have is why Smith supported and voted for Trump if he was calling him a war criminal over a year ago, and his big problem with Trump relates to his war crimes now? Did his libertarian politics justify that vote on other grounds? Kyle seems confused where libertarianism lies on the political spectrum when he blesses Dave going into a right-wing audience that actually must feel kinda like home to him, minus the middle east. Again, the fundamental problem with the PLA on the progressive side, they just don’t understand the entirety of libertarianism, or are in denial about it.

One of the things Smith does there is to make an extended display of “condemning”, something I grew very weary of early on in the post-10/7 period, in part because it really doesn’t fit so well if you see that day differently than the mainstream media presented it from the beginning. I’ll get a bit deeper into that, inside job fans. But “condemning” is a form of Jew-sucking, make no mistake about that, and Dave the Jew gets no pass on that from me. When Kirk basically concedes the point Smith insists on continuing, even going to the point of declaring his condemnations other anti-genociders who don’t condemn. This is co-ethnic closet-libertarian Glenn Greenwald in October 2023, saying there’s something wrong with you psychologically if you aren’t outraged by Hamas going full-on Mad Max.

Candy-O Spins Trump Oppositionalism

Candace Owens did something interesting in one of her many walking-the-blue-line Jeffreygate rants:

What she’s talking about there I assume is what Max Blumenthal has talked about for a long time, that Hasbara has a Wikipedia-specific unit. The Guardian wrote a piece on this back in 2010, here.

When someone mentions 11/22/63 and 9/11/01 related to Israel in this context, “good fortune”, the natural addition to that to make it the tryptic that it is of course is 10/7/23, which raises the possibility of that too being a deep event. In other words what I thought when I first heard about it and the IDF stand-down which was described as a feature. A stand-down like the much-delayed reaction of the US Air Force on 9/11, or similar to the unexplained routing of the JFK motorcade to allow The Limo to so slowly pass right by the book depository and into the line of crossfire.

Here is the third paragraph of my first post-10/7 piece here on Substack:

One of the main themes was the Israeli security failure paradigm that I’d already heard from elsewhere. For me that immediately had echoes of 9/11 and my first thought was whether or not that was intentional, and the old question of let it happen versus make it happen. Given the magnitude of this operation and the level of Israeli intelligence focus on Gaza, it’s a little hard for me to believe they knew nothing. Of course the Grayzone theme is about gross and extended Palestinian abuse, and they don’t go down the conspiracy rabbit hole on this.

I was curious what Candace was saying immediately after 10/7 and I couldn’t find anything after doing some searching, beyond what I already knew, that she was critical of the “genocide” once it started, was critical of the silencing happening on US college campuses, and so got fired from the D-Wire after her pissing match with the pencil-necked Jewish pope Beanie Bennie Shapiro, the smart kids’ Adam Schiff. But that’s all 30 days out or whatever.

I did find this, from a year ago, on the Hannibal Directive:

I note that she speaks openly about Jewish American defense of Israel, which in itself is still something today. And at minimum she had come around to a better understanding of all the issues on the day, the questions that lead toward a conclusion that Israel’s “luck” was good once again on 10/7.

Also note that Mr. Smith comes up again, defending the Israeli-compliant line of a failure of intelligence, just like on 9/11 and just as with regard to WMD in Iraq. Remind me again why Dave is such a good guy?

How many Trumptards have back-burnered any sort of conspiratorial notion about 10/7 once Trump was in power and was clearly working with Israel to destroy Hamas? How many Trumptards never considered that the Gettysburg attempt on his ear’s life was faked for political gain, and not an Iranian inside job or the work of the Biden crime family?

Narratives of convenience, based on the fake left-right paradigm.

So let's get to Candace’s attack on the Trump administration over the lack of E-filing:

Again, what we have here is a Trumptard who is outraged over the administration’s Epstein denial and the absurdity of claiming all that was the work of the dastardly Dems. But she simply won’t or can’t blame it on Trump himself, who remains her demiGod, and so his TSweet is the work of AI, she reminds her audience about Russiagate and the laptop from hell, says that was the work of the (undefined) deep state, the deep state that protected the Biden (crime) family, the deep state that is now rising to protect the Epstein legacy.

