360 Prologue: Donald “OBrien” Trump’s America as National Epistemological Collapse: How a Lie Becomes the Truth 2015-2025 Final Version

Prelude to Collapse

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.” — O’Brien, 1984

We live in a time where 2 + 2 = 5 is no longer metaphor—it’s operating code. The lie doesn’t just become truth. It becomes consensus. And the collapse isn’t just political—it’s epistemological.

Jason Stanley calls it Erasing History. Chuck Todd calls it Clinton Fatigue. But what we’re living through is something deeper: A national epistemological collapse, where emotional allegiance replaces logic, and symbolic blame becomes the scaffolding of belief.

In this landscape, Hillary Clinton is no longer a politician—she’s a cipher. A gravitational villain invoked to explain everything from surveillance to sabotage, regardless of timeline or institutional logic. She is the O’Brien of the Trumpian operating system: not a person, but a symbol of betrayal, corruption, and elite rot.

This is the fog in which Donald “O’Brien” Trump thrives. And this is the fog we’re about to dissect.

Section One: This Is a Book That Took Eight Years to Write

This book has been a long time in coming. I began it—believe it or not—in November of 2017. That was one of only two momentous personal decisions I made that year. The other was to run for Congress in New York’s 2nd Congressional District.

Section Two: The Other Decision Was to Run for Congress in NY-2

Race for 2nd C.D. seat heats up | Herald Community Newspapers | liherald.com

That’s me on the left.

Seated next to me in the middle is DuWayne Gregory, then Presiding Officer of the Suffolk County Legislature. Gregory had previously run for the 2016 CD2 nomination, losing by 25 points to long-time Republican Congressman Peter King—who had presided over the district since 1992. Yet Gregory remained the favored candidate of Suffolk’s Democratic establishment—specifically, of Rich Schaffer.

Section Three: Rich Schaffer—The Other Reason Democrats Don’t Control NY

In 2018, Rich Schaffer was widely criticized for holding onto two hats: Suffolk Democratic Party Chairman and Babylon Supervisor. Many agreed with The other reason the Dems don’t control New York – City & State New York that Rich was a major reason Democrats failed to control New York.

There’s a strong argument that Schaffer is why Democrats never reclaimed Peter King’s seat during his 28-year tenure. And in 2022, it was Schaffer and Nassau County Democratic Chairman Jay Jacobs who together cost Democrats control of Congress nationally.

Opinion: It’s past time for a change in Democratic Party leadership This excellent piece was written by Shoshana Hershkowitz, former leader of Suffolk Progressives. I say former because the group, alas, went defunct.

Section Four: A Most Fascinating and Telling Correlation

Two things are undeniable:

• Rich Schaffer is a master political survivor.
• The Suffolk and Nassau Democratic parties have been an abject failure.

These facts are not unrelated. Correlation may not prove causation, but it’s a hell of a hint.

CODA: Is the Party Over—or Did It Never Start?

William Ferraro aptly declared the party is over. But the question begs: when did it ever start? During Rich Schaffer’s era, Democrats failed to win back Peter King’s seat for 32 years. And here in 2025, they still haven’t.

You can’t necessarily call Rich a failure. But there’s scant evidence he ever cared about winning it back—and more than a little reason to wonder if he didn’t want to. Because what matters to Rich isn’t the party’s power—it’s his power within the party. What matters is being kingmaker.

And that’s why, in 2018, Rich Schaffer was not a happy man.

CODA: The Charm and Ruthlessness of Rich

I take the liberty of calling him by his first name. I’ve met him a few times, and he’s as charming as you’d expect—when it suits him. But he can be just as ruthless.

Take what he said about his boyhood friend Steve Bellone in 2020, when Bellone was running for County Executive. Rich told Newsday that he’d known Steve since he was six years old—which is why he was certain Steve lacked the skills and character to lead.

That wasn’t just a non-endorsement. It was a scalpel.

Section: In Rich Schaffer’s Democratic Party, Losers Need Apply

Rich Schaffer has a knack—not for picking winners, but for recycling losers. In 2018, he backed DuWayne Gregory again, despite Gregory’s 25-point loss to Peter King in 2016. Then in 2020, when King finally stepped down, Schaffer’s chosen candidate Jackie Gordon lost to Andrew Garbarino—a candidate so empty-suited he could’ve been a mannequin. Schaffer’s solution? Run Gordon again in 2022. She lost by even more.

A cynical observer might ask: is being a bad candidate a bug in Schaffer’s system—or a feature?

Section: 2018—A Time of Unprecedented Aggravation for Rich Schaffer

Trump’s 2016 victory scrambled the landscape. Suddenly, first-time candidates were stepping forward, energized by resistance and urgency. Schaffer, who usually handpicked his “Lucky Loser” from the party’s backroom hat, was forced to tolerate something he despised: an open primary.

He couldn’t ignore the moment. He had to at least pretend to care. And so, for the first time in recent memory, the Democratic Party of CD2 held a real primary. It wasn’t Schaffer’s idea—it was history’s.

Section: November 2017—Two Decisions That Changed Everything

That month, I did two things I’d never done before. I started writing this book. And I launched a campaign for Congress in NY’s 2nd District.

Section: My 24-Year-Old Campaign Manager Gave Me Two Pieces of Advice

One was excellent. One was terrible. I took the terrible one.

The good advice? Write sequels to this book. I didn’t listen—and I’d soon regret it. By February 2018, I had 400 pages and had barely scratched the surface. Within a year, I had thousands. The writing came fast. The editing? A bear.

At one point, I had five versions on Pressbooks totaling nearly 10,000 pages. That’s more than The Bible. I considered trimming it to a lean 2,400-page version. But the real problem wasn’t length—it was scope. I was trying to do three things:

1. Document the theft of the 2016 election—via Putin’s Russia and Comey’s FBI.
2. Trace the Republican Party’s history of electoral sabotage—from Nixon to Reagan-Bush.
3. Keep the book up to date.

That last one nearly killed the project.

Section: What Saved Me—Turns Out, The Singularity Is Here

Trump’s scandals never stopped. Every day brought a new authoritarian low. Especially in Trump 2.0: The Absolute Immunity Years. My desire to keep the book current became the kiss of death for finishing it.

What finally saved me? The Singularity. Turns out it’s here. And I figured that out just a few months ago.

Section: The Bad Advice I Took—Dropping Out and Endorsing Gregory

Against my better judgment, I dropped out of the race in February 2018 and endorsed DuWayne Gregory. That was the terrible advice. And it was a mistake.

Section: Lesson Learned—The Suffolk Democratic Party Establishment Is Not My Friend

I took that advice because I believed we were all on the same team—me, the #Resistance Democrats, and the Suffolk Democratic Party. That was a flawed premise. And it led to a flawed decision.

Section: How to Become a Player in the 2018 Primary—Step One: Spend $5,000 on a Poll

Back then, I had a little money. Not as much as I thought—but enough to spend over $5,000 on a poll. I needed to make a splash. So I asked voters about policy ideas—like impeaching Trump, Universal Basic Income, a Job Guarantee, and an expanded EITC.

Then I asked: Would you vote for Mike Sax? Who was Mike Sax? No one knew. But after linking my name to those policies, they did.

I even polled myself against Peter King—before and after revealing my platform. The results? The name “Mike Sax” became recognizable in the district. Expensive, yes. But effective.

If I run again in 2026, I’ll bring back those policies—and add expanded unemployment benefits like we had during COVID.

Section: I Meet DuWayne Gregory and Liuba Grechen Shirley—Thanks to the Poll

It was at the Bay Shore Library, a Saturday event gathering 2018 candidates. Because of the poll, both Gregory and Shirley were willing to talk. Gregory was the establishment pick. Shirley was a first-time candidate like me—but with serious fundraising muscle.

Rich Schaffer didn’t want that primary to happen. But it did. And I was in the room.

Section: DuWayne Gregory Was Not a Compelling Candidate—But He Was Good at Political Espionage

He conned me, plain and simple. In retrospect, Gregory played a deft shell game—pretending he wasn’t all that interested in running again. He wouldn’t rule it out, but he wasn’t leaning in either. Officially, he hadn’t declared. Unofficially, he was already maneuvering.

Section: The 2018 NY-2 Democratic Primary Began With Me in the Race—and Gregory Not in It

I don’t recall the exact date I declared—probably summer 2017. But Gregory, the Presiding Officer and Schaffer’s preferred candidate, didn’t enter until January 2018—just before the first debate.

CODA:

This may well have been the first open Democratic primary in CD2 anyone could remember—and possibly the first primary debate ever.

Section: While Gregory Was Pretending Not to Run, Liuba Grechen Shirley Helpfully Suggested I Shouldn’t Either

The day my announcement ran in Newsday, Liuba’s camp made their move. Her campaign was a fundraising juggernaut—highly organized, well-oiled, and impossible to compete with. She didn’t deliver the message herself. Instead, a candidate from NY-1—a scientist—approached me with the suggestion that I reconsider.

She was thoughtful, but academic. She dismissed concern about Trump as “pedestrian,” insisting her motivation was purely about informing the public with facts and scientific truth. I respected her intellect, but I wasn’t ready to fold.

As Steve, Al Bundy’s neighbor, once said: “When challenge challenges me, I challenge challenge.”

CODA: Regarding this scientist candidate I found her interesting: she was thoughtful, but academic. She dismissed concern about Trump as “pedestrian,” insisting her motivation was purely about informing the public with facts and scientific truth. It was high-minded, if naive—if not outright quixotic—in the Orwellian cum Trumpian era, where facts are not verified but performed, and emotional allegiance trumps empirical coherence.

Sidebar: The Limits of High-Minded Truth in an Orwellian Age

She meant well. Her insistence on “informing the public with facts and scientific truth” was thoughtful, even noble. But it was also high-minded to the point of naïveté—if not outright quixotic—in an era where truth is not verified but performed, and where emotional allegiance routinely overrides empirical coherence.

