»How to Rule the World« von Theo Baker: Theo Baker enthüllt die Lügenkultur der Tech-Milliardäre | DIE ZEIT
▻https://www.zeit.de/2026/28/how-to-rule-the-world-theo-baker-stanford-silicon-valley-tech-elite/komplettansicht
-- Permalink
#stanford #technology #elite #mindset #SiliconValley #culture #power #domination #capitalism
Political instability may be a contributor in the coming decade | Nature
▻https://www.nature.com/articles/463608a
— Permalink
#elite #overproduction #social #unrest #power #powerdynamics
« Wie gründe ich einen Kult ? » : Leak enthüllt Mitglieder von Peter Thiels Geheimnetzwerk
▻https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000327656/wie-gruende-ich-einen-kult-leak-enthuellt-mitglieder-von-peter-thiels-ge
La Dialog Society est le projet Lebensborn du spéculateur Peter Thiel. Dans sa vision randienne il a remplacé l’illusion arienne par le culte de la race entrepreneunariale. Il se rapproche du précurseur nazi quand il y invite Kaja Kallas qui brille plutôt par son interprétation de l’idéal de la femme dison nordique que par ses prouesses intellectuelles.
Dans l’idéologie d’après Ayn Rand c’est uniquement le succès de la personne qui la fait entrer chez les surhommes.
►https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn
17.6.2026 - In der 2006 gegründeten „Dialog Society“ treffen Nato-Generäle, internationale Politiker und die Tech-Elite aufeinander
Das Netzwerk „Dialog Society“ besteht bereits seit zwanzig Jahren. Seit seiner Gründung vermochte es Gründer Peter Thiel jedoch, seinen Gästen Anonymität zu gewährleisten. Nun zeigt ein Leak auf, wie sich die Spitzen der US-Politik, der Tech-Industrie und internationaler Regierungen jährlich treffen und vernetzen – alles off the record, versteht sich.
Interessenkonflikte
Die Informationen versteckten sich im Quellcode der Website von Dialog. Zuerst entdeckt wurde das Verzeichnis von Maia Arson Crimew, einer renommierten Schweizer Aktivistin und Hackerin. Auch eine weitere Quelle stellte Wired die dort enthaltene Anmeldeliste für das Dialog-Retreat zur Verfügung. Die 222 Namen wurden mit Kategorien wie „Mitgliedsstatus“ versehen.
Dass sich reiche und/oder einflussreiche Menschen zum Netzwerken treffen, ist erst mal nichts Neues. Die Teilnehmerliste des diesjährigen „Dialog Retreats“, das vom 12. bis zum 16. August in der Nähe von Dublin stattfinden soll, ist jedoch beachtlich. Dort finden sich laut Wired internationale Größen wie General Alexus Grynkewich, der Oberbefehlshaber der Nato in Europa und Leiter des US-Europakommandos. Laut den Aufzeichnungen nimmt er seit 2021 an den Treffen teil.
Dann sind da der US-Finanzminister Scott Bessent, sowie Senator Ted Cruz, der dem Ausschuss für Handel, Wissenschaft und Verkehr vorsitzt, welcher auch die Federal Trade Commission beaufsichtigt. In der Society treffen sie auf die Geschäftsführer jener Unternehmen, die sie regulieren sollen. So gründete etwa Auren Hoffman, der Vorstandsvorsitzende von Dialog, sowohl SafeGraph als auch LiveRamp – zwei der wichtigsten Unternehmen im Geschäft mit (Standort-)Daten.
Ebenso treffen Joe Lonsdale, der Mitgründer von Palantir, das Daten für das Pentagon und die Einwanderungsbehörde ICE analysiert, und der Armeeminister Dan Driscoll aufeinander. Auch Jim Himes, der ranghöchste Vertreter im Geheimdienstausschuss des Repräsentantenhauses, welcher jene Behörden beaufsichtigt, wird in Irland anwesend sein.
