A few weeks ago, commentator Peggy Tierney wrote a Substack piece in which she referenced a long article – a profile piece – written about Jeffrey Epstein in 2014 by well-known author and journalist Michael Wolff. According to Tierney, although the article was intended to polish Epstein’s public image, it was never picked up by any publication but nevertheless somehow ended up in parts of the “Epstein files” that were released earlier this year by the House Oversight Committee.
The countless articles, books and media documentaries about Epstein have fixated on his insatiable sexual appetites and predilection for teenage girls, as well as his willingness to provide the services of those very young females to some of his friends and colleagues. That lens on Epstein’s life – and the nonstop public outrage it has generated – could easily lead one to conclude that the primary purpose of his existence was to serve as a wealthy and somewhat eccentric pimp for the world’s elites.
Wolff’s article, however, reveals otherwise. As gross as that behavior may have been, the teenage-girl sex stuff was a mere pastime, and fixating on it is a dangerous distraction.
The true threats from Epstein and his sycophants lay elsewhere.
[…]Shanahan explained how billions of dollars were funneled into nongovernmental organizations, purportedly for charity but really to implement policy. The constant refrains of “social justice” and “climate change,” she says, were fabricated ruses designed to appeal to progressive women seeking personal validation through philanthropic work; wives and mothers too overwhelmed (and too medicated) to discover that the “charities” were coverups for global power grabs.
In that vein, Wolff’s summation of Epstein’s role is telling. He says, “Epstein’s position in this … is not as a philanthropist but as a sort of adviser or guru or brain – a rich whisperer – making him … arguably among the most influential people you’ve only heard of for reasons that have nothing to do with his influence.”
BOOM. There you go.
Those who don’t believe Epstein committed suicide are certain he was taken out because he had “dirt” on men for whom he procured sexual services. Perhaps. But it seems more likely that the threat was not so much the potential exposure of the sexual exploitation per se but rather the possibility that all the revealed smut would undermine the longer-term political, economic and social objectives of Epstein’s cohorts and advisees.
Either way, all the names in the “Epstein files” should be released. They all need to be exposed, not so much for their sexual inclinations but for their authoritarian aspirations.
— Laura Hollis, Dec. 6 WorldNetDaily column