In the Trumpian operating system, facts don’t win arguments—symbols do. And in this landscape, the scientist’s elevated framing—however principled—was epistemologically mismatched. It wasn’t just out of touch. It was structurally ill-equipped to confront a political moment where 2 + 2 = 5 is not a mistake, but a mandate.

Section: November 2017—I Get a Campaign Manager. It Would Prove a Double-Edged Sword.

My 24-year-old campaign manager was a good guy. He gave me one excellent piece of advice—write sequels. And one terrible piece—drop out and endorse DuWayne Gregory. I took the terrible one.

He had connections. He was on a first-name basis with Schaffer. But I didn’t yet understand: I was never going to be Rich’s guy.

Section: Everyone in the CD2 Democratic Establishment Hated Liuba

Rich and his circle despised her—especially after she publicly challenged him in mid-2017 over his conflicts of interest. She was right, of course. But at the time, I thought I could position myself as the alternative. Gregory was Rich’s ideal choice. But maybe I was the fallback—at least I wasn’t Liuba.

We butted heads. And I’ll be honest—it was at her instigation. She tried to shock and awe me out of the race. She even enlisted others to speak out against me.

Section: I’ll Go to the Grave Believing Liuba Got Claude Taylor to Flag My Facebook Page

After that, I couldn’t run political ads. Facebook disabled my account. Liuba—or Claude—would never admit it. But the timing was too perfect.

Her team had clearly spoken to Claude. I noticed he stopped amplifying my tweets. When I asked, he denied it—then did a few RTs. But the following Sunday, he admitted he thought Liuba had a better shot. I argued: why not amplify both during the primary, then support the winner in the general?

The conversation soured. We ended up the opposite of friends. Soon after, I tried to run a few more Facebook ads—and got the message: account disabled.

So yeah, Liuba wasn’t my favorite person. And if the party poobahs hated her, I figured I was their guy. I hated her too.

Section: Thanks to My Campaign Manager, I Got a Meeting in Rich’s Babylon Office

Chris North—who’s given me permission to use his name—helped me get in the room. I’d already met Luis Montes, the deputy party chair, just by walking into his office. But Chris got me a sit-down with Karen DeGette—Rich’s right hand at the time.

She was impressed by my economic policy proposals:

• Universal Basic Income
• Job Guarantee
• Expanded and increased EITC
• And today, I’d add permanent expanded unemployment benefits

If I run again in 2026, I’ll be the business community’s favorite.

Section: “Russia, Russia, Russia” and the Impeachment Train

Karen wasn’t a fan of my prolific Facebook posts about Russia and impeachment. I’d even printed T-shirts: “All Aboard the Impeachment Train.”

She wasn’t thrilled. But I wasn’t backing down. I also pitched my campaign slogan: “The New New Deal” or “New Deal 2.0.”

They said it was too esoteric. I was incredulous: “Really? Democrats don’t know what the New Deal is? Maybe that’s the problem.”

Section: The Beard, the Photographer, and the Democratic Makeover

They took me to a great photographer. Kev—my roommate and Communications Director—was the only person who could’ve convinced me to shave the beard. And he did. Smart move. The pictures were excellent.

Other suggestions from Suffolk’s Democratic establishment? Less impressive.

Chris kept pushing me to drop the Russia narrative.

“People don’t understand it,” he insisted. I disagreed. Russia interfered. Trump colluded. He won. What’s so hard to understand?

If the public didn’t get it, whose fault was that? Same logic as the party leaders claiming no one remembers the New Deal. If Democrats forgot their own legacy—who failed to teach it?

Section: The Impeachment Train vs. Graphic Design Diplomacy

Chris also wanted me to ditch my campaign cards—red, white, and blue with the Impeachment Train logo—in favor of his own designs. He did graphic design too.

I was peeved.

• A. His cards had errors.
• B. He wanted to be paid.
• C. Even after fixing the errors, the cards were boring.

Why should I pay for something I didn’t ask for—and that replaced something better?

Section: Enter DuWayne Gregory

After six months of pretending to be reluctant, Gregory joined the race in January 2018. During that time, he played the role of friend—responding to my messages, offering advice. Turns out it was all a ruse. He’d always planned to run. He was just hoping the rest of us would drop out first.

Section: Enter Michael Fischer

Even now, it’s hard to say who Michael Fischer really was. I met him through a Facebook friend—Jennifer Grinberg—who also hated Liuba and claimed she was a Russian hack.

I never found that narrative persuasive. Yes, I talked a lot about Russia’s role in helping Trump. But the idea that Liuba was a Kremlin asset? That felt like projection.

Still, Jennifer insisted Fischer could help me “go after” Liuba. She arranged a call. Then me, Chris, and Kev met Fischer at Burger King.

Section: The Burger King Strategy Session

Fischer had a theory: Liuba’s name sounded Eastern European, therefore she had Russian ties. He kept trying to script my debate performance—telling me exactly what to say.

Advice is one thing. Dictation is another. And I wasn’t buying it.

Then came the coup de grâce: He strongly urged me to drop out and endorse DuWayne Gregory.

Section: The Flawed Premise of Unity

This put me in an awkward spot. I had told Gregory back in June 2017 that if he entered the race, I’d step aside. But that was based on a flawed ideological premise: that the party should unify around winning, not personal glory.

In principle, I still believe that. But in practice, I’d done the work. I’d spent $51,000 on Facebook ads. I’d built a platform. I’d earned a seat at the table.

Gregory’s denials had been tactical. I’d naively taken them at face value. By the end of 2017, I had no interest in dropping out. And why should I?

Still, I remained well-disposed toward Gregory. He’d played the role of friend and confidant. He’d offered advice. And I appreciated that—even if it was part of the game.

Section: One More Elephant in the Room—DuWayne Gregory Is Black

You knew that—his picture’s above.

Michael Fischer, who is also Black, argued that Gregory’s race made him uniquely positioned to beat Liuba and Peter King. I was skeptical. Not that it mattered to me—I’m mixed race myself: Black mother, white father. But Fischer insisted Gregory was a once-in-a-generation candidate.

“He’s got a white wife, a gay son, he’s been in the military. I’ve been in the game 30 years—he’s the kind of candidate Madison Avenue dreams of.”

But if he was such a powerhouse, why did he lose by 25 points in 2016? Fischer couldn’t answer that.

I floated the idea of running as a biracial candidate. Fischer shot it down—said it would offend Black voters.

“Why?” I asked. “It’s true. How can my actual identity offend them?”

He kept pushing. I kept resisting.

Section: Chris North Comes With Us to a Meeting With Fischer to Make Sure I Didn’t Give Away the Store—Then Gives Away the Store

Fischer invited me to his Wall Street office—big-time vibes. Kev and I planned to go. Chris North insisted on joining, said he’d make sure I didn’t “give away the store.”

We got there. Fischer pitched the same deal: drop out, endorse Gregory after the debate. He claimed to have oppo on Liuba—I wasn’t interested. I planned to focus on my own message.

Then came the sweeteners:

• He’d start a Democratic super PAC.
• If I dropped out, he’d get me and Chris jobs.
• Chris could be CEO of “Blue PAC.”

I was unimpressed. Vague promises, no specifics. Then Chris surprised me—he recommended I take the deal. The guy who came to protect me gave away the store.

Even Kev started leaning toward the idea. He still assumed Chris was a campaign expert. I had too—just because he knew people in the party.

Now everyone was trying to convince me to get out. Everyone else I could dismiss. But Kev? Kev was the one I’d listen to.

Section: The Debate

It went well. People who only knew me as “Impeachment Train” saw me as a serious candidate.

Laura Di, who’d dismissed me on Facebook, told me I had real potential.

I shared my story:

• BA in Accounting
• Jobs dried up in the 2001 recession
• Years in low-wage service work
• Trump wasn’t the disease—he was the symptom of America’s low-wage epidemic

At the end, I didn’t endorse Gregory—but I praised him. He looked moved.

“Thanks Mike. I really appreciate that.”

Even now, seven years later, I’m ticked at myself for that moment. Just… why?

Section: The Fallout

Laura Di asked why I praised Gregory. I told her about Fischer’s pressure campaign. She was blunt:

“Terrible advice.”

She spoke to Chris too—was unimpressed. Said he was making it up as he went along. Chris even removed “Campaign Manager” from his Facebook title.

Then Fischer called me—read me the riot act.

“You blew it. You’ll never get your garbage picked up.”

Apparently, he was such a big shot that sanitation services bowed to his wrath.

He claimed Karen DeGette would never speak to me again. I doubted his clout. But Karen did go quiet. She had her candidate back—Gregory.

Fischer was more effective with carrots than sticks. He arranged a lunch with Gregory, Chris, and Kev. Getting face time with DuWayne impressed me. Gregory said—vaguely—he’d “remember it” if I agreed.

Laura Di was the only one urging me to stay in. She revealed Fischer had asked her how to start a super PAC. He had no idea.

But ultimately, I agreed. I formally endorsed DuWayne Gregory. And I would always regret it.

Section: The “I Fell in Love With My Psychiatrist” Furor Over ChatGPT

Kendra Hilty’s viral TikTok saga—her alleged romantic entanglement with her psychiatrist—has polarized the public. Some see her as brave. Others call her delusional. The psychiatrist, who happened to be Pakistani, became a lightning rod for accusations and projection.

But beyond the substance of her claims, the real scandal for many was her use of ChatGPT—nicknamed “Henry”—to process her emotions. She credits Henry with helping her decide to stop seeing her psychiatrist. And that’s where the term “AI psychosis” entered the chat2.

Section: AI Has Promise and Pitfalls—But the Answer Is Neither Technophilia Nor Technophobia

Hilty’s story triggered a wave of technophobic backlash. The Luddite instinct to “smash the machines” is alive and well. But blind technophilia is no better.

AI has real risks:

• Deepfakes
• Synthetic manipulation
• Emotional laundering

And the Internet Revolution? Hijacked. Corporate America and the high-tech Far Right co-opted its promise.

🌐 The Internet’s Epistemological Drift: From Open Archive to Corporate Gatehouse

🧠 1. Search Engines Have Lost Their Edge

• Semantic precision has collapsed.
• Autocomplete is commercial, not cognitive.
• Serendipity is dead—buried under SEO gloss.

