The Dissemination of Information in Technological Society: Part 2

The falsity of American democracy and manufacturing consent via media framing

Apr 03, 2023

Continued from Part 1…

This part argues that the American public is presented with the illusion of choice in it’s elections which is inherently false. Furthermore, media framing is used to manufacture the public’s consent to this process.

THE MASSES HAVE ESSENTIALLY NO POWER IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

“Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus, by discrete action, we can ensure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.” - Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, addressing the U.S. Bankers’ Association, New York, Idaho Leader, 26 August 1924.

Despite playacting to their families and friends that they have high social status by disseminating establishment approved talking points, the masses have essentially no power in American democracy. Even if we ignore the power of the media in shaping narratives and debates, other factors explaining of powerlessness of citizens include:

Federal elections are determined almost entirely by which party is financed better and which party is the incumbent;
The parties, especially the Democrat party, decide on their candidates behind closed doors (the Republicans also try but they’re less competent at it);
The FBI regularly involves itself in investigations to help sway elections;
The steady flow of illegal immigration ensure a steady flow of new Democrat voters;
Election fraud is rampant via voter harvesting and lack of voter ID laws even if one disregards direct ballot stuffing or electronic ballot manipulation1 (although the media bragged about rigging/“fortifying” the 2020 election in Time Magazine led/prepared by Norm Eisen2, and Democrats created an institutionalized vote-by-mail tsar within the postal service); and
Courts regularly overrule “democracy” on flimsy pretexts even when voter preference is established via referendum.

Thanks for, uh, “fortifying” the election, libs.

Let’s go through each of these items briefly.

Federal elections are determined almost entirely by which party is better financed and which party is the incumbent. The vast majority of incumbents win reelection, as in 91% of elections the better financed candidate wins.

Candidates and cabinet members are decided on behind closed doors. Candidates are chosen by party members behind closed doors and primaries are either rigged or utilize various deceptions to secure the desired outcome. For example, in the early 2020 Democrat primaries Biden came in fourth place behind Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren, then inexplicably won Super Tuesday despite poor Super Tuesday polling. Insiders have bragged about how they pick their candidates in books such as The Party Decides.

With respect to cabinet members, through early 1988, 14 Secretaries of State (i.e. every one since 1949), 14 Treasury Secretaries, 11 Defense Secretaries, and scores of other federal department heads were chosen because of their membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (“CFR”). David Halberstam stated regarding the CFR, “They walk in one door as acquisitive businessmen and come out the other door as statesmen-figures” and the New York Times has acknowledged that the Council has “a uniform direction.”3