She is appealing to her king, telling him that she knows he’s not calling the shots on this, he apparently wasn’t one of those politicians and other notables partying with ol’ Jeff even though he was, and for some reason he doesn’t know that he’s being used. Then all the never-Trumpers around him that are using him, controlling him. They’re the ones who are now driving more wars, it’s not Trump who thought Putin would agree to his fabulous deal to end that war by leaving Ukraine even though tens or hundreds of thousands of Russians (and Ukrainians) are already dead over a conflict that Trump helped in part to initiate. And it’s all to silence the talk about Epstein, that pervy tail wagging the war dog.

It’s a fantasy, and a retarded one at that. Or, to be incredibly generous, it’s an incomplete picture, one that doesn’t address who actually makes up that deep state. In part because it’s difficult to blame Ukraine on Israel - wrong Jew.

One last Candy-O clip, this on Bannon, who worked with the Jew Andrew Breitbart, who worked as a producer in Jewish Hollywood, who worked for the Jewish Wall St. operation Goldman Sachs. But what matters to Candy?

Yes, Breitbart was “conceived” in Israel, that’s what matters. Old Steve is like all GOP right-wingers, he doesn’t like children (which I’ll get to next), and Tom Massie the Bircher-adjacent libertard free-marketer is solid and principled. But she’s fixated on men’s chests, before descending into gossip about the tranny wife Emmanuel “Big Hands” Macron. Christ Almighty, Candace, get your head in the game.

A Few Trips Back in Time:

1) Denny the Last GOP Pederast

This Dem guy Brian Tyler Cohen who I featured for the first time in my last piece interviewing co-ethnic Rep. Jamie Raskin, has really been hammering on Jeffreygate, for entirely partisan purposes, and here he forced me to make an old connection:

Out of the box we have Bon Jovi drooling over being able to put Bill Clinton in chains, which again confirms the partisan nature of this MAGA fixation. Trump did nothing, rinse and repeat.

After that comes Wayne Madsen talking about the Denny Hastert bust in 2015 on Sibel Edmonds’ Boiling Frogs Post roundtable with James Corbett and Peter B Collins. Edmonds had been trying to bust Hastert as a pedo ever since she worked at the FBI as a translator after 9/11 and then got silenced over national secrets, a story told in the 2006 documentary Kill the Messenger:

Edmonds wrote the novel The Lone Gladio to tell the story in a fictionalized manner, to get around the gag order, and that contains a character referred to as the Whip, who is clearly based on Hastert. There’s a chapter in the book where the Whip visits an exclusive house of prostitution in Thailand to “engage” with two little girls, one who jumps off the balcony and the other who slits her own throat with a knife, all secretly caught on film by two different intelligence agencies. But it turns out ol’ Denny the ex wrestling coach swung the other way.

Madsen tells the stories of multiple past sex scandals involving minors there, and later points out that they all involved just Republicans. I wonder what Candace and the ‘Tards would have to say about that. It does explain why they’re so fixated on Clinton, I guess. And Gates, who was promoted to the top of the Illuminati pyramid of power during the pandemic.

2) Grayzone from Bill to Bob

I’ve been behind on my Grayzone livestreams because, unlike most other YouTube videos, I can’t seem to be able to download them. I wonder why. But in their latest but one, more than a week ago now, they did talk about Epstein:

I don’t know much about Kash-Only’s girlfriend other than her father is Armenian, she has an internationalist history, growing up in part in Europe, and she says they met at some Christian event (he’s Hindu, I believe). I also assume she accepts Ka$h. 🤑

But what Max gets to is the essence of the matter: MAGA will do and say anything to absolve Trump himself from blame on anything, it’s all about the people around him selling him out, and in fact what he actually is is neoliberal- and neocon-compliant. Because there is essentially no other philosophical base in the Republican Party since Reagan-Bush.

Then he goes off in an interesting direction, to the collapse of global capitalism, to Davos and the liberal world order, in the process minimizing the difference between Trump and Biden, which Aaron goes on to mildly object to, it having gotten his back up a bit.

It’s another suggestion that Max is of the school of post-progressives looking for refuge on the left who effectively downplay what Trump is doing by their obsession with condemning the Clintonite centrist Dems. It’s not that productive, and it’s tied into narratives which do not recognize the realities of American political history over the last 40-50 years. The condemnation of liberal democracy and the liberal world order, the Dem-favored version of Bush the Elder’s New World Order, that being the consequence of the fall of Soviet communism so long ago, is in turn a consequence of the putting into place the Jewish moneyed establishment at the heart of the American deep state.