🚫 2. Censorship and Content Gatekeeping

• Obscenity filters mask moral policing.
• Algorithmic throttling silences dissent.
• Platform fragility fractures resistance.

💰 3. The Wealth Firewall

• Access is tiered.
• Knowledge is commodified.
• The illusion of abundance hides epistemic shrinkage.

🧨 4. The Consequences

• Inquiry becomes influence.
• Curiosity becomes consumption.
• Truth becomes collateral.

🧠 AI and Disinformation: Putin’s Next Frontier

Craig Unger’s From Russia (to Jeffrey), with Love exposes the architecture:

• Scalability: Disinfo at industrial speed
• Plausibility: Synthetic legitimacy
• Targeting: Micro-profiled propaganda

AI doesn’t just spread lies. It personalizes them.

But AI itself isn’t the enemy. It’s how we use it.

Section: The Hope of This Book Is to Operate as a Counterforce

This book is a resistance archive. A collaboration between human and machine. A tool to reconstruct truth, expose networks, and build counter-history.

Section: This Book Aspires to Expose Not Just Lies—But the Architecture of Lies

Think of that old Saturday morning cartoon: How a Bill Becomes a Law. This chapter is its dark twin:

“How a Lie Becomes the Truth, 2015–2025.”

Andrea Chalupa and Sarah Kendzior’s Gaslit Nation names the phenomenon. This book maps the mechanism.

Section: Mark Twain Warned Us—Before the Light Bulb Was Invented

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on.”

Twain said that in the age of steamboats and telegraphs. Now we have AI. Deepfakes. Synthetic personas. Algorithmic distortion.

So how far does the lie travel now?

Section: Trump IS O’Brien

Maybe it was inevitable this book would take so long. The subject is vast. The lies are endless. And “fact-checking” Trump is like chasing smoke through a hall of mirrors.

At this point, there’s no doubt:

Trump is O’Brien.

He declares 2+2=5. And millions believe him.

But it’s not just MAGA. Even self-identified anti-Trump voices have absorbed his disinformation. They repeat his lies—sometimes unknowingly, sometimes strategically. They’ve internalized the distortion.

CODA: Even the #Resistance Has Been Gaslit

Radley Balko documented this at the “Liberalism for the 21st Century” conference. Even there—among people gathered to resist authoritarianism—some defended the Supreme Court.

“It’s still relevant,” they said. “It’s bound by law and norms.”

But how do you defend a Court that:

• Stole the presidency in Bush v. Gore
• Gutted the Voting Rights Act
• Overturned Roe in Dobbs
• Ignored the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause
• Granted Trump absolute immunity

This isn’t a coequal branch. It’s a coopted one.

The solution?

Court expansion—after ending the filibuster. (See Chapter: Huey Long.) Not that the Dems have shown any appetite for it even now no one talks about it.

Section: The Blame-the-Left Delusion

Even worse were the panels blaming “woke-ism” for MAGA’s rise. One speaker claimed Texarkana voted for Trump in 2024 because Democrats embraced culture war issues.

But Kamala Harris ran as a moderate. She was tough on crime. She distanced herself from immigration reform. She didn’t lead with trans rights.

Yet attendees repeated right-wing talking points:

• “We defunded the police.” (We didn’t.)
• “We ran ads for undocumented sex reassignment surgery.” (We didn’t.)

Trump ran those ads—using 2019 footage. The policy was already federal law. And fact-checkers found no evidence of undocumented immigrants receiving such surgery.

Even at a conference about resisting Trump, people were still duped by Trump.

Section: The Truth Is Whatever Trump Says It Is

There’s a documentary on this: Orwell: 2+2=5. It’s not just about Orwell. It’s about us. It’s about Trump.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, O’Brien tells Winston:

“Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.”

The issue isn’t truth. It’s compliance.

Trump contradicts himself daily-heck, hourly, by the minute, by the second. And yet, for tens of millions, his word is gospel—no matter how often it changes.

Section: Fact-Checking Is No Longer a Thing

This book isn’t just about what happened. It’s about how it happened.

The collapse of fact-checking is self-evident.

Section: Jake “Biden Is Old” Tapper Reports: 2+2=5

Tapper  has been calling the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”. His book Original Sin—a hit piece on Biden’s age—was a dud. Maybe there is a God.

And it’s not just Tapper.

TV news outlets avoided saying “Gulf of Mexico” during an astronaut splashdown. Why? Because truth is inconvenient.

2+2=5.

🧠 Section: Where This Book Seeks to Break Ground—Doing the Hardest Thing

I had to write this book. Because no one else would. Michael Wolff, who spent 100 hours interviewing Jeffrey Epstein, admitted he backed off initially from publishing the conversation.. He asked himself:

“Why should you do the hardest thing?”

That’s the problem. No one ever wants to do the hardest thing  and rationalizes by assuming someone else will do it. So no one ever does as everyone makes this same rationalization.

This book does the hardest thing. It is an attempt at a counterhistory. A counternarrative. It’s an attempt to help the American people reclaim their story.

Because Orwell understood:

He who controls the past controls the future. And the addendum: He who controls the present controls the past.

Right now, Trump and his hacks control our history. This book is a refusal.

🧠 Section: The Resistance Canon—Writers Who Held the Line

There have been great #Resistance writers. Three I deeply admire:

• Seth Abramson
• Marcy Wheeler
• Sarah Kendzior

Andrea Chalupa continues the work on the podcast she once cohosted with Kendzior.

While I embrace the #Resistance moniker, some of these writers have resisted it. That’s fine. What matters is the work.

Wheeler’s granular documentation of Trump’s assault on the rule of law is essential. Her weekly appearances on Nicole Sandler’s podcast are a masterclass in #LegalResistance.

Abramson wrote three vital books on Trump’s collusion—with Russia, Israel, the Saudis, UAE, and more. He’s reportedly working on a fourth. Unlike me, he did the sequels.

But this book’s focus isn’t just correcting lies. It’s exposing the architecture—the scaffolding—of the lies. How a lie becomes truth.

🧠 Section: Kendzior and the Architecture of Collapse

The writer who comes closest to this scaffolding analysis is Kendzior. In They Knew, she distinguishes between:

• Conspiracy Culture
• Real Conspiracies

This distinction shocks the Savvy mainstream. Jay Rosen’s Sayvy pundits still cling to:

• Occam’s Razor
• Hanlon’s Razor

“Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.”

Really? In the Trump era?

The idea that there’s no malice in politics is laughable. But the mainstream pundits still believe it. And that belief is part of the architecture of epistemological collapse.

The press’s failure isn’t peripheral. It’s structural.

🧠 CODA: The Gaslighting Coin

We’ll have more to say about these topics throughout the book. None of it good.

As Kendzior writes:

“Conspiracy theories are on the rise because officials refuse to enforce accountability for real conspiracies. Uncritical faith in broken institutions is as dangerous as false narratives peddled by propagandists. The truth may hurt—but the lies will kill us.”

That’s the crux.

The Savvy institutionalists and the Right-wing conspiracy culturalists—Pizzagate, QAnon—are two sides of the same gaslighting coin.

🧠 Section: The Media’s Obsession—All Day, Every Day

In 2015, if you’d just landed from Mars, you’d think Clinton’s emails were the only story in America.

MSNBC, CNN, Fox—same framing, same questions, same outrage:

• “She had two phones for convenience.”
• “Can anyone believe this?”
• “Doesn’t this show the Clintons’ disrespect?”

The media didn’t just report the scandal. They manufactured it. They ran the same program—“But Her Emails”—on loop.

Kevin McCarthy’s neologism—“untrustable”—became presumed truth. Like the air we breathe.

CODA: We had a Select Committee. Her numbers are dropping. 

🧠 Section: We Have Always Been at War with Eurasia

Clinton was always disliked. Always untrusted. Ed Klein wrote a book literally titled “Unlikable.” She was always unlikable  Except when she wasn’t.

During the Obama years, Clinton was popular. Polls showed her at 63–69% approval as Secretary of State.

“Facts are stubborn things.” —Daniel Patrick Moynihan

🧠 Section: In 2012 We Were at War with Eastasia

In 2012, the narrative was different. Biden was a gaffe machine. The solution? Swap him for Hillary Clinton.

No one worried she was “unlikable.” There was even a book making the case.

But today? No one remembers. Because in Trump’s America, truth is a mood swing.

Like O’Brien told Winston:

“Today the answer is five fingers. Tomorrow it might be four. Or three.”

🧠 Section: Truth Is What the Ministry of Truth Says It Is

To be a good Orwellian citizen is to forget. To accept the latest utterance from the Ministry of Truth. Even if it’s Karoline Leavitt’s latest canard.

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” —George Orwell, 1984

🧠 Section: Clinton Derangement Syndrome—The Gift That Gaslighting Keeps on Giving

So Clinton wasn’t always hated. She was popular. Until the media told the public—every day—that they hate such is the power of suggestion in a world where so many are extremely impressionable-it does seem sometimes like you can convince people of anything if you say it enough times. Like Goebbels said it’s the power of repetition. Since Emailgate not only do many hate-or at least think they hate Clinton but don’t know why many believe this has always been so-that’s how Orwellian logic works. “We have always been at war with Eastasia.” There was a time when we weren’t but no one remembers this.

🧠 Chuck “Nostradamus” Todd and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Clinton Fatigue

Way back in 2014, Chuck Todd said something that now reads like prophecy:

“The media is going to have Clinton fatigue before the country. I don’t think the country has Clinton fatigue. I think the media has Clinton fatigue.” — The Nation, “The Media Are Suffering From ‘Hillary Fatigue’”

But if it was prophecy, it was self-fulfilling.

The media didn’t just predict Clinton fatigue—they manufactured it. They didn’t just report on CDS—they amplified it.

CDS became Trumpism’s built-in Whataboutism:

→ “Trump’s a predator—but what about Bill?” → “What about her emails?”