Von Kushner bis Kallas
Die Liste wird nicht weniger einflussreich: Da finden sich Hallie Hoffman, die amtierende Stabschefin der Drug Enforcement Administration, Jonathan Greenblatt, der Geschäftsführer der Anti-Defamation League, oder Peter Goettler, der Präsident des Cato Institute. Auch eine Reihe an Google-Führungskräften ist zu finden, darunter Tom Lue, der den Bereich Global Affairs der KI-Abteilung leitet. Er trifft dort auf Kollegen wie Greg Brockman, den Präsidenten von OpenAI oder Sarah Bond, die Präsidentin von Xbox bei Microsoft.
Einige Namen wie Jared Kushner, der Schwiegersohn von Donald Trump, oder Elon Musk, sind bekanntermaßen in Thiels Kreisen zu finden. Die Liste verzeichnet aber auch US-Demokraten wie Wes Moore, den Gouverneur von Maryland, dem manch einer präsidiales Talent zurechnet, oder Julian Castro, der als Hoffnungsträger der Partei gilt und 2016 als Running Mate für Hillary Clinton im Gespräch war. Auch Journalisten wie Ezra Klein und Brett Stephens von der New York Times oder Souad Mekhennet von der Washington Post gesellen sich in die Runde.
Einige europäische Vertreter schafften es ebenfalls in die Dialog Society. Und die sind ranghoch: Da wäre etwa Kaja Kallas, die ehemalige Premierministerin von Estland und jetzige Vizepräsidentin der Europäischen Kommission. Oder Jens Spahn, der CDU/CSU-Fraktionsvorsitzende im Deutschen Bundestag. Weniger politischen und mehr kulturellen Einfluss haben dahingegen Gäste wie der Schauspieler Joseph Gordon-Levitt oder der Wissenschafter und Autor Steven Pinker.
„Den Dritten Weltkrieg meistern“
Auch, womit dieses hochkarätige Publikum sich in diesem Jahr beschäftigen möchte, verrät die Datenbank, die der von den Teilnehmern gebotenen Geheimhaltung nicht gerecht wird. Laut Wired sind Off-the-Record-Termine zu Themen wie „Atomkraft wieder einführen“, „Den Dritten Weltkrieg meistern“ oder „Technologien auf dem Schlachtfeld" geplant. Aber auch banaleren Feldern, beispielsweise „Wie läuft es in Ihrem Sexualleben?“, möchte man sich widmen.
Scheinbar sollen auch Initiativen aus dem diesjährigen Event hervorgehen, die bleiben. Jedenfalls veranstaltet der Gründer der christlichen Networking-Website Pray.com den Vortrag „Build-a-Cult“ und ein ehemaliger Berater für nationale Sicherheit im Weißen Haus das Pendant „Build-a-Party“.
Zwischenmenschliches
Wie aus den Anmeldungen hervorgeht, sind von den 222 Personen, die sich für die Dialog-Veranstaltung angemeldet haben, 87 dieses Jahr zum ersten Mal dabei. Andere reisen dahingegen bereits seit zehn Jahren an, eine Handvoll ist laut Wired seit der Gründung 2006 an Bord. Gemeinsam haben sie alle, dass sie sich gemäß dem Geheimhaltungsgrundsatz des Netzwerks mit privaten E-Mail-Adressen registrierten.
Neben Angaben zu ihrer politischen Einstellung wurden die Teilnehmer im Anmeldeformular zudem nach ihrem Beziehungsstatus gefragt, und ob sie „auf der Suche nach Liebe“ sind. Eine separate Website, dating.dialog.org, hostet eine App, die „sinnvolle Verbindungen für außergewöhnliche Menschen“ in Aussicht stellt. (hlk, 17.6.2026)
#USA #techno-fascisme #élites #Ayn_Rand #objectivisme #Übermensch
Les élites britanniques
▻https://laviedesidees.fr/Aaron-Reeves-Sam-Friedman-Born-to-Rule
Les #élites britanniques se caractérisent par une très grande permanence de leurs stratégies de #reproduction_sociale. A partir d’une enquête originale sur les notices du Who’s Who, Aaron Reeves et Daniel Friedman tentent d’identifier les logiques sociales d’évolution de ce groupe sur le long terme.