That was entirely foundationed on neoliberalism and neoconservatism, the two philosophies which found themselves triumphant after the fall of communism, Fukuyama’s end of history. With no more real enemies to overcome they kinda just sat there retrenching their power, and we had the run of the two-term compliant presidencies of Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama. The people became increasingly uneasy, populist oppositionalism resulted, that starting with Occupy and the Tea Party and ultimately in the forms of Trumptardism and Bernieocracy.

Here is the opening of the wiki on the liberal international order:

In international relations, the liberal international order (LIO), also known as rules-based order (RBO), describes a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political liberalism, economic liberalism and liberal internationalism since the late 1940s. More specifically, it entails international cooperation through multilateral institutions (like the United Nations, World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund) and is constituted by human equality (freedom, rule of law and human rights), open markets, security cooperation, promotion of liberal democracy, and monetary cooperation. The order was established in the aftermath of World War II, led in large part by the United States.

To me this is something that has to be divided into two distinct parts, as I just suggested, before and after the fall of Soviet communism. What made some real sense after WWII, with the US-led “free” world and its form of growing economic colonialism over dying occupational colonialism and with the cold war and the need to create a real distinction between the east and west, really lost its way after the great enemy was eliminated and the country had shifted in a new direction post-FDRism under Reaganism. That shifting included Keynesian economics into free-market neoliberalism and the evolved cold war benign detente into malignant neoconservatism, both in the decade or so before communism’s fall, but it also included the post-New Left shift on the retreated Dem side toward political correctness, identity politics and social justice warfare.

I will get to another take on this watershed period at the end here.

Where I think this phase two was best expressed was during a Jewfest at 92Y back in 2017, by the openly-rightwing version of homosexual Jew “journalist” Glenn Greenwald, Jamie Kirchick, at a point where Russiagate was taking off as an anti-Trump Jewish operation:

“A peace exporter”. I guess that's a veiled reference to the glorious mission of neoconservatism, yes, state destruction as regime change and resulting anarchy? Today post-ISIL Syria is the poster child on that, supplanting Libya and its open-air slave markets created by sword sodomy.

Kirchick says the agreement after WWII (really after the birth of Holocaustism in 1961) was to accept trans-Atlantic (the Anglo-American Alliance) power, isolation of the USSR/Russia, no antisemitism or anti-Zionism allowed, no historical (Holocaust) revisionism, and specific to the post-communist period, an acceptance of liberal democracy such as it is, of neoliberal capitalism and the setting aside of democratic socialism with an acceptance of (slavish) belief in the free market, and the expanding use of NATO, which in an understated manner here meaning eastward toward Russia’s border. What he is saying, after boiling it down to its essence, is a universal acceptance of Jewish power led by the US.

That defines the period 1992 to 2016, but then came Trump and Sanders and populist oppositionalism to all of that. Trump won, and now we have the rise of populist oppositionalism against what he has become, mostly on the left but also within his own base. The undeclared secret war inside the American state has never ended. And Max gets to an aspect of that a little later:

How many Jews were there among the people Max named at Bohemian Grove North? I lost count. Also cited there were Wes Moore, the new Obama, and Hakeem Jeffries, they the dark(er) side of the Black-Jewish Alliance.

Then finally Zohran! So I can legitimately claim this piece as Zohfry III, he’s actually in it to win it!

But Aaron talks about the Dems learning nothing from losing to Trump, suggesting that defeat was caused by Kamala not cutting Israel loose, as if that was just a strategic political decision to rather easily make either way, and not the openly turning on the owners of the party, not to mention the candidate’s own husband. That never was going to happen, not that way.

Max jumps in to underline the “it’s the youth, stupid” fallacy, and adds to that “urban”, which now is getting very close to “cosmopolitan”, a term with an ethno-history. Then the hegemonic control across the trans-Atlantic axis of Zionist power, which sounds like Jewish power to me. Then he brings it down to popularity among the base versus money from the owners, which is the absolute definition of the Democratic Party today.

But he ends it with trying to drag young MAGA onto the good side, an absurdity underlined by MAGA supporting Trump’s Iran bombing by 94% - how much of that is young MAGA, the majority? If the justification isn’t “the security of Israel” but rather the threat to the US posed by Iranian nukes, that’s just idiotic and we all know that.