Even if the candidates and parties of the public win the parties ignore the desires of their constituents. This is because politics is “kayfabe”, which is a wrestling term meaning the convention of presenting staged performances as genuine or authentic. Both parties are controlled by the same financial interests, so even if the public wants change it appears impossible to achieve through the electoral process. Per Professor William F. Shughart, “One key conclusion of public choice [theory] is that changing the identities of the people who hold public office will not produce major changes in policy outcomes. Electing better people will not, by itself, lead to much better government.” This is demonstrable both in recent politics and in politics going back decades. Let’s start recent and work backwards:
- In 2017 the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and presidency. Trump was elected as a protest candidate and he won on a message of immigration restrictionism and trade protectionism. Despite controlling the presidency and Congress, what did the Republicans accomplish? They lowered taxes for the ultra rich, failed to reform Obamacare, Congress ignored immigration, and on trade Congress provided a weak, watered down NAFTA reform even as the trade deficit increased significantly from pre-Trump levels. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow Trump to appoint any recess cabinet members and House Majority Leader Paul Ryan actively tried to undermine him at every opportunity. Trump did try a number of executive orders on immigration which the courts stepped in to stop. They even prevented a simple executive reversal of the DACA program, which was itself a unilateral executive order issued without congressional approval by Obama!
  Thanks Mitch.
- Voting for the other side is no better: Obama ran as a “hope and change” “outsider” candidate after the financial crisis, then turned around and let Citigroup appoint his entire cabinet. Voters who hoped that the election of the first black President would heal old racial wounds discovered that racial grievances only increased dramatically, while spying on U.S. citizens via the NSA search databases systematically increased. We remained in Iraq and Afghanistan and started disastrous wars in Syria and Libya.
  “Hope and change”, an empty campaign slogan which won Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, resulted in no change and dashed hope.
- George W. Bush manipulated public opinion and faked Weapons of Mass Destruction (“WMD”) to get us into a disastrous war in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11; he planned to invade Iraq just three days after the attack. He actively conspired to protect Saudi Arabia from complicity in 9/11 even though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens (and a number of them were CIA assets) and various individuals at the Saudi embassy in the United States were involved. Saudi aircraft were allowed to leave the country while the rest of the nation’s airplanes were grounded, and GWB's administration deliberately used false testimony from a known lying informant codenamed “Curveball” as partial basis for war with Iraq in Colin Powell’s 2003 U.N. speech. 9/11 was used as an excuse to dramatically curtail the freedoms of American citizens via the Patriot Act, and GWB presided over a dramatic increase in illegal immigration and the national debt along with a subprime mortgage housing bubble that he helped create by bribing hispanic votes with 0-down loans for houses.
  The famous Iraq shoe throwing incident.
- It’s unclear what positions Biden ran on other than as an anti-Trump candidate. Inflation spiked massively and he has brought the world close to nuclear war over a nation, Ukraine, which only 16% of Americans can point out on a map. His cabinet also increased aggression against China over Taiwan as shown by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan visit.
- This kayfabe strategy is nothing new. Although Richard Nixon was considered a conservative based on his rhetoric and style and liberals hated him, his policies were constructed on the instructions of the establishment. He broke all records by giving more than 100 Council on Foreign Relations members government appointments. By 1970 syndicated columnist James Reston wrote: “It is true that Nixon rose to power as an anti-communist, a hawk on Vietnam, and an opponent of the New Deal, but once he assumed the responsibilities of the presidency, he began moving toward peace in Vietnam, coexistence with the Communist world of Moscow and Peking, and despite all his political reservations, even toward advocacy of the welfare state at home.” His administration permitted the Soviets to discharge their $11 billion World War 2 debt at less than ten cents on the dollar, and then receive millions of tons of our grain at subsidized rates. He also opened up forty U.S. ports to their ships and pushed Congress to grant the USSR most-favored-nation trade status.4
- Another instance of kayfabe was Ronald Reagan who was presented to the public as a conservative. Campaigning in 1980, he said he intended to balance the budget by 1983. However, the federal deficit actually increased from $40.2-$78.9 billion under Carter to $127.9 billion in 1982 and $208.9 billion in 1983. He chalked up more government debt that all the presidents before him combined. While Congress bears some culpability for this Reagan’s own budget proposals estimated deficits from $100-200 billion dollars. The civilian work force in the executive branch grew by nearly 100,000 between 1981 and 1986. He appointed more than 80 individuals to his administration who were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission or both. When communist Poland defaulted on its interest payments to American banks Reagan didn’t pressure Warsaw — he bailed out the banks by having the U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab.5 And who could forget Reagan’s support for the 1986 illegal immigration amnesty which radically sped up the racial transformation of America?
  The 1986 immigration amnesty really slowed down the border invasion. Thanks Reagan.

The FBI, working in conjunction with a complaint media, decides what to investigate and what to announce publicly also has a dramatic impact on elections. Hunter Biden’s laptop was known to be authentic months prior to the 2020 elections yet knowingly downplayed as false by the FBI, 51 intelligence agents lied and falsely discredited it (orchestrated by Blinken), the media refused to cover it and Twitter and Facebook banned the NY Post for covering it. The FBI even threatened the laptop repairman who had Hunter’s laptop. This coverup had a meaningful impact on election results. Additionally, the FBI regularly tries to stage events for “optics” so a story can be spun even if the narrative has no relation to the underlying event. Two examples of this: (1) then-Senator Jeff Sessions randomly met a Russian official among hundreds of people, with the forgettable and brief interaction being used as the basis to argue that he lied at his AG confirmation hearing and therefore he needed to recuse himself from the Russia investigation (this frame involved a heavy assist from media allies); and (2) released text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page show their disappointment that Trump had private security (failing to mention any concern about the Secret Service, curiously enough) and how as a result they were not able to arrange a brief public interaction between Trump and a Russian proxy which would have been the basis for more smears. The FBI looks deeply at optics - as long as the basic meetup happened, they can make everything up about the circumstances and facts surrounding it.