Clinton lost in 2016. Her husband left office in 2000. But the specter of the Clintons remains—whenever Trump needs a distraction, the media obliges.

This wasn’t journalism. It was ritual scapegoating. A symbolic loop where the Clintons became timeless villains, invoked to collapse nuance and deflect accountability.

🧠 Prologue Concept: Clinton Derangement Syndrome and the Collapse of Knowing

🔥 Section: Clinton Derangement Syndrome as the Operating System of American Political Discourse

There’s a strange truth about the Trump years: CDS became the operating system of U.S. political discourse.

It gave Trumpism a built-in firewall of false equivalence:

• “What about the Clintons?”
• “What about the Clinton Foundation?”
• “What about her emails?”

But her emails? There was nothing scandalous in them. And many 2016 GOP candidates—Scott Walker, Jeb Bush—used private email for government business. George W. Bush’s White House stored millions of emails on an RNC server.

Bush White House email controversy – Wikipedia

The media ignored this. Because acknowledging it would collapse the Emailgate narrative. And without that narrative, there’s no Watergate-level scandal to pin on Clinton.

🔥 Section I: The Weaponization of CDS

CDS is a long-running psychological operation. It began in the 1990s. It metastasized through:

• Troopergate
• Vince Foster
• Whitewater
• Lewinskygate
• Benghazi
• Emailgate
• Epstein

“Clinton was president 30 years ago. Yet somehow, she remains the most convenient scapegoat in American politics.”

Even anti-Trump voices fall into the trap. CDS is that normalized.

🧠 Section: GOP Congress Subpoenas the Clintons Like It’s 1998

In 2025, Trump reversed course—again. Pam Bondi claimed the Epstein files were on her desk in February. By June?

“What Epstein files?”

Cue the GOP: → Subpoena both Clintons.

It was a rerun of the 1990s. A transparent distraction. A headline as predictable as “Fish got to swim…”

But what stood out? Leftist streamers—Vaush, Hasan Piker—celebrated it.

They took the bait. Hook, line, and sinker

BREAKING: Both Clintons Subpoenaed To Testify In Epstein Files Hearing US Government Subpoenas Clintons over Epstein Files | Hasanabi Reacts FN: Find video links

So effectively the Left was cheering Trump subpoenaing his political enemies. Vaush and Hasan were cheering this not because the Clintons had committed a crime but because they hate the Clintons

This wasn’t anti-Trumpism. It was moral nihilism. How do you fight against Trumpian fascism when you hate the Clintons with a thousand more suns than you’ll ever hate Trump and his GOP co-conspirators in Congress who were clearly doing this as a diversionary tactic to take the heat off of Trump?

🧠 Section: The Moral Nihilism of Populism—Left and Right

Hasan cheered the idea of Trump prosecuting Adam Schiff. Why? Because Schiff took money from AIPAC.

So due process doesn’t matter. If you dislike someone, prosecution is fine.

This is populism’s rot—Left or Right. No respect for law. No respect for truth. Just vibes and vendettas.

🧠 Section: Anti-Trumpism That Traffics in CDS Is Morally Incoherent

You can’t make a morally urgent case against Trumpism → while insisting the Clintons were just as bad.

That’s gaslighting.

It erases Trump’s uniqueness as a threat to democracy. It’s like saying:

“Hitler was a fascist—but the Weimar liberals were social fascists too.”

That was Stalin’s line in 1932. And it’s echoed today by the Bernie Bro Left.

Remember Philadelphia, 2016: Bernie supporters linked arms with Trumpists chanting “Lock Her Up.” Despite the trivial fact that Clinton committed no crime.

Populism doesn’t care. It thrives on moral and political nihilism.

🔥 Section I: The Weaponization of CDS

Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) isn’t just a media tic. It’s a long-running psychological operation. It began in the 1990s. It metastasized through Benghazi, Emailgate, and now Epstein.

“Clinton was president 30 years ago. Yet somehow, she remains the most convenient scapegoat in American politics.”

But again even many anti-Trump voices fall into the trap. Because CDS has become the operating system of American political discourse.

🧠 Section: The CDS Psychological Operation Has Been Running Since the 1990s

Its effectiveness lies in its longevity. He who controls the past controls the future. And this book is about taking back both. Pace Robert Parry who warned about America’s stolen narrative.

🧨 Section: The Clintons Are Two of the Most Slandered People on Earth

You don’t have to love the Clintons. But you do have to recognize the ahistorical villainy assigned to their name.

Jonathan Chait nailed it in 2016:

“The Abnormalization of Hillary Clinton”

Only by abnormalizing the Clintons can Trump be normalized.

🧠 Section: Taking Back Our Narrative—CDS Edition

Bill Clinton was a decent, competent president. Any attempt to equate him with Trump doesn’t pass the laugh test— Assuming facts still matter. Assuming truth still matters.

Spoiler: They don’t.

🧠 Section: The GOP Was Peeved—and Spooked—in 1992

Before Clinton, the GOP had won 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. Their last four victories? At least 41 states. 426 electoral votes.

In 1988, Bush Sr. got 41 states. That was the best Democrats had done since 1968—excluding the anomaly of 1976.

As a young Democrat in high school, it felt like we might never win again.

🧠 Section: What Vaush and Hasan Miss

Millennial leftists don’t know this history. So they don’t get why the DLC’s centrist pivot didn’t seem absurd in 1992.

I was always a fan of Bill. And an even bigger fan of HRC. True story: I was always something of a female supremacist.

CODA: But I digress. Reinsert the videos

🧠 Section: Clinton’s Record—Complicated, But Competent

The economy boomed. Jobs were plentiful. Triangulation had costs—I had mixed feelings about the Crime Bill.

But many Black Democrats supported it at the time. Crime in the ’70s and ’80s was real.

CODA: Today, Trump still claims we’re facing historic crime levels. Ahistorical vibes never die.

I opposed Clinton’s gutting of TANF. He signed the Welfare to Work bill on August 22, 1996

Still, as Vaush once said:

“We cannot risk them winning.”

🧠 Section: Harm Reduction and Roe

Feminists were accused of hypocrisy for not demanding Clinton’s resignation over Lewinsky. But Roe was safe. And that mattered.

Republican nominees swore abortion was settled law— Until they had the numbers to overturn it.

🧠 Section: Hillary’s 2016 Platform Was the Most Progressive in History

Contrary to the zombie narrative, Clinton’s platform was historic. Even Bernie Sanders called it the most progressive in party history.

John Kiriakou falsely claimed she ran as a conservative. He also claimed only Republicans care about Deep State abuse.

Meanwhile, Trump is prosecuting his opponents and slashing Medicaid. But sure—he’s the progressive.

🧠 Section: About Monica Lewinsky

To reclaim our future, we must reclaim our past.

A. Lewinsky Was of Age

Ruth Marcus melted down when HRC pointed this out. But it’s true. Unlike Katie Johnson’s allegation against Epstein and Trump.

B. Lewinsky Initiated the Affair

She says so herself-she made the first move-read her book. Yes, Clinton should’ve said no. But it wasn’t coercive. It wasn’t criminal.

If every affair with an underling is a crime, half the country’s unemployed.

🧠 Section: Ken Starr Was the Villain Who did Such Harm to Monica Lewinsky

If you care about Lewinsky-and pretty much none of people who feigned moral indignation over the affair ever cared a fig-then Ken Starr is the heavy. He entrapped her into perjury. Locked her in a hotel room for 24 hours. Threatened her and her mother with 27 years in prison. Refused to let her call her lawyer5.

Mike Isikoff helped Linda Tripp entrap her. Historical villainy in action.

🧠 Section: Until We Take Back Our History, We’ll Never Take Back Our Future

Most people don’t know this story. And many would handwave it away.

They’re good Orwellian citizens. Or Trumpian ones—though “Trumpian citizen” is a contradiction in terms.

Because Trumpism is the ideology of rational ignorance.

And this book seeks to be an antidote.

🧠 Section: Why We’re in a World of Sht—To Quote Full Metal Jacket*

The psycho drill sergeant had a point. We’re in a world of sh*t because inconvenient facts are buried. Who knows the truth about Lewinsky’s entrapment? I know it as I’ve made it my business to educate myself and not drink the Coolaid of the “conventional wisdom.

CODA: For a Nietzschean cum Zarathustrean like myself the conventional wisdoym is a contradiction in terms.

Monica Lewinsky obviously who had to live through it who still lives with the legacy-but again it was Ken Starr who entrapped her into the perjury charge not Bill Clinton. Certainly Mike Isikoff—who helped orchestrate it, then buried it.

Isikoff worked with Linda Tripp to lie and entrap Lewinsky. As a journalist, he gave new meaning to “do no harm.” He chose narrative over truth. Spectacle over ethics.

And most people? They’d handwave it away. They’re good Orwellian citizens. Or Trumpian ones—though “Trumpian citizen” is a contradiction in terms. Because Trumpism is the ideology of rational ignorance.

Until we take back our history, we’ll never take back our future.

🔥 Section: CDS Is Absurdly Overdetermined

The lies began in the early 1990s. David Brock—then on the Right—was paid to go to Arkansas and pay troopers to fabricate stories about Clinton and women2.

This is why CDS is so dangerous. It’s not just distortion—it’s fabrication at scale.

And yet, people believe any accusation against the Clintons. When in truth, they should be more skeptical, not less of any accusation against them

Because the ratio of lies to facts is so high, it’s hard to know where the distortion ends and reality begins.

🧠 Section: Yes, Hillary Voted for the Iraq War

That’s a fact. And it was a mistake.

But so did most Senators. Pelosi, to her credit, convinced most House Democrats to oppose it.

I was disappointed in Hillary’s vote. But I never saw it as disqualifying.

The Left did. In 2016, it became a moral litmus test.

But in 2020? Tulsi Gabbard sandbagged Kamala Harris—then gave Biden a pass for the same vote.

The outrage was selective. And that’s the tell.

🧠 The Kiriakou Paradox: Whistleblower, Fabulist, Symbolic Architect

John Kiriakou is a paradox in motion. A former CIA officer who blew the whistle on torture, he paid a steep price—serving prison time and becoming a symbol of principled dissent. His early interviews carried the gravity of someone who’d seen too much and chosen truth over silence.