But he’s right about voting, says someone who has withheld his vote in the last two presidential elections. 😁

One final GZ clip and a “musical” interlude, where Max has been talking about Bob Vylan:

Here is an article from Alana Newhouse’s Brooklyn-based Tablet Magazine (she’s the host in that Kirchick clip above) on Neighborhood Bully:

That was written by Jacob Siegel, who I have featured/criticized here at least twice, both in 2023, when Taibbi was promoting an ethnically-reinforced/cleansed article he wrote in Tablet on the censorship-industrial complex, and when he appeared as a pro-Israel guest on Greenwald’s pod after 10/7, the day after dualie Batya Ungar-Sargon had appeared, when Glenn was doing his habitual “condemning” thing. Btw, I had no problem pulling up the official video on YouTube, so I guess things have changed since the bully started using steroids.

This image was from National Lampoon in 1974, nine years before Bully:

That would be totally antisemitic today, but back then it was cuttingly funny, and politically correct in what became a politically incorrect manner a few decades later.

Max’s list of the Masters of War seemed to be missing a few important players - Bibi is there but where is Zelensky, where are neocon Jews Madeleine Albright and Victoria Nuland on the Dem side, and these ten Judeo-neocons on the GOP side?

At least he named Blinken; had he named Pompeo instead I would have puked…

Later on they did a segment on the Trumpian rebuilding of Gaza as the Riviera of the East, which included some tasty images as well as some scumbag players.

Here is an image of eLong’s Tesla plant in neo-Gaza:

What this made me think of was the rebuilding of Panama City as a result of the expiration of the canal treaty in 1999. That started in 1989 with Bush Sr’s regime-change invasion, which was generally hidden from view…

…and then there’s Panama City 35 years later, one world high in the sky-rises and another down on the streets, home to international commerce and companies like Mossack Fonseca of Panama Papers fame, the company that created Bill Browder’s Hermitage Capital, the largest foreign investor in Russia 20 years ago before ol’ Bill got run out of the country…

When I was first there in 2012 it looked like that, and the Trump sailboat-styled hotel on the waterfront had just recently opened. It’s now a Marriott, btw.

I have no problem picturing Riviera Gaza in another 25 years, after Don Bibi is done with his reclamation project. I have been there, in some sense.

3) The Bear goes to School

Since Tucker the Fucker is so much at the heart of this matter, I feel compelled to include him here, in this case from his Rogan-length deep dive into the history of l’affaire Epstein, with noted historian Darryl Cooper (Sam Harris’ characterization and not mine). Here Fuck and Darryl begin at the beginning:

In there somewhere Darryl says this is all in the public record and you can find it anywhere, including Wikipedia, so let’s turn to that source. Here is some of what it says about Epstein’s early life:

Jeffrey Edward Epstein was born on January 20, 1953, in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. His parents Pauline "Paula" Stolofsky (1918–2004) and Seymour George Epstein (1916–1991) were Jewish and had married in 1952 shortly before his birth… Jeffrey was the older of two siblings; he and his brother Mark grew up in the working-class neighborhood of Sea Gate, a private gated community in Coney Island, Brooklyn. Epstein was referred to as "Bear" by his parents while Mark was known as "Puggie".

Acquaintances considered Epstein "sweet and generous", although "quiet and nerdy", and nicknamed him "Eppy". "He was just an average boy, very smart in math, slightly overweight, freckles, always smiling", a female friend later said… He graduated in 1969 from Lafayette High School at age 16, having skipped two grades. Later that year, he attended advanced math classes at Cooper Union until he changed colleges in 1971. From September 1971, he attended the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University studying mathematical physiology, but left without receiving a degree in June 1974.

So Cooper starts by leaving out Bear’s ethnicity, which could not be more central to the whole matter. Let’s take a look at the wiki on the community where Jeffery grew up:

In 1960, Sea Gate was 99 percent white, and by the 2010 census, Sea Gate was 83 percent white. The community became majority Jewish by the 1930s; prior to the 1930s, there were signs in the community reading "no dogs or Jews". Many Hasidic Jews and Russians have settled in Sea Gate, along with a small number of middle-class Black families. Tensions around race and class exist between Sea Gate and the rest of Coney Island which has a significantly larger Black and Latino population. Both Sea Gate homeowners association and their public safety department have been frequently accused of racism and have been the subject of multiple federal lawsuits.

So basically the Brooklyn equivalent of a settlement in the West Bank. But Darryl says Bear was just a normal guy born in Coney Island, nothing going on here, let’s move along.

Then he tells a story about getting hired to teach math at this private prep school without any qualification, even though it’s clear from his wiki that he was both gifted in math and highly educated in it. He also leaves out the last three years of Epstein’s education entirely.