#International #Grande-Bretagne
▻https://laviedesidees.fr/IMG/pdf/20260504_elitesbritanniques-2.pdf
Switchboard Operator
▻https://escapekey.substack.com/p/switchboard-operator
Voici le récit d’une partie intéressante de l’existence d’un certain Epstein autrement connu pour son très mauvais comportement avec des jeunes femnes. de mortui ... les affaires continuent et les fleuves de profits coulent plus vite que jamais.
Série : The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
▻https://escapekey.substack.com
18.3.2026 by esc - In 2023, JPMorgan Chase was forced to hand over its own internal files on Jeffrey Epstein as part of a lawsuit brought by his victims. The bank’s lawyers compiled a twenty-three-page summary of what they found.
It was meant to assess legal risk.
But the files show that Epstein was effectively running one of the world’s biggest banks from the outside.
He managed the career of JPMorgan’s investment bank chief, designed a major financial product linked to Bill Gates, arranged private meetings with fourteen foreign ministers, deployed a British royal and a former EU trade commissioner as commercial assets, and held security clearance. He also designed a new type of ‘social good’ currency — initially called a ‘charitable currency unit’ — and sent the blueprint to Gates’s chief science adviser, eight years before the Bank for International Settlements began building the same thing.
The bank’s compliance review — compiled specifically to assess exposure in a sex trafficking lawsuit — contains a handful of oblique references to young women. It devotes twenty-two pages to all of this.
A separate investigation by the US Senate found that JPMorgan reported just $4.3 million in suspicious transactions from Epstein’s accounts while he was alive — but reported $1.3 billion after he died. The bank paid $365 million in settlements.
This essay walks through the document line by line, and shows how it independently confirms everything documented in the previous Epstein essays on this Substack — from a source produced three years before those essays were written.
The ultimate implication here — beyond confirming Epstein’s status as a switchboard operator — is that a significant portion of the development finance industry is built on a foundation it would prefer not to have examined.
Epstein
Epstein II
Epstein III
Development for Finance
On 25 July 2023, JPMorgan Chase filed Exhibit 144 in Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR — the sex trafficking facilitation lawsuit brought by Jeffrey Epstein’s victims in the Southern District of New York. The exhibit1 is a twenty-three-page internal compliance summary of the bank’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, compiled from internal emails and correspondence between Epstein and senior JPMorgan executives.
The bank produced it to assess institutional exposure. Its compliance lawyers had one narrow question: how deep was the relationship between Epstein and Jes Staley, then head of JPMorgan’s investment bank, and what did senior management know?
Their answer runs to twenty-two pages of chronological, bullet-pointed evidence — and it reads, unintentionally, as independent corroboration of every major claim made in the essays published on this Substack since February 2026: the original trilogy — Epstein: The Switchboard Operator, Epstein II: The Development of a Digital Currency, and Epstein III: The Intelligence Channel — as well as Epstein’s Seven, The Epstein/Bannon Interview, and Agents for the Rothschilds.
Those essays drew exclusively on the Department of Justice’s 2025–2026 document releases — the Epstein side of the correspondence. This exhibit provides the other side: JPMorgan’s internal records. A November 2025 memorandum from the Senate Finance Committee, based on further unsealed records from the same litigation, adds a third independent source.
The three archives were produced by different legal processes, compiled by different lawyers, for different institutional purposes. None had any interest in confirming the others — yet, they interlock almost perfectly.
Epstein’s Seven
The Epstein/Bannon Interview
Clearing Epstein
Agents for the Rothschilds
The previous essays documented Epstein as a switchboard operator — a coordination node routing connections between finance, intelligence, and governance. The JPMorgan document confirms this and goes further, revealing something the DOJ releases did not: the depth of Epstein’s operational control over the bank’s own senior executive.
