Understanding the Epstein Files

In this first part of this series, we discuss Epstein's, ethnic, financial and political network, and how he linked his contacts with business opportunities and political agendas.

The media coverage of the Epstein files has been lurid and yet hollow. The key takeaway is not which celebrities visited his island or travelled on his plane – we already know that modern artists, politicians, and tastemakers are depraved. Nor is it which political figure was in contact with him – they all were, from all sides. The key takeaway is this: Jeffery Epstein served as a trusted middleman between different ethnic financial networks, providing introductions and implicit guarantees of trust that facilitated political exchanges and business transactions. And the trust was predicated on shared depravity.

The nature of elite networks

When we say ethnic network, we use the word judiciously. Epstein, most of his inner circle, and many of his interlocuters were Jewish. He told Peter Theil that he represented the Rothschild banking dynasty – even implying that it is common knowledge – and sought Theil advice on modernising their banking operation. It is not clear why the Rothschilds would need Epstein to reach out to Theil. Epstein clearly had a close relationship with Ariane de Rothschild, the CEO of Edmond de Rothschild banking group. But he was interfacing with Indian oligarchs, Arab oligarchs and royals, Chinese oligarchs and businessmen, Russians, Kazakhs, and other gentiles. These other networks have their own hierarchy and their own nexuses, and their own internal rivalries. In a globalised financial world, these networks need points of intersection that are trusted, that can make introductions and establish a modicum of confidence between rival oligarchic ethnic groups. This was Epstein’s role. He was a key player in a mostly Jewish network. Epstein’s first priority was his Jewish identity, inextricably linked to Israel. Throughout, Epstein expressed his pride in his identity, his disdain for non-Jews, and his safeguarding of Israeli interests. We would expect an Indian network to be proud of its Indianness and to prioritise Indian interests. We would not assume that it represents all Indians, any more than we would assume that Epstein represents all Jews.

We will not, in this piece, go into the details of Epstein’s depravity, nor will we speculate about this. There are many emails suggesting relations with underage children, murder, drugs, and all manner of degeneracy. We will say the following: transgressive depravity was necessary. The rich and famous have access to all the pleasures that a normal man or woman would want. It is in our nature that, as more and more of our appetite for vice is satisfied, we become dulled to mundane pleasures. Only more extreme and more transgressive experiences can satisfy us. Indeed, the monastic, ascetic is intended to inverse that, so that the mildest pleasures, like merely eating bread with butter, become satisfactory. For those whose wealth has given them access to the finest in food, drink, and creature comforts, however, only the most extreme sensations will do. Transgression and depravity are the only way for them to feel ecstatic. (For this humble scribe, who is far from living a monastic life, a half-decent whiskey and cigar would generate ecstatic pleasure. For a holy monk, these would be extreme excesses. For the rich and famous, these would clearly not suffice).

In this world, transgressive depravity is currency. It establishes one’s credentials as part of the elites, and it builds trust, in two ways. First, it places one in a club that, if its actions were discovered by us plebians, torches, pitchforks, and heads on spikes would rightly follow. Therefore, shared depravity bounds the participants to a code of silence. Second, the depravity also binds them in trust: these oligarchs cannot simply go to court, given what might be revealed in a public trial. They therefore need a conflict resolution mechanism, ideally, to resolve conflicts before they even arise. Globalisation can only work if national oligarchs from different networks trust each other, get along, and keep their disagreements private. Between these oligarchs, is no shared creed, culture, or faith to bind them, and their competition for wealth is fierce. Only shared depravity, enjoyed in secrecy, can tie them together.

Again, nothing about Epstein makes him a representative of all Jews, nor is it our intent to claim that. Conversely, it is impossible to discuss Epstein without taking into account that he was Jewish, indeed, a Jewish supremacist, and that this led him to build relations with Jewish billionaires in Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, and elsewhere. His Jewish identity informed his business interests deeply – Epstein regularly mocks those who engage in the real economy, making it clear that he is only interested in the financial economy.

One of Epstein’s most important connections seems to have been General Ehud Barak, the former Prime Minister and Chief of Staff of Israel. In his dealings with Qatar, as we discuss below, he prioritised pushing Israel’s interests. And it is evident from other reporting that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman sought Epstein in order to build connections with the USA - he believed that linking up with Jewish billionaires and other oligarchs would improve his standing in the USA, and facilitate his ascension to power. Indian billionaire Anil Ambani sought Epstein out for the same reason. Our view, therefore, is summarised thus: Epstein was the nexus of a mostly, but not exclusively, Jewish oligarchic network, and interfaced on its behalf with other networks. Epstein’s network had and still massive influence over the West, as we will explain in a future piece. It obviously does not represent all or even most Jews: the vast majority of Jews are not billionaires or multi-millionaires. In the same way that Indian or Chinese billionaires who engaged with Epstein do not represent all Indians or Chinese.

So, having established that this network was largely ethnic, and how depravity binds these ethnic networks, we will now discuss how the networks work, given the fierce national competition between the governments of their members, using some specific examples.

