Epstein and How To Approach Disinformation

The 'current thing' is the Epstein cover-up. President Trump seemed swampy by saying recently that there was nothing more of interest. It was apparently all just about some "creep" and his creepy fetish. For the Populist champion, this was about as unpopulist as one could get. Regardless of whether Trump is a Populist or not (I believe he's a Neoliberal), being unpopulist at this stage of history is extremely unpopular. Trump and his relevant staff of Pam Bondi and Kash Patel have been pilloried by the public and they deserve it in my opinion.

However, we live in a time of confusion and disinformation. It's hard to know the probably-true from the almost-certainly-false. Governments put out false or irrelevant information to fog up the windows. Other nefarious actors add their own bad air. Being 'informed' is not enough. I want to outline my thought process. I want to show how I steer a path to reasonable conclusions.

I must admit that, although I've spent a lot of time on the Epstein case, I'm far from an expert. There are hundreds of ordinary people out there better equipped to analyze the case. Plus, by the time you read this, you'll have many more answers than me. (I'm writing this July 16-19, 2025) My point is to show you my path. It's the method that is helpful.

These are more or less in order.

1. Rules Of Thumb

The single most important thing is having rules of thumb. I mean the kind you gain through experience. A rule of thumb seems dumb in the face of statistics and scientific studies; but that's exactly where the disinformation will trick you. Obviously, I'm not claiming that scientific sources aren't important too. A rule of thumb is imperfect. Don't lose your nerve about that. It takes you so far. Always start with some rules of thumb.

With the Epstein case, I start with: People are innocent until proven guilty, but governments are guilty until proven innocent.

2. The Cartesian Method: Find Bedrock

If someone much more powerful than you can decieve you at will, how do you know what's true? That was basically Descartes' famous connundrum. His answer was that you need to find bedrock. You need to find something so true that even a reality-bending demon can't make it untrue. It's the same basic notion in a world of disinformation. Can you find one fact which proves the authorities are lying, because it's not open to interpretation?

With the Epstein case, I found two. The first is the wounds on his neck. There are clearly two horizontal wounds. The second forks off from the first, at about 20 degrees. One cannot create these wounds by hanging oneself from a bed post. Epstein had a broken neck bone. To drop oneself with such force as to break one's neck, the force would also pull the cord upwards, making a curved or 45-degree-angle wound on the neck. There is no way a hanging with torn bedsheets can cause two neck-wounds. The wounds are consistent with strangulation. The second, slightly-off-angle wound is due to the killer adjusting his grip for a split second. This fact is further backed-up by the statement of a former inmate that there is no way to commit suicide in those jail cells.

The second bedrock fact is the impossibility of any criminal investigation resting its case on one crappy camera recording which doesn't show the actual crime scene. We get a low-res and software-manipulated video stream with a crucial minute or three missing. There is no way a security camera company would overlook a lack of 24/7 accuracy during a regular audit. And this in New York, the center of the world for lawsuits! But let's put this aside, because it still lacks the certainty we need. The certainty is that even a simpleton can see that this is not proof of X. Camera footage is amongst the most tamper-unproof evidence of all. Anyone who has watched Columbo knows that. The claim is just so ridiculous that it reveals the lie.

Now, like Descartes, we have set up a solid foundation.¹ If they're lying about that, they're lying about other stuff too.

3. Define Your Question Carefully

It's like spilling oil on the tiles before you walk on them. I mean, when you don't define the question carefully, what do you really want to find out? "The truth about Epstein." You'll end up accepting some true tidbit that isn't really helpful in the long run. People end up talking at cross-purposes.

Here are my questions carefully defined.

By using the term 'act as', I avoid the whole question of whether he was employed by The Mossad or the C.I.A. or whoever- a question rife with plausible deniability.

Specific questions can lead to other questions. In the course of research for my two questions, I have added a third:

4. Prioritize Incentives

People lie so easily nowadays. I tend to think that we live in a particularly bad era for honesty. The quickest way to filter the lies is to expose the incentives. Incentives usually show up in behavior, if you look closely, but otherwise you're dependent on a bit of research. For example, with politicians, it's easy to find out how they've voted and statements they've made. When you really can't uncover any clear incentives, you need to assume those most likely. See where that takes you.

For example, what is Bill Gates's incentive for hanging out with Epstein? Access to pretty teenage girls? He could just take a holiday in Ukraine and hit up some contacts there.