Or maybe that’s actually the Hasbara wiki op fabricating a history that doesn’t actually exist? I kinda don’t think so, editing out reality is a lot easier than adding in fantasy, especially when things are footnoted.

So let’s take a look at the spooky Barrs, first Donald:

Donald Barr was born to a Jewish family, but later converted to Catholicism. He sent his children to a Catholic elementary school and his son William would later describe him as "more Catholic than the Catholics."

Barr served in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during World War II. Following the conflict, he returned to Columbia, where he earned an M.A. in English in 1950 and completed some course requirements for a Ph.D. in the discipline while also teaching in the English department. During this period, he also taught "courses with field work in sociology and political science at the School of Engineering" and wrote "science and mathematics texts for elementary and junior high school students."

He was headmaster of the Dalton School from 1964 to 1974 For a brief time, at the end of his tenure as headmaster, disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was employed as a math teacher. It is unclear whether Barr hired Epstein. In 1973, Barr published Space Relations, a science fiction novel about a planet ruled by oligarchs who engage in child sex slavery. It has been noted that the plot of the novel anticipates the crimes of Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

So again the ethnic angle is unmentioned by Cooper, and we can see that Donald knows a thing or two about teaching high school math. But it’s not clear if he actually hired Epstein anyway. Here, returning to Jeff’s wiki:

At age 21, Epstein started working in September 1974 as a physics and mathematics teacher for teens at the Dalton School on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Donald Barr, who served as the headmaster until June 1974, was known to have made several unconventional recruitments at the time, although it is unclear whether he had a direct role in hiring Epstein. Three months after Barr's departure, Epstein began to teach at the school, despite his lack of credentials.

And the notion that a Jew might fantasize about a planet run by oligarchs with sex slaves including a kind of child sacrifice doesn’t exactly shock me. But maybe that’s just me… 😇

Btw, Antony Blinken went to Dalton School, and there are a lotta Jewish names among their alumni listed in the wiki. Remember when Tony arrived in the promised land saying, “I come to Israel as a Dalton alum…”?

Here is what there is to add about Bill and his CIA years:

After moving to Washington, D.C., to work as an intelligence analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Barr entered the evening student program at George Washington University Law School… Barr worked for the CIA from 1971 to 1977 while attending graduate school and law school. He was first hired as a summer intern for two years. During his law school years he was an analyst in the Intelligence Directorate division from 1973 to 1975, and then transitioning to an assistant in the Office of Legislative Counsel and an agency liaison to Congress from 1975 to 1977.

Me, I have a very hard time believing the story Cooper tells about the CIA’s future riding on the performance of this young intern as the one liaison between Langley and this committee contemplating shutting down the agency entirely. No, that smells an awful lot like freshly-dropped bullshit. Just starting with the reality that the committee was never going to recommend shutting down the agency, that simply would never have happened. And think about your picture of the CIA as the heart of the deep state secretly running the government for the last 75 years - do you see them putting their future in the hands of a 25-year-old ex-intern? This is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the Church Committee creation:

Then on December 22, 1974, The New York Times published a lengthy front-page article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh detailing covert activities engaged in by the Central Intelligence Agency under Operation CHAOS to collect information on the political activities of American citizens. The resulting uproar led to the creation of the Church Committee, which was approved by the Senate on January 27, 1975, on a vote of 82 to 4.

I feel compelled to mention that Hersh is Jewish and the NY Times was/is Jewish-owned. This wasn’t that long after the Pentagon Papers, with whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Jewish and formerly employed at CIA front Rand Corp, published by the Times and Washington Post, also Jewish-owned. This was during a period of deep state turmoil in the ‘60s and ‘70s and competition/conflict between its factions; after the Catholic faction was all but eliminated in the ‘60s that was between the WASP Rockefellerist and Jewish/Zionist factions, as I see it, and I see these kinds of events in the ‘70s as part of that conflict.

The Church Committee investigation and hearings took place during 1975 and its final report was issued in April 1976. George HW Bush became CIA director on January 30, 1976, his predecessor Bill Colby a victim of Ford’s Halloween Massacre in late 1975, along with VP Rockefeller and Rockefellerist NSA Kissinger. So Cooper’s claim that Barr was working under Bush during the committee’s activities or that he was even CIA director at that time is simply false. But it makes for a nice story, I guess.

Colby was replaced in part because of the committee hearings, but Bush was assigned in part to prepare for what would happen under a likely Democratic president in 1977, and that included the creation of the Safari Club as a CIA-in-waiting, and Team B (led by elder neocon Richard Pipes) which prepared for the GOP’s return to power that happened in 1981, with Bush then installed as VP and the CIA run by Reagan’s campaign manager, Bill Casey.