But as his media presence expanded, so did the fog. Kiriakou became a captivating storyteller—yes. But his anecdotes drifted from verifiable history into speculative myth. And nowhere is this more evident than in his commentary on Hillary Clinton.

In one podcast, he collapses chronology so thoroughly he attributes Obama-era surveillance of Trump to “The Clinton Administration.” Not a lie—a fog. A symbolic villain invoked to collapse nuance into certainty.

The irony? He’s also claimed to have sat in on high-level meetings with Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

He positions himself as both insider and outsider, witness and mythmaker.

And the final coup de grâce: He asserts that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Republican before 1932—a claim so historically false it borders on surreal.

🔥 CODA: Other Surreal Moments

• Claimed Hillary Clinton offered a $20 million bribe to the Orthodox Church—later retracted
• Alleged Peter Strzok and the FBI tried to frame him for espionage
• Raved about Trump’s promise to “end the war on day one”—ignoring that it didn’t end on day one, or day 250

Kiriakou isn’t just unreliable. He’s rhetorically unstable. A case study in how emotional allegiance, symbolic blame, and narrative performance override chronology, fact, and coherence.

🧠 It’s the Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Stupid

Kiriakou is a paradox: A whistleblower who exposed CIA torture—yet traffics in narratives that invert epistemology.

He declared HRC a “terrible candidate” on RT—where else. He claimed Clinton tried to bribe the Orthodox Church with $20 million. This isn’t just disinformation—it’s selective framing, emotional certainty, and chronological collapse.

He blurs Clinton’s roles—Secretary of State, candidate, executive authority—until she becomes the symbolic villain of every institutional failure.

This is CDS in motion: → Truth weaponized → Context stripped → Epistemology inverted

🧠 The Kiriakou Drift: From Whistleblower to Revisionist

On a recent podcast he declared himself “A leftie becoming a Trump true believer.”

That’s not ideology—it’s emotional allegiance. He’s not citing policy outcomes. He’s responding to vibes.

FDR as a Republican? That’s not a factual error. It’s a collapse of chronology and party identity.

🔍 Clinton Derangement Syndrome: Clinton as Timeless Villain

Kiriakou’s shift isn’t just personal. It’s emblematic of how disinformation operates:

• Truth becomes modular
• Facts are rearranged to fit emotional allegiance
• Historical figures are rebranded to fit present-day narratives

FDR becomes a proto-conservative. Clinton becomes a timeless villain. Timelines collapse into symbolism.

🧠 This Isn’t About Hillary Per Se

Whether you like HRC or not is irrelevant. This isn’t about her as a person or politician. It’s about the symbolic role she’s been assigned in the Trumpian operating system.

A gravitational villainy that:

• Distorts chronology
• Collapses nuance
• Fuels emotional certainty

🧠 Section: This Isn’t About the Clintons Personally or Politically

It’s about the symbolic supervillain status they’ve been assigned in the Trump Operating System.

CDS isn’t just a media tic. It’s a backdoor normalization of Trump.

Trump’s first big lie was birtherism. It was outrageous—but still marginally refutable. Obama released his long-form birth certificate and that pretty much nipped birtherism in the bud.

But with Emailgate? Facts didn’t matter. Truth was irrelevant. The lie became the truth.

Birtherism always remained a fringe phenomenon-noisy but still fringe. Emailgate became mainstream.

🧠 Section: The Jake Tapper Syndrome Squared—Why Is Bill Clinton’s Health a Political Scandal?

Here in 2025, the Jake Tapper media complex continues its obsession with Joe Biden’s health—treating it as more politically urgent than the daily assault on democracy led by the man currently occupying the Oval Office.

As I explore in the chapter Huey Long, this fixation on Biden’s mental acuity is an intellectual and moral cul-de-sac. → How are we supposed to defeat Trumpism in 2026 and 2028 by relitigating Biden’s gait or syntax? There’s nothing to learn from this sterile navel-gazing. It’s distraction masquerading as journalism.

But yesterday’s headline from Fox—quickly echoed by mainstream outlets—suggests the media is even more concerned about Bill Clinton’s health than Trump’s.

Bill Clinton seen leaving airport with defibrillator, sparking health fears

Let’s pause. Clinton left office in 2001. He’s 79. If his health is declining, that’s a personal concern—not a political one. And yet the tone of coverage suggests it’s somehow politically consequential.

Why?

Because the name “Clinton”—whether it’s Bill, Hillary, or even Chelsea—has been elevated to a level of transcendental, ahistorical villainy. It’s not about governance. It’s about ritual scapegoating.

🔥 CODA: The Clinton Name as Eternal Symbolic Enemy

This isn’t journalism. It’s symbolic warfare.

The Clintons are no longer treated as political figures. They’re treated as archetypes—the eternal foil, the default distraction, the built-in Whataboutism.

Trump’s indicted? What about Bill’s heart? Trump’s violating the Constitution? What about Hillary’s emails?

This is the Jake Tapper Syndrome squared. It’s not just false equivalence—it’s epistemological sabotage.

🧠 Why It’s Time for a Counter-History—and Why the Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher

The history of Emailgate—and the rise of the Orwellian cum Trumpian era—gives the lie to the old saying: → “What you don’t know can’t hurt you.” What you don’t know can kill us all. Not just the national health. But the health of our democracy.

This book is the first installment in a Counter-History—a resistance archive to reclaim our stolen narrative.

• Book One: The FBI’s unseemly role in weaponizing Emailgate and installing Trump
• Book Two: The Chuck Todd–Dean Baquet–Jake Tapper media complex and its amplification of the faux scandal
• Book Three: The Republican Party’s long history of electoral sabotage—with foreign assistance:
  • Vietnam, 1968
  • Iran, 1980
  • Russia, 2016
  • And more than once, by Israel—an allegedly allied country
• Book Four: Russia, Russia, Russia—a dossier on Putin’s long sabotage, kompromat, and epistemological warfare against the US and the West-going back to 9/11.

⚡️ UPDATE: The Fifth Book?

In light of the Addendum below—where I digressed (or detonated) into the Israel–Epstein–Clinton leak and declared that U.S. foreign policy has been cucked by Israel since 1948—before, in fact—perhaps it’s time for a fifth installment.

🧠 Book Five: Israel, Israel, Israel

→ A classified reckoning. → A dossier on blackmail diplomacy. → A forensic dive into the architecture of influence.

This isn’t just a trilogy. It’s a canon of resistance. A dossier of sabotage. A reckoning.

So let us begin the work of recovery. Let us take a deep dive into the outrageous conduct of James Comey’s FBI in the Emailgate election. Let us begin the great work of taking back our history—and reclaiming our narrative.

🔥 Conclusion: The Fight Against America’s Epistemological Collapse

“The great problems are to be encountered in the street.” —Friedrich Nietzsche (Often attributed to Nietzsche’s ethos in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, though not a direct quote. See Daybreak’s Nietzsche quote archive for context.)

This book was born in the street. In the fog of a stolen election. In the wreckage of a party that forgot how to fight. In the long shadow of a nation losing its grip on truth.

It was born in the moment the FBI weaponized Emailgate—injecting innuendo into the bloodstream of democracy. In the echo chamber where the media amplified distortion, chasing clicks while collapsing coherence. In the silence of a Democratic establishment that mistook caution for strategy. And in the ruthless precision of a Republican Party that understood power as treachery and treated truth as a casualty.

🧠 History Is Written by the Gaslighters

And then came the final insult.

After 102 days of siege, starvation, and slaughter in Mariupol, the Russian ambassador to the UN leered at a female reporter and declared:

“History is written by the winners.” (Contextualized in coverage of the UN screening of 20 Days in Mariupol. See We Are Ukraine.)

That’s not just cruelty. That’s epistemological collapse. And that’s the voice this book was written to confront.

Because history isn’t just what happened. It’s what we’re allowed to remember. And truth isn’t just a fact. It’s a fight.

This canon is a counter-history. A resistance archive. A refusal. A refusal to give in to the architecture of forgetting to accept lies as truth like 2+2=5 or that Clinton was as bad or worse than Trump who did something finedish with her emails. It’s an  attempt to fight the power as Public Enemy once said perhaps the strongest power of all-the power of gaslighting of lies vs a vs the truth

Let the record show: We were gaslit. We were sabotaged. But we were not silent.

And we will not forget.

You can tweak the title depending on how you want to thread it into the manuscript’s rhythm. Alternatives could be:

• “The Israel Clause: Entrapment, Intelligence, and the Architecture of Leverage”
• “The Mossad Hypothesis: A Classified Chapter”
• “The Epstein Protocol: Strategic Entrapment and the Israeli Connection”

.

Here’s a stylized version that integrates everything you asked for:

🔥 Stylized Title Options

1. “The Archive Must Be Reclaimed” A direct echo of your canon’s mission—truth recovery as resistance.

2. “The Street Where Truth Was Buried” A nod to Nietzsche’s quote and the idea that the real fight isn’t in institutions—it’s in lived reality.

3. “History Is Written by the Gaslighters” A brutal inversion of the ambassador’s quote, reframing it as indictment.

4. “The Final Insult: Truth as Casualty” Emphasizes the emotional and epistemological violence of the moment.

5. “Conclusion: The Fog, the Street, and the Fight for Memory” A poetic encapsulation of your themes—collapse, confrontation, and reclamation.

“The great problems are to be encountered in the street.” — Friedrich Nietzsche

This book was born in the street. In the fog of a stolen election. In the wreckage of a party that forgot how to fight. In the long shadow of a nation losing its grip on truth.

It was born in the moment the FBI weaponized Emailgate—injecting innuendo into the bloodstream of democracy. In the echo chamber where the media amplified distortion, chasing clicks while collapsing coherence. In the silence of a Democratic establishment that mistook caution for strategy. And in the ruthless precision of a Republican Party that understood power as treachery and treated truth as a casualty.