Another example: What is the incentive for President Trump risking a massive dip in popularity by taking the opposite side to his blue-collar base?

Here's another, and this could easily go in point #8 below about anomalies. What was the incentive for hiring Epstein at Dalton School, and then hiring him at Bear Stearns? He was unqualified, and had neither the intelligence nor the diligence to overcome that shortcoming. He seemed to fail upwards. Epstein had two things going for him: Comeliness and confidence. At the time, it might be argued, that he also had youth as a big advantage, being in his early 20s. What would it gain you to prioritize hiring a good-looking, young guy? The answer could get creepy if you take into account the fact that Dalton's headmaster, Donald Burr, made a habit of hiring young teachers.²

5. Consult A Variety Of Sources

It's good to have trusted sources, but one can become too insular. Different perspectives sharpen the mind.

It's also good to go back in time. The saying 'liars need very good memories' is wise. People writing articles on behalf of nefarious actors cannot know how things will change in the future, and consequently, something that seems like an innocent comment then becomes incriminating now. The Wayback Machine is a treasure trove. Go back to the days around the target news story. When I did this, I noticed the coincidence of Epstein's death with the exit from office of both the Director and Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Epstein died just two working days before they were due to leave. Just a coincidence or was somebody's hand forced? Notice as well this mention of a suspicious car with tinted windows at Epstein's home. What became of that?

A survey of sources was revealing in itself. Mainstream media is focussing on the 'client list' (like here) and throwing in the term 'conspiracy theory' lots of times as a slur. Given that no criminal writes a list saying 'here are my accomplices', the 'client list' angle is a misdirection.³ At the other end of the spectrum, hardcore populists like Steve Bannon are making it a political issue of the most fundamental kind: Who really runs the government? Trump loyalists like Megyn Kelly and Dave Rubin are making it about incompetence of Trump's staff. (See here and here.) Bondi's overpromising and underdelivering is certainly a factor, but I think that this is also a distraction. I think it's a case of not defining the questions carefully. (See above, #3). Firsthand experience is gold. Eric Weinstein's judgement that Epstein was a "construct", obviously unskilled in that which he should be, but nevertheless showing up in the most important places in the world, definitely supports the notion that he was somehow linked to a covert organization. If I read him right, Weinstein suspects that this organization was non-governmental. Along with firsthand experience, analysts who work openly with the primary source material, such as Chris Martenson, Dr G, and Mike Benz, are particularly helpful. Finally, Zionists such as Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin defend the official line and ridicule 'conspiracy theorists'. This should be combined with points #4 and #8.

6. A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

My perspective often changes when I see photos. Maybe it's the way certain brains like mine work. But I do think images are especially helpful for understanding.

When I saw photos of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell,⁴ I realized that Hannah Arendt's famous banality of evil once again proved to be so accurate. See Ghislaine here as the pathetic Daddy's Girl, willing to obey orders like some performing monkey. There's not much beyond that smile. Here, with her stinking-rich diamond necklace, I see someone for whom the high life is the be-all-and-end-all. Here, with Epstein, I see she's found another socialite, one with a similar lack of depth. Someone with a lack of depth can be easily trained to have a lack of conscience. Epstein's casual attire caught my eye. Apparently, this was very much his style. It suggests self-importance and a higher purpose.

Body language is also very important. Here's one example. Pam Bondi tells Jesse Watters on Fox News that she's releasing a scoop about the Epstein case "tomorrow". She seems excited. She seems to be expecting a "wow, great!" response. Instead, Watters drills down past the typical media hype. He asks if the release will contain the flight logs and any videos of others caught on Epstein's hidden cameras. Watch Bondi tense up and swallow firmly. Her certainty disappears and she fumbles the answer. This is strong evidence that she knew that the full extent of the case would not be revealed. Dr G has done good work on Epstein-related body language.

7. Run Through 'What If?' Scenarios

It helps so much to step back from the hoopla and run through 'what if' scenarios. Strip back a claim or piece of information to its most basic form and then play things out as if it were true.

For example, President Trump must be aware of the outrage. For the first time ever, he got 'ratioed'⁵ on his own (sycophantic) social medium, Truth Social. What if he was being truthful? What if he genuinely thought there were better things to do than go over the Epstein case? Then that is an issue of priorities and priorities cause postponement but not cancellation.⁶ The 'what if' scenario just doesn't make sense. Trump must have other reasons for saying, in effect, "move along dummies, nothing to see here."