Anyway, it’s clear what we can see here with Tucker and Cooper doing this choreographed dance. The story being created is of intelligence behind Epstein, and from beginning to end that including the CIA and not just the Mossad (which will surely also be in Cooper’s tale eventually). We are learning nothing about Jeffrey the young Jew from behind the protective walls in Brooklyn and one assumes the young Zionist.

So this is where I stopped watching - once you kinda know how a three-hour movie is going to end the motivation to watch it all can quickly fade away.

Since I brought Sam Harris into this, because he has trashed people like Rogan and Carlson for treating the liar Cooper like a genuine historian, here are his latest thoughts on Epstein:

What Sam did here was to eliminate conspiracy theory out of the box in a very generic way, one which quite likely is applicable to where Cooper and Tucker were headed in in that previous clip. But that means he doesn't have to deal with the anomalies related to Jeff’s being suicided, he just has to establish why it’s no shock that he’d kill himself, which is easily done and hardly the issue.

Then it’s on to the legit thing, the fact that Trump is hiding something, where the outraged MAGAites are justified in their anger. But the only thing that can be hidden involves Trump himself as a perv, because Blondi/Kash-Only/Bon Jovi wouldn’t lie to protect anyone else. Which leaves out the question of them all lying to protect an entire structure of power, whether that structure lies in Tel Aviv/Jerusalem or in DC/New York.

Maybe Samuel has more in common with Darryl than he thinks… 🤔

Sam goes on to focus on Trump the sex fiend until the episode thankfully hits its paywall, and gets surprising pushback from his business partner Bradystein, who I get the feeling is a conventional Republican so doesn’t want to completely trash a GOP president. Or maybe he just wanted to rile up ol’ Samuel to create some good theater replete with tasty sound bites…

4) All Gaetz Lead Back to Watergate

What all this reminds me of is Watergate, where the mission became isolating the president from the criminality, as testified to by John Dean, and that ended up with even the inner circle of Ehrlichman, Haldeman and Mitchell having to resign, leaving only Tricky Dick twisting in the wind.

What I also wonder about, in a speculative moment, is what this would be looking like if it wasn’t Bondi but rather Matt Gaetz sitting in the AG chair, which was the original plan.

I haven’t heard anyone make the Watergate comparison yet, in part no doubt because no one has been forced to take the fall yet, but I have heard at least the mention of Gaetz:

Me, at the time that the original appointment was first known I was talking about the Trump Triplets, the Good, Bad and Ugly of Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Gaetz and the extent that they were expendable components put forward as pabulum to the hardcore anti-neocon, anti-vaxx and anti-GOP establishment MAGA base. You can put Kash-Only and Bon Jovi in that same category I guess, but perhaps not Bondi, who does seem more like a conventional Trump loyalist. And a hardcore Zionist type as well.

Here the girls try to define the E-files in partisan terms:

What we see here is exactly what one would expect related to this show as based on the Progressive-Libertarian Alliance, the citing of Khanna the progressive Dem and Massie the libertarian as the lead good guys on both sides of the aisle. But we also have the condemning aside by Krystal on the Clintonite Dems, which gets to what I have long said was the core purpose of the creation of Rising at the Hill in the first place, the trashing of the centrist Dems by right/left alters to benefit the Trumpian GOP. That motivation is gone now, post their declaration of (financial) independence, but old habits die hard, I guess.

The flaw here is that the MAGA right was more interested in this because the alternative right is always more interested in this stuff conspiratorially in general. The Dem left’s interest was always more about abuse of young women and minor girls based in feminism and not so much the political intrigue aspect of it all, so more the mainstream story as told in things like that Netflix doc. And of course the left is more Jew-phobic than the right, and that was always an aspect of this story.

5) It’s the Israelis, stupid… unless it’s the CIA

The defining of the Epstein issues by Krystal and Emily is the same: pedophilia and “foreign policy” which really means Israel and so the Mossad as the mysterious intelligence behind Epstein. What it doesn’t mean is “da Jooz” as the American deep state, the thin blue line that remains uncrossed nearly two years after 10/7 and over three years after the breakout of open hot war in Ukraine, the “latest neocon disaster” according to Jeffrey Sachs as of three years ago.