And as the Russian ambassador to the UN leered at a female reporter—after 102 days of siege, starvation, and slaughter in Mariupol—he offered the final insult:

“History is written by the winners.”

That’s not just cruelty. That’s epistemological collapse. And that’s the voice this book was written to confront.

Addendum-Revised edition:

🔥 Classified Addendum:m “The Epstein Protocol: Strategic Entrapment and the Israeli Connection”

Trigger Warning: This section contains material that most publishers would bury, most pundits would dismiss, and many readers will find inconvenient. That’s why it’s here. If you’ve made it this far, you’ve earned the truth. But if you stop here, just know: the architecture of sabotage doesn’t end with Trump. It doesn’t even begin with him.

🧠 Section: Clinton, Epstein, and the Specter of Entrapment

Let’s raise the bloody shirt: Clinton and Epstein. After all MAGA’s Epstein obsession has been centered on Clinton’s relationship with Epstein. I am skeptical however that Clinton himself engaged in pedophilia-and there’s been no evidence that he has. There is that one picture of him getting a neck massage but the young woman in that picture was 22. As we saw above while you can quite plausibly argue Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky was unwise and that he should have said no it’s also clear he did not act in a predatory way. Nothing we know about Clinton fits a pattern of coercing women or engaging with underage girls-which neither Epstein or Trump can say. As Seth Abramson notes the primary basis of their relationship appears to be Clinton was seeking money for the Clinton Foundation-in a time Epstein was trying to reinvent himself as a philanthropist.

UPDATE:

Note that of among all the obscene messages Epstein’s perv bros sent Bill Clinton was one of the few that wasn’t at all sexual

Inside Epstein’s ‘Birthday Book’ Apparently Signed by Trump – The New York Times

Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth) on X: “4/28 Some art showing what seems to blatantly be Epstein grooming young children luring them to become masseuse” / X

{Book 1} Proof of Devilry: The Crimes of Donald Trump, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein

What does seem more plausible to me is that he was entrapped-after all as the truth has come out about Epstein the simple association became embarrassing. This is what Epstein actually did-forge relationships with powerful people and politicians then entrap these powerful people and politicians.

Could Epstein have entrapped Bill Clinton—on behalf of the Israeli government?

It’s not a wild theory. Again entrapment was Epstein’s core skill. He built a career on it. Private jets. Private islands. Private cameras. And very public targets.

“Epstein was no doubt a conman. After studying his history closely, I believe he played both sides of the law from the very beginning. He seemed to run a straightforward honeypot operation: create a controlled environment where rich, powerful men could feel safe with young girls, many of whom they assumed were prostitutes and hoped were of age. After a weekend on Little St. James Island or at one of his many properties, he’d ask them to invest with him, sometimes in foreign funds that might be hard to access. And what could they say? Here was a man who surveilled his homes, knew their secrets, and could ruin them with a phone call — or at least cause a considerable amount of social embarrassment. It was a classic KGB tactic.”

FN: Tara Palmieri: What Epstein’s Bodyguard Warned About His CIA Connections

We know Clinton flew on Epstein’s jet. We know they were close. But what we don’t know—what we may never know—is whether Clinton was strategically compromised.

🧠 Section: The Barak Connection—Emails, Islands, and Surveillance

Then there’s Ehud Barak. Former Israeli Prime Minister. Former Defense Minister. And, according to leaked emails, Epstein’s business partner.

They invested together in a surveillance startup—Reporty Homeland Security, later renamed Carbyne. Barak visited Epstein’s island. He tried to keep his security detail off the trip2. He praised the island’s “impressive” setup.

And Epstein? He was introducing Barak to Peter Thiel, Russian oligarchs, and surveillance elites.

This wasn’t just friendship. It was network choreography.

FN: Leaked Emails Reveal Jeffrey Epstein’s Connections to the Surveillance Industry

Ex-Israeli prime minister’s hacked emails reveal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

🧠 Section: It’s Quite Possible Epstein Had Deep Ties to Mossad

What’s not at all plausible is the Warren Commision kind of theory-that he got all these ties to business and political leaders because Wexler liked socializing with him-aka a “Lone Nut” with good social skills, much less a lone nut with good social skills who just happened to sexually violate hundreds of children on during his time off.  It’s like when Michael Flynn and Jill Stein sitting at the same table with Putin at that Moscow conference was dismissed as happenstance.

CODA: The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal was also at that conference. UPDATE: Find link Mike

You don’t just wonder into the same room and eat at the same table as Vladimir Putin by happenstance nor do you just happen to amass the level of money, social and political connections Epstein had just because one guy thought you were a charming dinner companion. As for the notion he was this financial dynamo this just as dubious considering there’s no evidence whatsoever of his financial wizardry-where are the receipts that confirm this? In fact there are few examples of him having many other clients on that scale besides Wexler Nor did he possess the kind of licenses someone with his alleged financial acumen usually has.

The mystery behind Epstein’s wealth in finance

It’s very plausible indeed likely that Epstein had intelligence ties-likely many with governments around the world.

Section:  Even to Call Epstein a Lone Nut With Good Social Skills Who Sexually Violated Underage Girls on His Time off Misses Another Crucial Piece

He also sexually trafficked these young girls to other rich and powerful men so as to entrap these men.

UPDATE: Look up Epilogue links on Epstein

The Mossad theory has gained traction—especially after Tucker Carlson’s public speculation4. But former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett forcefully denied it4. Others argue Epstein was more likely a U.S. intelligence asset, using Israeli ties as a smokescreen.

Either way, the architecture is clear:

• Epstein operated at the nexus of money, surveillance, and power.
• He had ties to Israeli intelligence, Russian elites, and American tech billionaires.
• He was a master of plausible deniability.

CODA: Regarding Epstein’s Purported Mossad Ties

First and foremost he had all those Israeli connections.

Section: The Three Largest Unanswered Questions About Epstein

Adam Cohran recently laid them out in an excellent thread:

The largest unanswered questions today about Epstein are: 1) Where did his money come from? 2) Who did he work for? 3) How did he meet all these people?

There’s no way to plausibly answer these three questions with kind of Warrenesque  cum Occam’s Razor cum Hanlon’s Razor kind of explanation the Savvy pundits prefer-“conspiracies are unpossible” just like you can’t make sense of Oswald’s actions by handwaving him away with the words “lone nut.”

CODA: Whitne Webb just made the point in her new interview with Peter McCormack yesterday that it’s not terribly plausible that the US government suddenly in 2019 decided that Epstein’s crimes with underage girls was just too terrible-after all they’d already known this for years-what changed?

(50) Whitney Webb: EPSTEIN, Intelligence & the Global Network of Power | Peter McCormack Show – YouTube

🧠 Addendum: Clinton, Epstein, and the Specter of Entrapment

Installment 2: The Myth of Nonpartisan Corruption

🔍 Section: The Problem with “Both Sides” Framing

Whitney Webb’s research on Epstein is invaluable. But her framing—“neither party wants the files released”—falls into the trap of nonpartisan anesthesia.

Let’s be clear: Democrats have voted repeatedly to release the files. Republicans have obstructed them.

Even recently, 212 Democrats and four Republicans supported the discharge petition. Yes, credit to Thomas Massie. Yes, even to MTG. But the math doesn’t lie.

So what’s the argument? That Democrats secretly don’t want the files released, despite voting for it multiple times? That they’re counting on GOP obstruction to shield them?

This is where “both sides are bad” becomes a canard. It doesn’t illuminate—it obfuscates.

🧠 Section: The GOP’s Strategic Obstruction

“This isn’t a partisan issue” is a popular refrain. But in practice, it’s a rhetorical shield.

The GOP is the party of obstruction, impunity, and strategic sabotage. The Democrats? Institutionalist to a fault. Criticizable, yes—for timidity, for procedural fetishism. But not for covering up pedophilia or sabotaging investigations.

Webb’s mistake is treating the parties as equal. They are not.

🧠 Section: Trump and Epstein—The Real Relationship

Webb’s background in anti-Clinton opposition colors her framing. She downplays the depth of Trump’s relationship with Epstein.

But they were best friends—for over a decade. According to a victim at a recent rally, Epstein’s “biggest brag” was his friendship with Trump. He kept a photo of the two of them on the wall behind his desk.

Yet MAGA focuses on Clinton. Why? Because he’s a Democrat—even if he left office 30 years ago.

As Seth Abramson points out:

Epstein died in Trump’s custody. Cameras failed. Guards vanished. Logs disappeared. Transfers occurred. And yet, Trump supporters believe Epstein was murdered—by Democrats.

The irony writes itself.

🧠 Section: The Cartel vs. The Flat Earth Model

Webb is right about one thing: This story reveals an international cartel—a network of elite impunity.

But framing it as purely nonpartisan elite corruption is a flat-earth model. It lacks dimensionality. It ignores the role of partisan sabotage.

In the U.S., the Republican Party is run by sociopaths who will commit any crime to achieve power. The Democrats? Flawed, institutionalist, often cowardly. But not criminal in the same way.

To treat them as equal is to flatten the terrain of corruption. And that’s epistemologically dangerous.

🧠 Section: Trump’s Motive to Silence Epstein

Webb rightly dismisses the idea that the U.S. government suddenly grew a conscience in 2019. That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

But she fails to consider that Trump ran the government at that time. His AG? Bill Barr.

And Barr’s father? May have been the one who recruited Epstein in the first place.

Abramson’s documentation of the Trump–Epstein fallout makes it clear: Epstein became inconvenient. Dangerous.

Michael Wolff reports that Steve Bannon feared Epstein could destroy Trump. Epstein himself feared Trump—especially after Trump spitefully bought out Wexner’s Florida home, just to humiliate Epstein.

The same Trump who took pleasure in sleeping with his friends’ wives.

🧠 Section: How Did Epstein Come to “Belong to Intelligence”?

That’s what Alex Acosta said in 2008 when asked why Epstein wasn’t prosecuted more aggressively:

“I was told Epstein belongs to intelligence.”

But whose intelligence?