Even in the rare instances of a direct democracy referendum making the opinions of the public known, the courts will step in and overrule it, or other legal shenanigans will result in it being thrown out. An example is California Proposition 8 in 2008 prohibiting gay marriage (52% vs 48%), struck down by the courts; another is 1994’s California Proposition 187 (58% to 42%) which would have prevented illegals from using non-emergency public services, also struck down by the courts. The impact of overturning Prop 187 has been catastrophic, resulting in a state with an unknown number of illegals (but likely over 10 million), and eviscerated the quality of public services. Another instance is the 2022 Recall Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon effort which failed because of rigid signature matching where 30% of signatures were thrown out. Compare that to the 2018 legislative elections and 2016 presidential election where liberals strenuously fought against any signature matching and the California signature rejection rate was 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively.
Anti-democratic judge Mariana Pfaelzer, single-handedly responsible for destroying California by overturning the voter’s will by blocking Prop 187.

A combination of Democrats encouraging the entry of tens of millions of Democrat-leaning Hispanic immigrants along with Republican leadership’s support (despite the base’s objections) in order to depress wages has radically transformed the voting base of the U.S. population in a few decades. California today has a supermajority Democrat legislature; Republicans have no power despite being the state of Reagan a generation ago and Schwarzenegger a decade ago. Voter’s lack of support for mass immigration doesn’t matter; the elites imported in a permanent new underclass based on race to further their quest for power regardless. Hispanics at minimum vote 58% Democrat; the highest Hispanic vote for a Republican was to George W. Bush in 2004 when he got 42% of their vote (one source says 40%) and blacks consistently vote 90% Democrat. With whites 62% of the population and rapidly decreasing it’s a simple math equation: liberals are trying to complete what they accomplished in California but nationally.6 If they succeed and achieve a supermajority with no checks on their power we may end up with a repeat of the Russian revolution but on a racial level against whites instead of an economic level against kulaks.

The Postal Service announced a new elections division specifically to handle mail-in ballots. Chuck Devore at The Federalist concludes “the more our elections rely on the Postal Service, the more interference we can expect.” Jim Hoft writes, “A major part of their election scheme is the work done by the US Postal Service with mail-in ballots. Democrats NEED mail-in ballots and Democrats NEED the assistance of the US Postal Service.”

A 2014 Princeton study also concluded the average American citizen has no power: “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.” As Henry Adams wrote in the 1890s: “We have a single system and in that system the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold, the bread and circuses.”7

Putting this all together, it’s illogical for the average American citizen to passionately care about our “representative” voting system when the gulf between their passion and their ability to influence governmental policies is close to zero.

THE MEDIA SERVES AS A BRAINWASHING TOOL VIA FRAMING DEVICES

It’s not just the media picking, choosing and running with meta-narratives and associated sub-narratives to fulfill major political goals that’s an issue, but the way the media chooses to report on and frame issues at all. Why was a particular topic picked for coverage? Will it enhance the prestige of the organization? Will advertisers like it? Will it be clickbait enough to draw the public’s attention away from competitors? Will it promote various agendas of the owners/publishers of the organization? Will it help advance the writer’s career? How is the report being written and what words are being used? What people are being interviewed how much coverage in the interview does that person get, what quotes are chosen to be used, and with how prominently is that person’s quote displayed? Where is the article placed on the media org’s masthead and what title is chosen and why? If the article involves non-public information, what were the agendas of the people providing that information in the first place?