On 31 July 2008 — while Epstein was incarcerated in Palm Beach — Staley wrote: ‘Hey boss, We just got done with Jamie’s off site’. On 16 July, he had asked Epstein how much he should tell Jamie Dimon to pay him, describing the expected results and asking for guidance. Epstein replied with a precise negotiating strategy: ‘Tell him a one million dollar increase to 25 million... DO Not give in’.
Throughout September 2009, the document records Epstein managing Staley’s promotion to sole CEO of JPMorgan’s investment bank. On 3 September, Epstein wrote: ‘I am told you are on track’. On 11 September: ‘steves really a dead man walking. so little he can do’ — a reference to Steve Black, then head of the investment bank. On 25 September, Epstein scripted the message Staley should deliver in three numbered parts. Two days later, Staley forwarded a draft organisational announcement to Epstein as ‘FYI’ before it was released internally.
On 18 October 2009, Epstein wrote: ‘feel free to call often, it is difficult for the quarterback to see the playing field. That’s why he calls up to the box’. The man in the box, watching the entire field — that was the role he had assigned himself.
The relationship went well beyond advice. Jes Staley — the head of JPMorgan’s investment bank — called Epstein ‘boss’, sought his permission to visit properties, forwarded confidential internal documents, accepted detailed operational direction on hiring, compensation, strategy, and presentation — and reported back on his meetings with heads of state.
The document also reveals a subtler dimension to the control. Epstein did not merely manage Staley’s career; he embedded himself in his family.
A separate section of the compliance summary records Epstein helping with the graduate school admissions process for Staley’s daughter. On 27 April 2009, Epstein emailed Staley with a list of scientists his daughter could meet: ‘seth lloyd mit quantum computing.. gell-man, santa-fe institute, quarks... brian columbia - string theory... leonard susskind... she can see the large hadron collider in switzerland. private tour’.
When Staley forwarded his daughter’s CV and expressed concern about her prospects, Epstein replied: ‘she can sit with Richard Axel when I get back, he won the Nobel prize.. he has guaranteed me’. Staley remained anxious. Epstein: ‘john kluge gave 4 billion to the school,, will you relax’.
In January 2011, Epstein wrote that Lee Bollinger — President of Columbia University and a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York2 — ‘will come say hi, in davos as well’. Epstein was deploying Nobel laureates and Ivy League presidents to smooth a banker’s daughter’s path through graduate school.
The effect was to bind Staley to Epstein at a level beyond professional convenience. Career management can be replaced; the man who guaranteed your daughter’s future through the scientific establishment and the president of Columbia is a different category of obligation.
In the Bannon interview — filmed in early 2019 and partially released in the DOJ’s 2026 document dump — Epstein described his role during the 2008 financial crisis with characteristic bluntness. He told Bannon he had been advising the US Treasury from a jail cell, calling the president of Bear Stearns on one phone and a contact at JPMorgan on the other: ‘I was actually going between two phones talking to Bear Stearns and JP Morgan at the same time’. The following day, he called ’another person in Washington... they were at the Treasury Department’.
The JPMorgan document confirms this was not an exaggeration. The July–October 2008 email sequence records Staley writing to Epstein while he was incarcerated, reporting on the crisis in real time. On 26 September: ‘Wamu is an unbelievable deal. But thus is still going out of control’. On 27 September: ‘What a deal Jamie did. I’m spending a lot of time with Treasury. The Private Bank has brought in $44 billion dollars in the last two weeks’. On 29 September: ‘I hope you keep the island. We all may need to live there’.
On 10 October, Staley wrote: ‘I am dealing with the Fed on an idea to solve things. I need a smart friend to help me think through this stuff’. The following day, he forwarded a term sheet that had been sent to Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
The switchboard was operational during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, run from a prison cell in Palm Beach — with JPMorgan’s investment bank chief as the reporting line.