My view is that the Epstein op was always more carrot than stick, more show than go, and much more legal than illegal. I know that’s not a popular view on the internet, but there you have it. And that does NOT mean it wasn’t an influencing operation, but it’s also not the master key to reveal all political puzzles in this century. Especially in an era when no one can say the word “Jew” and mean it.

Kim Iversen has weighed in, of course, and follows the same general pattern, boosting Tucker the Truther in the process:

There Kim plays the mandatory enlightened youth card they all seem to do in this influencer world, this time related to religiosity and regarding dispensationalism in particular. As someone who apparently won’t talk about the Scofield reference bible. What she doesn’t bring up is that recent poll that showed 94% of Trumptards supporting his maybe-surprise attack on Iran, one assumes because that kinda moves the split line in the MAGA GOP over Israel pretty far to one side.

But the centerpiece of this is the same bit by Larry Wilkerson that Sabby Sabs used at one point, which I included in a clip in an earlier piece. Treating it as if the Israelis had literally taken over the Pentagon, with Don Rumsfeld having to move out of his office to make way for some senior Mossad guy. Was he out on the lawn helping to carry stretchers on 9/11 because the Mossad was painting his office walls blue for this new occupant? Or was he really out there because his deputy Paul Wolfowitz had taken over in the command center? 🤔

Wilkerson created this problem because he wasn’t willing to make clear what he was really referring to, which is that Zionist neocon Jews had taken over the Defense Department under Bush/Cheney, led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, and were effectively running things, and that included a very cozy relationship with the co-ethnic Mossad and IDF. And people like Kim and Sabby have just run with that, using it as evidence that the US has an Israel problem but not a Jewish problem.

Larry was back on Sabby this week, and he’s doubling down on his narrative like never before, here starting with JFK:

That is absolutely asinine on Larry’s part. Do you actually believe that Israel is killing hundreds of thousands of unarmed Gazan civilians because people like John Ratcliffe and Bill Burns and Gina Haspel, the last three directors of central intelligence, want them dead no matter what Israel wants? That is ridiculous, simply ridiculous.

I played that first part because he said even Gnome Chomsky bought into the Warren Commission line on JFK, and you can add the 9'/11 commission as well (“who cares?”). But it’s Chomsky who so prominently has been selling the “it’s not Israel, it’s the USA, stupid!” line for decades, the “liberal Zionist” Jew who did his kibbutz time there in the 1950s. Really quite ironic that Larry flips 180 degrees on ol’ Gnome and his bullshit.

Larry makes up for this BS a bit later on when the conversation turns to George HW Bush:

In fact I have been talking and writing about this very thing for years, the importance of the 1992 Clinton election defeat of Bush, the long odds of that happening after the quick-and-clean first Gulf War boosted his approval rating to 90%, the Jewish dissatisfaction with Bush (the last WASP Rockefellerist CFR president) that resulted in the flood of Wall Street and Hollywood money backing Clinton, and the subsequent Clinton Sellout. I don’t know that I have heard about the Oslo process thing Larry mentioned (my understanding has been that all that took place under Clinton) or the Perot thing, but I know about the withheld loan guarantees over new settlements and the neocon disgust over not going to Baghdad to regime-change Saddam. I’ve used this image in an article before, the 1998 story about Bush blaming Greenspan for tanking his economy going into the election, the Jewish source of “it’s the economy, stupid!”:

And I have no idea how many times have I included this bit from Rahm Emanuel’s wiki:

At the start of then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's presidential primary campaign, Emanuel was appointed to direct the campaign's finance committee. Emanuel insisted that Clinton schedule time for fund-raising and delay campaigning in New Hampshire. Clinton embarked on an aggressive national fund-raising campaign that allowed the campaign to keep buying television time as attacks on Clinton's character threatened to swamp the campaign during the New Hampshire primary… Emanuel's knowledge of the top donors in the country, and his rapport with "heavily Jewish" donors helped Clinton amass a then-unheard-of sum of $72 million. While working on the Clinton campaign, Emanuel was paid a retainer by the investment bank Goldman Sachs.

And then came Madeleine Albright and Dick Morris and Robert Rubin and more Alan Greenspan and Sandy Berger and…

The problem Larry describes there with inexperienced presidents was at its peak during the most stable period in presidencies we’ve had since FDR-Truman-Eisenhower, the period of Clinton-Bush-Obama, when the total experience in DC of those three going in was the four years in the senate by Obama. So instead foreign policy was driven by people like Albright, Berger and Cohen, Cheney and his army of neocons, and Killary, Kerry and Nuland (and her hubby Robert Kagan). Then we got the most inexperienced president of all, Trump, over the very experienced Killary. And then came Biden, the most experienced of all, perhaps too experienced, which has multiple meanings. And now we’re back to Mr. Dumb, even older than Biden was at this point in his one term.