The pernicious idea that there is objective reporting happening on any issue is simply a lie. Any article written by anyone at any time and under any circumstances has an agenda in mind, whether it is a stated or implied one. To read an article regardless of content is to put you in the writer’s mindset and frame of reference.8 You can choose to consciously reject the contents of the article but the residue of the ideas being promoted will linger within your mind regardless of any conscious decisions you make. Hence the power of outrageous clickbait articles to advance establishment agendas; their frame has been implanted into your mind.9

Furthermore, who is being selected as the subject of the reader’s sympathy, and what corresponding photos go along with it? Women in particular are extremely sensitive to visual imagery of dead children and hurt animals, which is why the photo of the drowned Syrian child was disseminated so widely to force open Europe’s borders to massive numbers of Muslim immigrants in 2015, a similar photo was used successfully in the Vietnam war to stoke anti-war sentiment, a starving polar bear was pushed hard to advance a global warming agenda, and one can see the false testimony by 15-year old “Iraqi” Nayirah to help advance the first Gulf War (she was really the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador). One should be careful about extending too much sympathy to people you don’t know; humans aren’t designed to feel sympathy for the whole world and what develops is a fake sympathy leading to sympathetic blowout where one becomes less able to show sympathy for the people who need it in one’s own life.

Therefore, it’s important to be conscious about the types of content you consume, to be sensitive to the impact an article can have on you regardless of whether you reject its messaging or not, and as a default try to ask what the agenda is of the writer, the publisher, and the people interviewed. Most people read content by the most prestigious organizations for their “team” (New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair for the liberals, and Fox News and the New York Post for conservatives) without considering the underlying agendas being pushed.

One instance demonstrating the media’s everyday power is the lopsided coverage between the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and the Johnny Depp trial, which coincided simultaneously. The Depp trial, where he sued his ex Amber Heard for defamation for publicly calling him a wife-beater, was covered in lurid detail, with multiple daily updates and stories on all the mainstream website, expert analysis, and public coverage. The charges against Maxwell included sex trafficking underage women with Jeffrey Epstein to rich and powerful men like, per public reports, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Alan Dershowitz and many others, but the trial was conducted behind closed doors, rarely mentioned in the media, with limited expert analysis and extremely pertinent information downplayed and ignored by the media. For example, Maxwell’s victim and client list was never released — is this the first time in history someone has been found guilty of sex-trafficking no one and to no one? Alexander Acosta at his confirmation hearing had said “I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone.” Who was Maxwell and Epstein working for? US intelligence, Israel intelligence, perhaps both? And to what end — to have blackmail on the rich and powerful? For what purpose? And who else were they connected to? Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s stepfather Samuel Pisar was the longtime lawyer and confidant of Israel/Soviet spy Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine’s father. What was the extent of Blinken’s relationship to Maxwell and why was he appointed Secretary of State? Why was Maxwell an extremely influential Reddit moderator, “very much involved in manipulating the news feed of r/worldnews” with the 8th most Reddit karma of all time, and who tried to influence Redditors with a pro-child pornography public position? Why were the Rothschilds intimately connected to Epstein?10 These questions and many other have never been addressed. But to someone who follows the mainstream media without a proper degree of skepticism, one would have been wrapped up the Depp trial and would more or less ignore the Maxwell trial, despite the importance of the latter being so much greater to society.

Ghislaine Maxwell had the 8th most Reddit Karma points of all time.

Other examples of the media’s power to memory-hole disfavored topics include:

The 2017 Las Vegas shooting massacre (the FBI eventually found “no motive”),
The Notre Dame cathedral fire (caused by a Muslim but never officially announced for political reasons while Michelle Obama watched the fire from a lavish dinner cruise along the Seine),
The San Bernardino Muslim attack (where the media focused on the fear of the Muslim community of retaliation, Apple refused to unlock the attacker’s phones and the victims received almost no media coverage),
The Manchester Arena bombing,
The Christchurch Manifesto (scrubbed from the internet),
The 2016 Colbert election special (scrubbed from the internet),
The 737 MAX crashes,
The 1970s Weatherman Days of Rage leading to terrorists becoming institutionalized,
Pink slime being reinstated into food,
Hillary throwing a seven figure Champaign bottle at the television when she lost with John Podesta telling the crowd to go home without a concession speech,
The Waukesha Christmas parade massacre,
The Clinton Foundation filing a $16.8 million loss in 2018 with revenue down 90%+ after losing the 2016 election (is this not powerful circumstantial evidence of pay-for-play?), and
The publicly accessible video of Biden bragging about forcing Ukraine to fire its anti-corruption prosecutor or lose $1 billion dollars of aid.11