The Epstein/Bannon Interview
The original essays documented Epstein routing sovereign contacts between intelligence, finance, and political nodes. The JPMorgan document shows the same function operating directly through the bank.
On 1 October 2010, Epstein forwarded an email to Staley with the subject line ‘this is nuts’ and the text: ‘jeffrey, please come. you may have private time with each. your security clearance is approved’. Below it, fourteen sovereign representatives:
Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates.
Epstein had security clearance. He was arranging private audiences with foreign ministers and heads of state for JPMorgan’s investment bank CEO. This detail — Epstein holding security clearance — does not appear in any of the DOJ releases used in the original essays.
On 29 October 2010, Epstein wrote to Staley: ‘some of the bigger players, and now sheik mohammed from dubai, have asked for private talks. I need to decide how to gear up my advisory business. grab a group from _? Hire 5-10 stars? Larry?, peter? andrew?’ The three names — Summers, Mandelson, and Prince Andrew — correspond exactly to the American, British, and intelligence channels documented in the trilogy, here being assembled into a formal advisory structure for Gulf sovereign clients.
On 28 July 2012, Epstein forwarded Staley an email from the President of the Maldives, Mohammed Waheed Hassan, seeking to borrow $500 million repayable over ten years3. One month later, Reuters reported that China had made a $500 million loan to the Maldives4. The switchboard had sight of sovereign borrowing requirements before they were fulfilled.
Epstein III
The trilogy traced Epstein’s relationship with Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Chairman of DP World, to his 2017 pitch for a sovereign digital currency backed by Dubai5. The JPMorgan document reveals that Epstein had been building this channel through the bank for years, and that it connected directly to the China operation.
In December 2009, a sequence of emails shows Epstein managing JPMorgan’s entire Gulf entry strategy through Bin Sulayem. On the 7th: ‘if you can have a one on one off the record with sultan, he will meet you’. On the 8th: ‘no to china/ports yet.. sultan will meet you privately to give you guidance, on the players, the groundwork is well prepared’. He then arranged the meeting directly: ‘sultan, jes is free thurs, from 5-10pm. Where and when, only the two of you please’.
On 9 December: ‘sultan is laying the groundwork for you to establish a serious presence.. jpm reputation in the region is poor’. On the 10th, Staley reported back: ‘Just saw the crown prince’.
On 1 December 2009, Epstein proposed the deal that would connect the physical infrastructure to the financial layer: ‘The first most elegant deal that you can do. is to have China buy Dubai World Ports. They want turnkey, ops where they can then use their worldwide construction cos for building’. DP World operates port and logistics infrastructure across eighty-three countries. The same global trade network through which, eight years later, Epstein would propose attaching a sovereign digital currency to actual commerce.
On 4 March 2010, Bin Sulayem emailed Epstein a draft letter to Staley about refinancing a London hotel. Epstein replied that he needed ‘to see the numbers’ and then forwarded it to Staley. The sovereign client was submitting financial proposals through Epstein for review before they reached the banker.
Epstein II
The China operation is entirely absent from the original trilogy. It represents a significant extension of the documented architecture.
On 23 October 2009, Epstein sent Staley a complete strategic blueprint for JPMorgan’s China expansion: ‘Your first Great move, should be a new CHina, initiative... you should have a dedicated china entity, with its own board of advisors, should include china politicos. they love to travel. you should be their link to treasury’.
Over the following days, Epstein organised a cultural briefing for Staley (‘oxford educated, speaks fluent chinese’), then on 27 October sent what the compliance team describes as ‘an extensive e-mail laying out the steps necessary for JPMC to expand its business in China down to details surrounding culture, office locations and suggestions for approaching government officials’.
In February 2011, Epstein routed Desmond Shum to JPMorgan through David Stern. Shum was the vice chairman and CEO of Airport City Development Corporation, a member of Beijing’s Political Consultative Conference, and an honorary trustee of Tsinghua University. Stern replied: ‘I can meet with him when I’m in Beijing next to see what to do with him’. Shum would later write Red Roulette6, a memoir exposing corruption in China’s political elite. Epstein had him at the house years earlier.