Qatar

In 2017, American President Donald Trump made his first international visit. It was to Saudi Arabia, where he loudly and clearly condemned Islamic radicalism in a speech backed by his top strategist at the time, Steve Bannon. In it, Trump fiercely condemned political Islam and radical Islam. This was intended as a reversal of the Obama policy: Obama had, in 2009, spoken in Cairo to support democratisation in the Muslim world, which effectively meant the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

America’s top allies – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE – sought to demonstrate their loyalty to the new American order – they had strongly objected to Obama’s reckless and destabilising policies. These countries correctly identified Qatar as a key supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother organisation from which Hamas, al-Qaeda, and Islamic State had sprung forth. The Muslim Brotherhood had gone as far as to shutter its domestic Qatari operation in the late 1990s, as it believed that it wanted nothing more from Qatar domestically. It only kept its international arm, which operated in partnership with Qatar to instigate a global Islamic political, cultural, and military awakening. Therefore, the Saudis, Emiratis and Egyptians imposed a blockade on Qatar and sought to change the Qatari regime, by force if necessary.

In the midst of this furore, the Qataris, through the grandson of former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jaber Al Thani, a young man by the name of Jaber (also spelled Jabor) bin Youssef bin Hamad bin Jaber Al Thani, reached out to Jeffery Epstein. Epstein gave Jabor advice on how Qatar should handle the crisis, prioritising building bridges with Israel – remember that Epstein is an American Jew, but his political priority was Israel. Notably, Qatar at that time was half-secretly working with Israel to finance Hamas in Gaza, as part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bid to keep Gaza and the West Bank separated to head off pressure for an independent Palestinian state.

The American establishment – the State Department and the Pentagon – opposed any Saudi or Emirati takeover of Qatar, for reasons which remain incomprehensible if one accepts the War on Terror narrative. If one discards narratives and focusses on reality, the Americans encouraged Qatar to be a base for Islamic radicals. This permitted control and monitoring of radicals, and permitted the Americans to dialogue with them as needed. The Americans used them against America’s enemies – as was seen in the war in Syria, which eventually successfully cut-off Hezbollah from Iran, severing Hezbollah’s supply lines and neutralising the largest threat on Israel’s borders. Most famously, the Americans had used the same radicals against the Soviet Union, first to shore up Arab regimes and keep them from growing too close to the Russians, and second as a battering ram against the USSR in Afghanistan.

As Pentagon and State Department opposition made it evident that the Trump administration would fail in neutralising Qatar – because key decision makers like Trump and Bannon did not understand the workings of the crafty American establishment – Jeffery Epstein stepped in again. He introduced Jabor bin Youssef bin Hamad to Steve Bannon, who had helped push Trump’s agenda against the Muslim Brotherhood! In essence, Epstein facilitated a reconciliation between the anti-Islam wing of the Trump administration and the Muslim Brotherhood’s top sponsor. A humbled Bannon could understand his enemies better, and a victorious Qatar could retain its influence, which it had often used in support of Israel’s agenda. Only Epstein could provide a service like this behind closed doors.

Epstein also introduced Jabor to former Israeli Prime Minister and Chief of Staff Ehud Barak, one of the most influential figures within Israel’s security establishment who acts as a nexus between the Israeli political and security spheres. Through Epstein’s good offices, the Israelis – represented by Ehud Barak – and the Qataris – represented by Jabor bin Youssef and his grandfather, Hamad bin Jassem, entered into a second, back-channel dialogue, reaching centres of power in Israel behind the back of Netanyahu. Again, doing this is impossible for anyone without the right connections. And that was Epstein’s value: his network, operating in secret, bound together by depravity.

Things between Qatar and Epstein went so deep that, when the Qataris wanted to invest in the Congo, Britain’s Jewish politician Peter Mandelson put Jeffery Epstein in touch with Congolese officials, to help facilitate Qatari investment in the country. This makes Netanyahu’s decision to bomb Qatar more enlightening: Netanyahu showed that he would upend the existing order and challenge other networks, and challenge American interests that act in support of Israel, just to retain his own power in Israel and force other networks into further escalation. This demonstrates that we are not describing a single collaborative network representing all Jews. Rather, it demonstrates that elites, including Jewish elites, cooperate and compete on a level that is hidden from the rest of us. Epstein’s role is to act as a bridge between different networks to help them manage this competition.

Putin

Similarly, when Vladimir Putin was trying to put Russia on the financial map through the St Petersburg Economic Forum, he reached out to Jeffery Epstein, presumably through his own oligarchs. Epstein told Ehud Barak that he had turned Putin down, demanding more private time and a deeper discussion, rather than a quick meeting on the sidelines of the St Petersburg Economic Forum. Essentially, Epstein demanded from Putin recognition that he is at the head of a nexus, and that, if Putin wanted the Epstein network to collaborate with Putin’s network of oligarchs, then Putin had to treat him with respect, as an equal. Putin needed Epstein to facilitate introductions so that Russian non-Jewish oligarchs could collaborate with global counterparts. However, given Russia’s relations with the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and others, he was not dependent on him. Moreover, Putin’s interest was always in real production, not finance, and Epstein repeatedly says in his emails and texts that, as a Jew, he is only interested in the financial economy, but assists others who invest in the real economy (his words, not ours). Contrary to media reporting, there is absolutely no evidence that Epstein worked for the Russians. There is, however, some evidence that he worked to support Russian dissidents opposed to Putin. Indeed, one of Epstein’s contacts reports to him, citing Kremlin sources, that the Russians were very concerned about escalation in Ukraine in early 2014 - by implication stating that the Russians did not want this escalation.

To be continued. The Epstein files are so extensive, and the political connections so varied, that we must apologise to our readers, stop here, and leave the rest for another day. If there are specific questions you want us to look into, please do let us know.