There are many more examples. Working with establishment historians, they can even render entire (disfavored) eras boring and unworthy of public attention such as post-Civil War Reconstruction, World War 1, and the Byzantine Empire.

The power of the media to keep topics in the public mind, or to make them disappear forever, is immense. A couple of famous examples are presented in a Revolver News article:

an event with baseball player Jackie Robinson taking the field against a racist crowd and his teammate putting his arm around him which quieted the crowd never happened;
the deaths from the Tulsa Riot have been grossly exaggerated;
Emmett Till’s death supposedly represented to the media what was normal in the south in the 1950s, but nothing about the case was typical;
the killing of Matthew Shepard was portrayed by the media as a homophobic murder yet the murder had nothing to do with his sexuality;
the Central Park Five have been held out as an indictment of American’s criminal justice system but the truth is they were almost certainly guilty;
the “Stonewall Inn” raid was targeting the mafia, not homosexuals; and
John Grisham’s famous book “A Time to Kill” about white on black racism switched the races of the perpetrator and victim.

This is only a small slice of the media’s ability to create stories out of thin air.

Another aspect of media brainwashing is their choice of words they use in their framing. See the following charts from the New York Times on their use of the words “Emmett Till”, “white privilege”, “transphobia”, “racism”, “sexism”, “homophobia”, and a host of other liberal trigger words, which are repeated endlessly to induce a Pavlovian trigger response:

This media can dial down or turn up the reporting on a topic if new political realities demand it, which the New York Times is possibly in the process of doing now that the Orange Man threat has abated, transitioning from wokism to statism. See this multiple-part tweet (click and scroll down):

Balaji @balajis

NYT is transitioning from wokism to statism. Because the US establishment doesn’t want domestic chaos anymore. They’re in control. So you’ll see less riots calling for abolishing police, more funding for riot police. Less on toxic masculinity, more on troops for foreign wars.

Consider also the political and moral connotations behind the changing application of labels, for example, from “illegal immigrant” (bad) to “migrant” (neutral to good). Or consider the use of opposite labels depending if the subject is considered “good" or “bad” by the media for the same underlying behavior, for example between Russia and the U.S.:

Even a more face neutral term like “minority” is a politically loaded term — a minority of what? When one thinks of a minority one thinks of someone black, brown, Muslim, transsexual, homosexual, etc. But if looked at from a broader perspective, the percentage of the world population with European Caucasian ancestry is currently 6.5%, shrunken from 25% merely 100 years ago. It’s interesting how much difference the scope of the term makes on its definition.

As Alain Besancon remarked, “The moment the individual accepts the language of the ideology, he allows his mental world and his sense of self-respect to be hijacked along with the language. No matter how inadvertently he may have stumbled into the use of the official vocabulary, he is now part of the ideology and has, in a manner of speaking, entered into a pact with the devil….”12

Even if you consciously reject the weaponization of these terms out of hand, you will likely accept their framing unless you are careful. Repetition is powerful. Your mind is their target.

*****

In Part 3 we will look at the role of government approved experts and institutions in keeping citizens pacified, the importance of self-research, an examination of how modern education is taught, and a discussion of the “NPC” meme.