On 15 March 2011, David Stern reported to Epstein that Fang Fang — JPMorgan’s Vice Chairman Asia and CEO China Investment Banking — ‘called me because he believed we had a call scheduled. We did not. He had nothing to say either. These guys are confused and need help’. JPMorgan’s own China chief was directionless, and the complaint was routed through Epstein’s channel. Epstein forwarded it to Staley.
In May 2010, Peter Mandelson — the former EU Trade Commissioner — wrote to Epstein from Shanghai that ‘the entire Chinese banking fraternity is attending. Isn’t it something that JPM should be represented at if they want to spread their wings in China?’ Epstein forwarded it to Staley: ‘I think he is right. you should read the attachments’.
The trilogy identified Prince Andrew and Peter Mandelson as parallel channels through Epstein. The JPMorgan document significantly deepens both.
On 17 June 2009, Epstein wrote to Staley: ‘peter will be staying at 71 st over weekend, do you want to organize either you, or you and Jamie, quiertly, up to you’. Mandelson staying at Epstein’s townhouse, with the option for Staley or Jamie Dimon to visit — quietly.
On 7 October 2010, Staley forwarded an email from Mandelson to Epstein: ‘In Congo Brazzaville last week, I talked at length with President Sassou N’Guesso, including about the above new mine’. A former EU Trade Commissioner passing intelligence on African mining licences from a sitting head of state, routed through Epstein to JPMorgan.
On 27 October 2010, Staley forwarded Epstein an email he had sent to Mandelson ‘that appears to include internal JPMC information on a deal regarding privatization of businesses in Russia’. Staley told his colleagues: ‘When Lord Mandelson can help, please let me know’.
In January 2010, Epstein set up a meeting in Davos between Staley, Mandelson, and Chancellor Alistair Darling to discuss the Sempra Energy acquisition. Afterwards, Epstein asked: ‘was petie helpful?’
On 16 March 2011, a Daily Mail reporter contacted Epstein’s lawyer asking whether Mandelson had asked Epstein to set up discussions with Dimon ‘while Epstein was on day release following his conviction’. The lawyer forwarded the inquiry to Epstein with the note ‘ignoring’, which was then forwarded to Staley.
On 15 April 2010, Epstein wrote directly to Prince Andrew: ‘jes staley will be in london on thurs the 22.. i think you should meet if you are in town’.
On 28 September 2010: ‘prince Andrew would like much more to represent casanov in china than tim’. The Duke of York was being positioned to represent JPMorgan Cazenove’s interests in China — a member of the royal family deployed as a commercial asset for a specific bank, through the switchboard.
On 2 December 2010, Epstein forwarded Staley an email from Andrew about a $200 million working capital line for Aria Petroleum. The prince was channelling business enquiries through Epstein to JPMorgan.
On 16 June 2010, Staley wrote: ‘is she free tonight?’ Epstein replied: ‘call me’. Staley: ‘I’m with A’ — which the compliance summary notes ‘presumably may have been Prince Andrew’.
Epstein: The Switchboard Operator reconstructed the design chain for the Gates-linked donor-advised fund that became JPMorgan’s Project Molecule and ultimately the Global Health Investment Fund — the proof of concept for the impact investing architecture7. The JPMorgan document confirms the entire sequence from the bank’s own records, and provides the full arc, including internal tensions invisible in the DOJ releases.
The institutional context matters. In September 2009, JPMorgan was a founding member of the Global Impact Investing Network, launched at the Clinton Global Initiative alongside the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management8. The Rockefeller Foundation had coined the term ‘impact investing’ at a 2007 convening at its Bellagio conference centre9. GIIN formalised the field. JPMorgan co-founded it. And the JPMorgan compliance document shows that in the same month — September 2009 — Epstein was managing Staley’s promotion to IB CEO, scripting his messaging, and editing his organisational announcement before it went out internally.