Adam Cochran makes a compelling case that it starts with Donald Barr—Bill Barr’s father. In 1974, Epstein was 21. No degree. No credentials. Just a smooth talker with no paper trail. And yet, Donald Barr hired him to teach at the elite Dalton School.

🧠 Section: Donald Barr’s Literary Manifesto

This wasn’t just a quirky hire. Donald Barr wrote Space Relations, a sci-fi novel that reads like a manifesto for aristocratic depravity.

“An intergalactic empire ruled by bored aristocrats who kidnap humans to become illegal playthings of the galaxy’s super-rich.”

Sound familiar?

It’s not just grotesque—it’s eerily prescient. A world of elite impunity. Sexual slavery as entertainment. Diplomatic immunity for predators.

Was this fiction? Or blueprint?

🧠 Section: OSS Legacy and Dalton’s Hidden Curriculum

Donald Barr wasn’t just a novelist. He was an officer in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)—the precursor to the CIA.

Dalton’s now-declassified operative guides included:

• Morale operations and blackmail
• Cultivating and manipulating contacts
• Creating and planting evidence
• Luring with sexual vices

This wasn’t just a prep school. It was a recruitment hub.

And Epstein? He didn’t last long. Fired after two years for “poor performance”—including reports of sexual advances toward students.

But the damage was done. The door had been opened.

🧠 Section: From Dalton to Bear Stearns—The Social Pipeline

After Dalton, Epstein tutored Ted Greenberg and dated his sister Lynne—children of Bear Stearns CEO Alan Greenberg.

At Lynne’s request, Alan Greenspan gave Epstein a job at Bear Stearns. No credentials. No finance background. By 1980, Epstein was a Limited Partner.

This wasn’t merit. It was social choreography.

🧠 Section: Epstein as Hyper-Fixer

Tara Palmieri and John Sipher offer a plausible frame: Epstein wasn’t a spy. He was a hyper-fixer.

“Someone with connections who can open doors anywhere.”

Sipher, a former CIA officer, explains:

• The CIA can’t compel Americans to talk
• But volunteers? They’re gold
• Epstein could’ve traded gossip, leverage, and access across agencies

He was “too risky to touch”—but too valuable to ignore.

🧠 Section: The Whitey Bulger Precedent

There’s precedent. Whitey Bulger murdered people while feeding intel to the FBI.

Epstein? He trafficked girls. But he may have traded intel on billionaires instead of missile systems.

A former CIA analyst told Palmieri:

“If Epstein was selling intel to the Brits, Mossad, and us, we’d coordinate to stop him before he got himself killed.”

And that’s exactly what didn’t happen.

🧠 Section: Epstein’s Israeli Connections—The Mossad Hypothesis

Ari Ben-Menashe, former Israeli intelligence officer, claims he was the handler for both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

He alleges:

• Epstein and Maxwell ran a honey-trap operation
• They blackmailed politicians using underage girls
• They funneled intel to Mossad

“Fking around isn’t a crime. But fking a fourteen-year-old girl is. Epstein took photos of politicians doing exactly that—and used them.”

Ben-Menashe also claims Robert Maxwell—Ghislaine’s father—was the one who introduced them to Mossad.

This wasn’t just espionage. It was strategic blackmail.

🧠 Section: Coincidences Take a Lot of Planning

Ari Ben-Menashe is one of those figures the Savvy Mainstream loves to dismiss as “shadowy.” Too inconvenient. Too persistent. Too right.

Canadian intelligence corroborated many of his claims in the 1990s. He first gained public attention with his allegations about the October Surprise—a covert deal between the Reagan-Bush campaign and Iran’s Ayatollah to delay the release of American hostages until after the 1980 election.

And then, 20 minutes after Reagan was sworn in on January 20, 1981—Iran released the hostages.

“Coincidences take a lot of planning.” —Malcolm Nance

The resemblance to January 18, 2025 is uncanny. I’ll go to the grave believing Trump and Netanyahu struck a similar deal: No ceasefire. No hostage release. Not until after the election.

🧠 CODA: Netanyahu’s Calculus

Netanyahu was willing to delay the release of his own citizens. Why? Because endless war in Gaza was the only way he could stay in power.

He’d had chances to bring hostages home. Families say so. But he wasn’t interested.

War was the strategy. Not rescue.

🧠 Section: The Post–October 7 Paradox

After October 7, Netanyahu’s approval ratings collapsed. Over 70% disapproved. Most Israelis believed he should step down after the war.

So what was his solution? Never end the war.

The paradox was his salvation. The longer Gaza burned, the longer he stayed.

🧠 Section: Ben-Menashe vs. Respectability Politics

Ben-Menashe was never a media darling. By 1990, the press was “fatigued” by Iran-Contra. But not by Whitewater. Not by Emailgate. Not by Biden’s health.

Ben-Menashe argued Iran-Contra was just one episode in a larger scandal. Reagan-Bush kept sending arms to Iran for five more years. And Israel was furious—because they were also sending arms to Iraq.

🧠 CODA: The October Surprise Canon

Ben-Menashe wasn’t the first. Barbara Honegger, Robert Parry, and Gary Sick all wrote about it.

• Honegger: former Reagan official
• Parry: blackballed journalist
• Sick: Carter’s National Security Advisor

Each brought a different lens. Each was dismissed by the Savvy class.

🧠 SIDEBAR: Seth Abramson on Media Cowardice

Abramson nails it:

“Corporate media clings to respectability politics. Journalists avoid seedy topics—not for lack of evidence, but for fear of being labeled conspiracy theorists. That label kills careers, shrinks audiences, and silences truth.”

When BuzzFeed published the Steele dossier in 2017, CNN refused to mention the “pee tape.” Too salacious. Too risky.

But they still chased the eyeballs—just euphemistically.

Abramson was speaking about Epstein in 2016. But the silence persists in 2025.

The media fears losing its microphone. But it’s losing it anyway—because of its timidity.

🧠 Section: Seth Abramson on Epstein’s Purported Mossad Ties

Abramson threads the suspicion with surgical clarity:

“Epstein died widely suspected of being an Israeli (Mossad) or American (CIA) intelligence asset.”

The quote from Alex Acosta—“Epstein belongs to intelligence”—wasn’t metaphor. It was a warning. A firewall.

🧠 Section: Clinton Derangement Syndrome Meets Shadow Diplomacy

If Clinton was compromised—by Epstein, Mossad, or U.S. intelligence—it explains:

• The obsessive media fixation
• The ritualistic scapegoating
• The refusal to let the Clinton name fade

CDS isn’t just emotional. It’s strategic. It’s how Trumpism launders its own sins—by projecting them onto a symbolic villain.

And Epstein? He may have been the architect behind that projection.

🧠 Section: Cui Bono—Who Benefits from Entrapping Clinton?

If Epstein was deployed to entrap Clinton, the question isn’t just how. It’s why. And for whom.

The answer? The GOP. The FBI. Likud. Anyone with a vested interest in sabotaging American democracy.

🧠 Section: Strange Bedfellows of Multipolarity

Hasan Piker says he’s not afraid of multipolarity. Neither was Hitler.

If Nazi Germany had won, we’d be living in a multipolar world. So what does it mean to be unafraid of that?

Netanyahu relishes multipolarity. So does Putin. So did Jackson Hinkle—who once extolled Bibi and Vlad as multipolar icons.

It’s not shocking. It’s revealing.

Putin dreams of ending U.S. hegemony. And he’s succeeded—at least for those who still pretend Mueller “proved” no collusion.

But Israel? Isn’t Israel our ally?

Not really. We think they are. They know better.

🧠 Section: The Paradox of “Our Israeli Allies”

Two paradoxes: A. Israel is not our ally. B. Israel doesn’t want U.S. hegemony—any more than Russia does.

They need our arms. Our political cover. But not our liberal order.

CODA: The USS Liberty incident in 1967—allegedly deliberate, never punished—underscores the asymmetry.

🧠 Section: The Contradiction of Liberal Zionism

Israel is not a liberal project. It’s a project of Jewish supremacy.

The “liberal” aspect—democracy for Jews—has been rolled back:

• Post–October 7
• Pre–October 7, with Netanyahu’s judicial coup

For Bibi, October 7 was the gift that keeps on giving.

🧠 Section: Tech Oligarchs and the Fall of U.S. Hegemony

A crypto-fascist coalition—tech oligarchs, tankies, and authoritarian elites—has long sought the collapse of U.S. hegemony.

Trump 2.0: Absolute Immunity Edition Mission accomplished.

🧠 Section: What Putin, Netanyahu, and the GOP Share

Mortal fear of U.S. democracy.

In 1992, Clinton’s victory triggered panic across three circles:

• The FBI
• The GOP
• Likud

The GOP felt entitled to the presidency. They’d dominated for 24 years. Clinton’s win shattered that illusion.

And the panic wasn’t unfounded. Democrats would go on to win 7 of the next 8 popular votes.

🧠 Section: Clinton Derangement Syndrome as Operating System

The GOP couldn’t win on ideas. So they went all in on personal demonization.

CDS became the operating system of Trumpism. And it infected not just the Far Right—but the Tankie Left.

🧠 SIDEBAR: Epstein as FBI Informant

We won’t dissect the FBI here. It’s an arm of the Republican Party. Just note: Epstein was an informant for GOPland.

🧠 Section: Likud’s Fear of American Democracy

Likud feared Clinton. Not because he was anti-Israel. But because he represented democratic unpredictability.

Like the GOP, Likud fears democracy’s return. They’ve spent decades obstructing it—since Nixon sabotaged LBJ’s peace talks in 1968.

🧠 Section: U.S. Policy Has Always Been Cucked by Israel

Since 1948, U.S. policy has bent to Israel’s will.

Truman had reservations. His State Department warned against a theocratic Jewish state. But the Zionist lobby threatened to flip New York Jews to Dewey.

Truman caved.

🧠 Section: The Likud–GOP Parallel

Likud has dominated Israeli politics since 1977. The GOP has dominated U.S. obstruction since Nixon.

Both prefer each other. Both fear democracy. Both sabotage liberal institutions.