Republicans complain about electronic ballot fraud now, but Democrats have been complaining about it in previous eras. Liberal author Gore Vidal in his book Imperial America, p. 33, quoted Dr. Howard Strauss, a Princeton computer science professor, who warned: "The presidential election of 1992, without too much difficulty and with little chance of the felons getting caught, could be stolen by computers for one candidate or another. The candidate who can win by computer has worked far enough ahead to rig the election by getting his "consultants" to write the software that runs thousands of vote-counting computers from coast to coast. There are so many computers that use the same software now that a presidential election can be tampered with - in fact, may already be tampered with. Because of trade secrets, nobody can be the wiser." It is not Republican vs. Democrat ballot fraud, really, but elite establishment fraud against the anti-establishment masses. Vidal then alleges that George HW Bush used such a method to rig the 1988 Republican presidential primary against Bob Dole after Dole trounced him in the Iowa caucus. For a couple points of interest, see former CIA chief Bush laughing in his speech at Gerald Ford's funeral about JFK's assassination:

Or even, puzzlingly enough, Bush being the lone survivor out of 9 downed American airmen who got captured and eaten by the Japanese during the 1944 Chichijima incident.

“As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against President Trump.” Read the whole thing here.

James Perloff, The Shadows of Power, 7-8, 10.

Id., 145, 147-148.

Id., 170, 172.

A common liberal response to this argument is "oh, the white settlers did this to the Native Americans, so it is justice that it happens to them in return." They're right in the sense that white settlers wrongly abrogated many of the treaties they signed with the indigenous populations and the Trial of Tears was sad and improper, but (1) 90% of the entire Native American population died specifically from smallpox, because they had no prior exposure to the disease and their immune systems had no defense to it, quoted from this otherwise COVID CNN propaganda piece :

“‘That’s how the author Diane Glancy describes the devastating effects of smallpox in her historical novel, “The Reason for Crows.” That pandemic was part of a biological catastrophe that eventually wiped out an estimated 90% of native peoples in North America. “It was disease more than the cavalry that defeated the Indians,” says Glancy, an acclaimed poet who is the daughter of a Cherokee father and an English/German mother.’”

This more than anything else left white Christian settlers with huge expanses of empty land to expand into; and (2) white Christian countries are the top target for immigration worldwide. If white Christians are so irredeemably racist and evil why does everyone want to come to Western Europe, the U.S., Canada or Australia? It’s not just wealth; Japan and South Korea and plenty of Islamic countries are wealthy but there is very limited immigration. Could it be something about the high trust, anti-tribal, law-abiding, entrepreneurial atmospheres in these western countries? If so, what do liberals think life will be like for them personally if they get their wish and kill it off?

Gore Vidal, Imperial America, 50.

See Carl Schmitt, Concept of the Political, section 3: “First, all political concepts, images, and terms have a polemical meaning. They are focused on a specific conflict and are bound to a concrete situation; the result (which manifests itself in war or revolution) is a friend-enemy grouping, and they turn into empty and ghostlike abstractions when this situation disappears. Words such as state, republic, society, class, as well as sovereignty, constitutional state, absolutism, dictatorship, economic planning, neutral or total state, and so on, are incomprehensible if one does not know exactly who is to be affected, combated, refuted, or negated by such a term. Above all the polemical character determines the use of the word political regardless of whether the adversary is designated as nonpolitical (in the sense of harmless), or vice versa if one wants to disqualify or denounce him as political in order to portray oneself as nonpolitical (in the sense of purely scientific, purely moral, purely juristic, purely aesthetic, purely economic, or on the basis of similar purities) and thereby superior.”

This is also why the media continues to have such impressive power despite public trust in media being at an all-time low: they continue to set the narrative framing.

Per the WSJ: “Mrs. de Rothschild was named chairwoman of the bank in January 2015. That October, she and Epstein negotiated a $25 million contract for Epstein’s Southern Trust Co. to provide “risk analysis and the application and use of certain algorithms” for the bank, according to a proposal reviewed by the Journal. In 2019, after Epstein was arrested, the bank said that Mrs. de Rothschild never met with Epstein and it had no business links with him. The bank acknowledged to the Journal that its earlier statement wasn’t accurate.” Also see the Substack post “What does a Rothschild, a Goldman Sachs Top Lawyer and a CIA agent have in common?”

"If the prosecutor's not fired you're not getting the money [$1 billion]. Well son of a bitch, he got fired, and they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”