The man running the bank’s investment bank chief was doing so while the bank was co-founding the architecture he would design the flagship product for eighteen months later.
A separate exhibit from the same litigation confirms the scale from the bank’s own working papers. Under the heading ‘Project Molecule’, it records four named JPMorgan staff and lawyers at Simpson Thacher working on ‘building a solution for potential ~$40-$80BN of Gates’ funds, thought to be related to the Giving Pledge’. Epstein’s estimate of $100 billion was ambitious. The bank’s own internal figure was $40–80 billion — still large enough to require a dedicated legal team and bespoke structuring10.
The blueprint email of 6 February 2011 is reproduced verbatim — the same email cited in Epstein: The Switchboard Operator11:
donor advised fund... you could tie it initally just to the gates program,, miinimum gift. 100 million. it could then be opend up later. IT will be the largest foundation in the world... done right its 100 billion dollars in 2 years. the tension is making money from a Charitable Org. therefore the money making parts need to be arms length.
The original source email contains material the compliance summary omitted. The subject line reads: ‘as of today,, no draft, - no financial proposal cutler / mary’ — Epstein chasing JPMorgan for failing to produce a proposal.
A later addition dated 17 July shows Epstein telling Staley: ‘You can call and introduce yourself,, and tell him that Bill wanted you personally and he to work on the DAF. p.s. I understand that some low level jpm person in seattle, has been trying to pitch them on this idea..’ He viewed the DAF as his initiative and was irritated that someone at JPMorgan’s Seattle office had been approaching the Gates Foundation independently.
By 27 July, Epstein was addressing Gates directly through the same email chain: ‘you should tell dick that the first week or so in sept, we will provide him a full presentation for a DAF... a silo based proposal that will get bill more money for vaccines... We envision a multibillion dollar fund fairly quickly’. Epstein and JPMorgan as a joint ‘We’, presenting to the Gates Foundation, with the purpose stated in plain English: get Bill more money for vaccines.
Three days after the DAF blueprint, on 9 February 2011, Epstein sent Boris Nikolic — Gates’s chief science and technology adviser — an email that connects the financial vehicle directly to the currency operation documented in Epstein II12:
I think you might suggest to bill that there are many types of psuedo-currencies.. Airline miles. special Drawing Rights.. Military offsets. Aid... THe most difficult part of my new currency is taxes. Howver, if we limit its participants to gov’ts ,and charities. they do not pay tax. *80% of the problems dissappear. We could start a CCU.. a charitable currency unit. Like special drawing rights for the poor. Keynes could not have envisioned electronic transfer of funds. His was a vision on when and how to interfere. Like all other sciences the technology has now changed the option.
He calls it ‘my new currency’ and gives it a name: CCU, a charitable currency unit. The IMF’s special drawing right — a synthetic reserve currency for sovereign settlements — reimagined as a development instrument for the poor.
The tax problem he would pose to Jem Bendell eighteen months later — ‘i do not see how taxes are paid, in any of these systems’13 — was already solved. Restrict the currency to governments and charities, entities that do not pay tax, and eighty per cent of the regulatory obstacles vanish. The airline miles analogy — a loyalty-point currency with conditional redemption — is the same one he would use with Richard Branson in April 2013 when describing a ‘social good currency’14.
Epstein
The Keynes reference carries the furthest. The bancor — Keynes’s proposed international clearing currency at Bretton Woods — was designed to operate at the sovereign level. Epstein’s observation was that electronic transfer changes the scope of what is possible: the intervention Keynes imagined between nations can now operate at the transaction level.
The DAF blueprint and the CCU were designed in the same week, through the same network, for the same purpose. The charitable framing eliminates both the political resistance to profit extraction (the fund) and the technical barrier to currency adoption (taxes). The BIS Innovation Hub now calls this architecture ‘purpose-bound money’15. Epstein described it, named it, and sent the specification to Bill Gates’s chief adviser — in February 2011, eight years before the Innovation Hub existed.
