Editing 25: The Construct: Jeffrey Epstein

<p><em>00:00:28</em><br>What I see when watching this video of the episode in question is a frightened 53-year-old man in an unscripted-and perhaps occasionally rambling-hour of discussion of Jeffrey Epstein. He doesn’t exactly know how to say what he has got [sic] to get across, but perhaps that is because he isn’t simply a middle-aged man at all. When I look closer, I see a terrified 10- or 11-year-old boy who, many years ago, was sent to a therapist. Why was that child so terrified of going to see a therapist, you may ask? Well, because of inappropriate events set in motion by the therapist’s behavior at the first of their two meetings. That, however, was not what caused the lasting terror. Despite the therapist being a trained and established authority figure and the boy being a minor, it was possible for the boy to simply and firmly say, “No. I do not want that. You must stop.” Thus, the boy is not a survivor. He was not a victim, and he did not want a random broken person to be integrated into his life story.

What was terrifying instead was that when I explained that I did not ever wish to go back to that accursed office, I was forced against my will-and with a good amount of screaming and terror I might add-to go again for a second meeting. At that second meeting, I was intimidated by the failed and inappropriate therapist who was obviously himself terrified. Being forced back into such a dark office alone as a boy, to be berated, threatened, and shamed by an out-of-control representative of the world of institutional authority, alerted me to just how badly outgunned the individual is when confronted by the terrifying reality of institutional actors attempting to silence a lone voice. Why would no one listen to the boy when he told them what had happened? Why wouldn’t any one adult, powerful and credentialed, speak up for that child and his right to be free of the supposed therapy and therapist? Could no one see the terror in the child’s eyes? Why, simply because two sessions had been booked, did he need to continue with this random therapist who was clearly a damaged soul and one who needed real therapy much more than the boy? </p>

<p><em>00:02:29</em><br>This episode is ultimately about the world of institutions: the institutions of journalism that will regularly destroy individuals by reputation, but who [sic] will generally not ask comparable questions of other institutions. The institutions of the intelligence world, which owe us information as to what is known about Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell,  and their operation. The institutions of government that will not hold hearings into out-of-control intelligence activities as we did in the 1970s. And the institutions of technology, which track our every move and know all our secrets, yet cannot locate a single individual (like Jeffrey Epstein’s accomplice,) who completely improbably seems to have vanished from the face of the earth as of March, 2020. </p>

<p><em>00:03:49</em><br>Why can we not talk openly about the risks to the individuals from the expert and authority classes when there is a conflict between them? </p>

<p><em>00:04:32</em><br>Well, I have an answer for that boy. One day you will become a man and you will fear loss in the battle between the flawed and vulnerable individual that all adults eventually become, and the amoral institutional world who continues to hold most of the best cards. You will learn the story of Jean Seberg, and that alone will change your life. You will not know to whom you can turn. You will come to believe that there is no news media, nor justice system, nor social movement, nor representative government that truly cares about protecting minors. In real terms, when institutional power, money, secrecy, and sex are all woven together, you will become part of the problem by remaining silent for a while to cope with your fears. That is, unless you are able to overcome them [in order] to clear your throat and finally say, ‘You know what? I refuse to continue to be part of the charade in this way anymore.’

<p><em>00:05:31</em><br>I’m not really here for myself, and I’ve been avoiding this. And perhaps at least directly, I’m not even mostly here for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his organization. I am, at last, really here selfishly, for a young boy, long gone, why-abandoned!-to prove to him that it was actually possible at personal risk to stand up for children and against the system. These young girls are no less deserving, of course, but I don’t know any of them personally, so I will stick to the issue that animates me: the individual standing against the institutions who would crush him or her. </p>

<p><em>00:06:00</em><br>So, to that long-dead, and previously abandoned former self, let me just say this: “Sorry I’m a little late, kid. I, uh, became afraid that the imperfections of what I’m about to say next could derange my adult life and make me vulnerable to those who will destroy anything and anyone who threatens them using everything at their disposal. I apologize for my cowardice. It is one of many character flaws that I am working to correct, but you as a boy did nothing wrong and it will be a pleasure to stand up for you, come what may. You’re a solid kid who didn’t deserve this, and I think you deserve a better champion, but Jesus wasn’t available, so you got me instead. Let’s do this thing.”

<p><em>00:11:31</em><br>This brings us to the two trading fortunes in New York City that, during the first decade of the new millennium, made no sense to me. And those were Bernie Madoff, then referred to as the “Jewish T-Bill”, and Jeffrey Epstein. In the case of Madoff, I made a wrong guess. I believed that Bernie Madoff was frontrunning a traditional business that he held using actual orders that he knew were being placed, and in his hedge fund [he] was effectively cheating-based on the inside information he had from a *italics*legitimate*italicsbusiness, in an *italics*illegitimate*italics* business. I goofed, and I was wrong. In fact, he was operating a pyramid scheme. It didn’t occur to me. </p>

<p><em>00:23:16</em><br>Would an intelligence community ever contemplate using organized crime, such as La Cosa Nostra, in order to carry out an act that it didn’t want to do itself? ***This is what we found the comedian Dick Gregory was considered being subjected to when we found out that the FBI was thinking about having La Cosa Nostra be informed that he had been talking about union activities and labor racketeering.*** So, yes, it is quite possible that the intelligence commnity would use organized crime; this is also a proven fact.

<p><em>00:24:45</em><br>Is there any attempt to gain control of innocent influencers? That is, are there any circumstances in which people simply have the crime of being influential used against them? In fact, you can look for Section A of the Reserve Index, people to be rounded up in times of national emergency inside the United States. This might include professors, labor organizers, professionals, authors, the independently wealthy. In other words, there is very much an interest in keeping track of people who’ve done nothing wrong, but [who], in times of national emergency, [one] might want to [ensure] are [not] capable of influencing the population. </p>

<p><em>00:53:16</em><br>It is by the ability to work over all branches of the decision tree that I’ve gained confidence-first, that I started talking about this ages ago, and anybody [with whom] I’ve discussed Jeffrey Epstein will remember me using the word "construct" even before he was arrested and jailed for solicitation/prostitution of minors. So I’ve been at this for 15 years, not knowing it was going to end like this. I think many of us have tweeted out that if he was, in fact, attached to the intelligence community, he was going to have to die, because otherwise these secrets would get out. And, am I scared that I’m thinking about releasing this to the general public? Yes, but I’m also scared about **italics**not**italics** releasing this to the general public. </p>