Another example: What if Jeffrey Epstein was blackmailing the deal-makers of the world? Then he wouldn't have lasted long. This is another 'what if' scenario which proves an absurdity. That's not to say that he wasn't collecting kompromat as leverage.

8. Anomalies Tell Us The Most

This rule might also be labelled 'look for the dog which doesn't bark'. This saying comes from a Sherlock Holmes mystery.⁷ In the story, Holmes realizes that a guard dog should have barked, unless it knew the murderer. A silent dog is much harder to notice than a barking dog. Disinformation often leads to unusual absences in a story.

For example, this article from ABC news, owned by Disney, and usually the most 'regime-friendly' of the mainstream U.S. news media, and interestingly first to report Epstein's death, gives an opinion of the lawyer who sued Epstein's estate on behalf of his victims. The lawyer's opinion might be summarized with his statement: "Nearly all of the exploitation and abuse of all of the women was intended to benefit only Jeffrey Epstein." I believe this to be true. I also believe a close-reading uncovers classic 'dog not barking' anomolies.

Another interesting anomaly from which I learned a lot was the design of Epstein's temple, especially the Greco-Roman frescoes. I'm quite firm on my conclusion, but I don't know how the pieces fit yet. It's still half-baked, so I'm going to keep it to myself for now.

It's useful to combine anomalies with 'what if' scenarios, as outlined in point #7; for example, Epstein's unmonitored phonecall to someone in Bulgaria just before his life ended. Unmonitored is unallowed in that prison of course. What if it was allowed for the sake of getting some crucial piece of information? What if they had been waiting for the crucial piece of information and thenceforward Epstein was expendable? Admittedly, this veers off into speculation. One must be cautious.

9. Don't Overlook The Obvious

Obvious answers are unsexy. "Why are people under 30 not having kids? Because they can't afford homes." Nobody gets a following by saying that. Obvious answers are nevertheless essential. The most cunning way that disinformation works is by distracting you from the answers right in front of you.

Money is boring to most people, but why was Epstein successful? Why was he in a position to do the sex-crimes? Strip away the salacious aspects and you get Epstein's involvement with very large sums of money. A transaction in the tens of millions was routine. His banks ignored proper AML checks. How did he even get his money? As horrific as all the sex crimes are, the ease with which he did his money laundering is the real story.

Another thing not getting much attention is the way Ghislaine Maxwell behaves like a spy for a foreign intel agency. She groomed and supplied the pretty girls for Epstein and his friends. Her background is suspicious to say the least. Ghislaine Maxwell's father, Abraham Hoch (Robert Maxwell), a Czech Jew, was a Mossad agent and rabid Zionist. Ghislaine Maxwell worked for her father with devotion. As I analyzed above, I believe she loved to obey orders.

There are many more obvious facts, if you follow the case, but I want to mention one more. I highlight the timing of the 'nothing to see here' memo. This memo, strange because it was unsigned, was leaked the day before Netanyahu's meeting with Trump at the White House. Notice Trump's body language. This pose is done by someone anxious to get something from the other person. "I'm listening to you closely so we can make a deal."⁸

10. Make Predictions

Falsification would be nice, but only suits a controlled scientific environment. The danger is that theories become unfalsifiable. No matter what new evidence comes to light, one can fit it to one's views. If Ghislaine Maxwell 'sings like a bird' about her dealings with The Mossad, then I can say "I was right!"; but if she makes no mention of it, then I can say that she is hiding it in fear for her life.

The first step is making clear statements of belief. The clearer the statement, the more obvious it looks when one is wrong.

Then, make predictions based on those statements. Imagine things that would flow necessarily from your beliefs.

For example, here's one of my beliefs as of July 19th, 2025: The main people being protected are the people who helped Epstein obscure the money. These people, I believe, either turned a blind eye, or accepted, to some extent, Epstein's sexual bribes. They are being protected because they are still useful. I predict that no banker or financier will be prosecuted. I predict that the Epstein case will develop more and more as a salacious pedophile scandal and not a scandal of financial corruption at the highest levels.

Postscript

I could be completely wrong, but I don't mind. It's easy to feel despair. Nefarious actors want insightful people to give up. Don't let them win.