But Reagan was a neophyte as well, what one gets with governors (remember Jimmy Carter?). The difference with Reagan-Bush in my opinion was Bush; I feel like the best foreign policy team we’ve had in my adult lifetime might have been Bush Sr and James Baker as his Secretary of State. They managed the collapse of communism very well on balance, and shut down Iraq before it went way too far. And Baker’s “not one inch” promise wasn’t broken by Baker and Bush, that came later...

When he mentions “powerful women” behind them, he’s surely talking about the three women with direct or indirect connections to Josef Korbel - Albright (his daughter), Killary (his daughter’s protege) and Condi Rice (his protege).

The big problem with what Larry is saying is obvious - the road we’re on and have been since 1992 is due to inexperienced presidents, and not to the rise to supremacy of the Jewish cabal within the deep state. He goes back 30 years, just like Jeffrey Sachs goes back 30 years, and originally slippery Jeff based that on neoconservatism, which is absolutely the right answer.

Time to up you game, Larry, your gray stubble is showing.

6) Epilogue: The Roots of Today’s Right

Bringing the alt-right/Qanon side of MAGA as neo-Bircherism and the libertarian side of Trump oppositionalism based on Jeffreygate together, this week I started on two books, or rather one book and a tract, an extended essay. The book is Matthew Dallek’s Birchers - How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right, published in 2023, and the extended essay is the 2019 reissue of Russell Kirk’s Concise Guide to Conservatism. Both of these have the same fundamental subject, the American right since WWII reflected in its current sad state of being Trumpist.

My desire was to find something similar on libertarianism, but everything I saw wasn’t quite right, either too much of a promotional piece of propaganda or going back to 19th century libertarianism and something not focused on a critique of contemporary American right-wing libertarianism. In other words, something paralleling Bircherism. But I haven’t given up.

I’ll start with Kirk, from the introduction written by Wilfred McClay (who is on the faculty of Hillsdale College, which might say something):

It’s interesting what he describes as the poles of conservatism and how he defines them: Libertarians, who he says “embrace the creative destruction of unregulated capitalism”, when what they want more than anything is unregulated capitalism, and traditionalists who look back to Christian kings, so one assumes mostly conservative Catholics/tradCats (paleoCats?). One assumes he is defining libertarians as progressives, and that perhaps by an incomplete interpretation of their civil libertarianism, focusing on the commonalities they have with the left and not the individual freedoms that cut the opposite way (ie, the right not to employ or to serve black people, for example). But anti-interventionism might play a role as well.

The Kirk non-ideological answer to the conservative question casts shade on both Bircherism and libertarianism, which are both absolutely ideological. And in some sense both want to go back to the 19th century, the libertarians to the age of classical liberalism and the Birchers to the free-wheeling anti-egalitarian time of robber barons and the post-reconstruction Jim Crow south. Neo-Birchers, they are something different, a group which might be described as regressively progressive, and one of the best examples of a neo-Bircher is James Corbett, who is also an extreme anarcho-libertarian. There’s that nasty link yet again.

Here is part of the beginning of the intro to Birchers, also on what a conservative is in the age of Trump:

Like McClay, Dallek specifically mentions libertarians and Christians as the fringe, but it’s fundamentalist Protestants and not retrograde Catholics. What he emphasizes is the placement of the Goldwasser/Reagan right as more aligned with moderate conservatives than the Bircher extremists, which is absolutely a core question.

When he describes the divide between these two groups he goes to racism, isolationism and conspiracy theory. Racism is always the go-to on the left, and perhaps this is a good time to mention that Dallek is Jewish. Isolationism is more than anything a characteristic of populism, on both sides of the aisle. And then there’s conspiracy theory, which was very much the heart of the matter with the JBS, is even more the heart of the matter with neo-Birchers, and today has exploded in the alternative media on the internet, right and left.

At the end he says Goldwasser told conservatives to grow up and take over the party; I don’t know about growing up, there’s little evidence of that, but Trump’s MAGA has certainly managed to take over the party. What we have to remember about the GOP in Barry’s day was that it had an established liberal wing, largely based in the northeast, but that was effectively traded for the white south as part of the southern strategy 50-60 years ago.

MEN56’s blog

Discussion about this post