🧠 Section: Epstein as a CDS Asset

It’s plausible Epstein was deployed to sully Clinton’s name. The GOP Congress and FBI spent seven years trying to destroy him.

Epstein may have been another track in the same project.

🧠 Section: Netanyahu—America Is Something That Can Be Controlled

In 2002, Netanyahu told settlers:

“America is something that can be moved very easily.”

Was he thinking of Lewinsky? Of Epstein?

🧠 Section: Historical Precedent for Israeli Blackmail

According to Gideon’s Spies, Israel used the Lewinsky scandal to blackmail Clinton.

So when I suggest Epstein may have been deployed by Mossad, it’s not just inductive. It’s deductive.

Who benefits?

The GOP. The FBI. Likud.

All allergic to democracy. All hostile to the Democratic Party.

🧠 Section: Deductive Logic vs. Savvy Amnesia

Most Savvy pundits have no use for deductive logic. No memory beyond Tuesday. Unless it’s a real or imagined sin of Hillary Clinton.

So when you suggest that Israel and the FBI may have backed Epstein’s entrapment of Clinton, they scoff. “Implausible,” they say. But history disagrees.

🧠 Section: Gideon’s Spies and the Lewinsky Blackmail

Gordon Thomas’s Gideon’s Spies lays it out:

• Mossad tapped Monica Lewinsky’s phone
• Amassed 30 hours of sexually explicit conversations
• Used them to pressure Clinton
• The price? → Call off the FBI’s hunt for an Israeli mole inside the White House—code-named MEGA

Lewinsky testified that Clinton warned her a foreign embassy was tapping her lines. She was told to joke during phone sex—to make the eavesdroppers look silly.

Starr asked about Mossad. Then dropped it.

Danny Yatom, Mossad’s inspector general, allegedly led the operation. Israel’s Committee for Central Intelligence met in emergency session. They played dirty. They protected their asset.

And the FBI? They backed off.

🧠 Section: The FBI–Mossad Convergence

So while your deductive argument about Epstein may remain speculative, the Lewinsky case is precedent.

Two intelligence agencies. One target. One outcome: → Protect the mole. → Damage U.S. national security.

That’s the “special relationship.” It rarely serves U.S. interests.

🧠 Section: Ryan Grim’s Take Didn’t Age Well

Ryan Grim broke the Lewinsky blackmail story. But on the same day, he credulously suggested Trump was drawing a red line against Israel’s warmongering.

Trump? He didn’t draw a line. He joined the invasion.

Grim would never do such a puff piece on Biden. Just another example of why the Left is useless—especially on the issue they claim matters most: → Israel’s genocide in the Middle East.

🧠 Section: Israel’s Electoral Collusion—Three Times in 44 Years

That we know of:

• 1980: October Surprise
• 2016: Multinational collusion (Israel, Russia, Saudis)
• 2024: Trump 2.0, Absolute Immunity Edition

Ken Starr entrapped Lewinsky into a perjury charge. Trump refused to speak to Mueller—called it a “perjury trap.”

Projection is the GOP’s operating system. Every accusation is a confession.

Even the Biden health furor follows the same pattern.

🧠 Section: To Paraphrase Martha: Who’s Afraid of the Multipolarity?

Israel had motive. Epstein was likely their asset. The FBI hated Clinton. They had means. They had opportunity.

And today?

U.S. foreign policy is cucked. Compromised by Trump. Hijacked by Jackson Hinkle’s multipolarity buddies: → Vladimir Putin → Benjamin Netanyahu

“Who’s afraid of the multipolarity?” Everyone should be—unless you’re a MAGA fascist or Tankie Nazboll a la Hinkle, Hasan, or the Grayzone.

Copilot’s new revised addendum:

🧠 Addendum to the Addendum: Whitney Webb Confirms the Blueprint

Talk about life coming at you fast.

When I criticized Whitney Webb earlier for her familiar “nonpartisan” gloss—this is not a partisan issue—I hadn’t yet watched the full video. But around the 1:20 mark of Whitney Webb: EPSTEIN, Intelligence & the Global Network of Power, she begins to thread the very variable I’d flagged: partisanship as a strategic lever in the international cartel’s operations.

And by 1:25? She confirms the blueprint.

“Ari Ben-Menashe said the sexual blackmail stuff of Epstein was done for Israel with the purpose of blackmailing Bill Clinton and other politicians… They’re both Democrats. So if you’re Israel and you’re trying to influence American policy, it would actually probably behoove you to largely blackmail Democrats because Democrats are the ones that at least in turn they posture anyway of being more sympathetic to Palestinians than Republicans.”

That was my premise exactly. Democrats needed to be neutralized before they could operationalize their stated support for a Palestinian state. And no doubt one major criticism of the Dems is they’ve done so little in that regard-but the question is why? Could such political blackmail be a major factor?

🧠 Strategic Entrapment and the Oslo Connection

Webb goes further. She documents Epstein’s financial ties to key figures in the Oslo Accords—like Rod Larson and George Mitchell—suggesting a pattern of influence targeting peace negotiators.

“He gave personal loans and other things to Rod Larson… one of the lead negotiators on the Oslo Peace Accords.” → Whitney Webb: EPSTEIN, Intelligence & the Global Network of Power at 1:26:36

🧠 Israel Knew About Lewinsky First

Then comes the bombshell.

“David Halper went over tons of documents and showed that Israel knew about Monica Lewinsky first… and Netanyahu pressed Clinton on that point to get something more favorable for Israel.” →at 1:27:02

If true, this reframes the entire impeachment saga. Ken Starr’s five-year fishing expedition found its hook in Lewinsky. And Netanyahu may have handed him the bait.

See Halper: Netanyahu said to have offered Lewinsky tapes for Pollard | The Times of Israel

🧠 Section: Was Clinton’s Impeachment Orchestrated by Israel?

If Whitney Webb’s reporting holds—and if Ari Ben-Menashe’s claims are even partially accurate—then the Clinton impeachment wasn’t just a domestic political spectacle. It was a strategically orchestrated operation, with foreign fingerprints embedded in the scaffolding.

Let’s break the architecture down:

• Epstein’s role wasn’t just social—it was infrastructural. He cultivated proximity to power, embedded himself in diplomatic circles, and leveraged sexual blackmail as a tool of influence.
• The Lewinsky affair, long treated as a salacious footnote, becomes something else entirely when Webb’s reporting suggests that Israel knew about it first. That’s not just surveillance—it’s preemptive leverage.
• Netanyahu’s pressure on Clinton, as Webb recounts, wasn’t just opportunistic. It was tactical. Clinton was vulnerable, and Israel had demands. The timing wasn’t coincidental—it was engineered.

This reframes the impeachment as more than a Republican fishing expedition. It becomes a multi-vector sabotage campaign, where:

• The GOP wanted a conviction
• The FBI wanted a scalp
• Israel wanted policy leverage
• And Epstein was the fixer who made it all possible

The implications are staggering.

If Clinton’s impeachment was catalyzed by foreign intelligence, then the consequences weren’t just personal—they were geopolitical.

• Hillary’s presidential viability was permanently damaged
• The Democratic Party’s credibility was eroded
• U.S. foreign policy was bent toward Israeli interests
• And the American public was gaslit into believing it was all about sex

CODA: The real scandal wasn’t the affair—it was the architecture of entrapment. And the real casualty wasn’t Clinton’s reputation—it was American sovereignty.

This is what happens when sabotage becomes strategy. When blackmail becomes diplomacy. When truth becomes a casualty of leverage.

🧠 The Parallel Universe That Was Denied

Imagine the counterfactual: No impeachment. No Clinton brand collapse. Hillary wins in 2016. Two terms. Steps down in 2024.

We’d be living in a different country.

CODA: Clinton had considered proposing UBI in 2016—a policy that could’ve addressed the wage stagnation epidemic dating back to the 1970s.

But democracy was inconvenient. For Netanyahu. For the GOP. For Putin.

🧠 The Marc Rich Pardon and Foreign Leverage

Webb also discusses how Clinton was pressured into pardoning Marc Rich—by Michael Steinhardt.

This wasn’t just a “bad pardon.” It was a foreign-dictated pardon, backed by blackmail.

“Clinton was basically bullied into the Marc Rich pardon.” → Whitney Webb – Epstein Had Close Connections to Israel

And yet Webb undermines her own point by comparing it to Biden’s pardon of Hunter—a pardon that I would actually argue was defensible but even if you disagree was not dictated by a foreign power.

🧠 The Brennan Diversion and the Real Scoop

Webb floats the rather implausible idea that Bill Brennan may have had a hand in Epstein’s death—because Epstein helped MBS rise to power.

The segment where she discusses Epstein’s role in MBS’s rise to power and the potential retaliatory motives from U.S. intelligence—including Brennan—is loosely referenced between 1:28:00 and 1:32:00. It’s not a formal allegation, but rather part of her broader narrative about Epstein’s influence in Saudi Arabia and the backlash that may have followed.

Webb speculates that Epstein’s role in facilitating MBS’s rise may have provoked retaliatory interest from figures like Bill Brennan—though no direct evidence is cited. Indeed she threads the need pretty tightly underscoring it’s a fairly loose speculation. 

FN: See 1:28:00 and 1:32:00.

For me that’s not the scoop-while I know of no evidence that implicates Brennan here if it were true it would almost be defensible. For me scoop is that Epstein was instrumental in MBS’s rise—underscoring that the wealthy and intel  connected pedophile was a force for authoritarianism across:

• The U.S.
• Israel
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia

Remember the righteous anger after MBS tortured and murdered Jamal Khashoggi? Memory-holed. Business as usual.

🧠 Final Sidebar: Who’s Afraid of the Multipolarity?

“Who’s afraid of the multipolarity?”

Everyone should be—unless they’re part of the sabotage syndicate:

→ MAGA fascists → Tankie Nazbolls → Crypto-authoritarian influencers

Webb’s revelations in Whitney Webb EXPOSES Epstein as Israel’s Agent and Whitney Webb Explains What Trump is HIDING From the Public show that the network isn’t just real—it’s operational.