On 18 February, Epstein wrote to Juliet Pullis and Staley expanding the structure. Staley replied only to Epstein: ‘We need to talk’. He was cutting JPMorgan staff out of the response.
On 10 August, Epstein sent Staley and Mary Erdoes — CEO of JPMorgan Asset and Wealth Management — a comprehensive specification: investment silos, advisory boards, anonymous giving for sensitive causes, a minimum $100 million donation, and a web-based interface. By 28 August, Erdoes had sent Epstein and Staley a formal presentation deck. The bank internally named it ‘Project Molecule’.
On 20 September, Epstein made his commercial position explicit: ‘I think the structure could be as simple as FTC my co. getting ten percent of your profit. on the daf and its offshoots... It was my idea. I will help see it through’.
The fee negotiations ran through September. Epstein proposed 15%. JPMorgan would start at 5%. Epstein suggested settling at 10%. The structure was being designed to route his payment through an intermediary entity: ‘JPM engage an entity, (a law firm, bank, trust co. etc) that it pays a percentage of its profits on the DAF every year’.
Then, on 2 October, the collapse began. Epstein wrote to Staley: ‘JES, the daf is dying. due to cross purposes’. In a follow-up that day, he added:
the chances of success are 50/50 at best. that is down from 95.5. This is not about SOCIAL INVESTING.
In capitals. In JPMorgan’s own compliance file.
When the deal was going well, it was framed as philanthropy, the Giving Pledge16, vaccines for the developing world. When it was falling apart, Epstein said in plain text what it was not.
The two statements — ‘the tension is making money from a Charitable Org’ and ‘This is not about SOCIAL INVESTING’ — are preserved in the bank’s own records, produced under compulsion in federal litigation. Together, they articulate the operating logic of the entire impact investing architecture: the ‘social good’ is the authorisation layer for private profit extraction.
The challenge is keeping the two structurally separate so that the profit is invisible.
Epstein II
On 15 July 2012, Staley sent Epstein a draft organisational announcement for his move from IB CEO to a new role: forming ‘a Regulation and Technology council that will seek out and sponsor opportunities in technology and regulation that address the evolving needs of global finance’. Epstein replied with proposed edits.
This was July 2012 — the same year Epstein commissioned Jem Bendell to ‘revamp the financial system/markets’17, the same year the WEF Alternative Currencies reconnaissance was running, and before the ‘Thoughts on Bitcoin’ strategic document was circulating within the network18.
The BIS Innovation Hub, established in 2019, was built to do precisely what that council description says: seek out and sponsor opportunities in technology and regulation addressing the evolving needs of global finance. Its private-sector precursor existed at JPMorgan seven years earlier, with Epstein editing the mission statement.
On 10 August 2012, Epstein wrote to Maurice Sonnenberg of JPMorgan: ‘fun seeing you in san Fran Mr biology gurus at harvard all agree that the signal intelligence used by the various agencies, could be put to work on breaking the dna code or protein signal problems. breaking foreign codes is the expertise of the us and nsa. it would be great to know which agency button to push’.
Sonnenberg replied: ‘Hi Jeffrey. Good running into you. When you get back, give me a ring and we might chat a little more about this’.
Maurice Sonnenberg served on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board under Barack Obama19 — the body providing independent oversight of the United States intelligence community.
The Innovation Hub
On 11 August 2009 — four months after leaving prison — Epstein sent an email to John Brockman, the literary agent behind the Edge Foundation, laying out seven research gatherings he intended to fund20. The topics ranged from evolutionary code dynamics and artificial general intelligence to the world financial system and a conference on power.
The proposed guest lists included Marvin Minsky, Ben Goertzel, Murray Gell-Mann, and Martin Nowak. For Gathering 3 (on power): Ehud Barak, Tony Blair, Larry Summers, and Michael Bloomberg. For Gathering 4 (on the world financial system): Jes Staley and Jamie Dimon.
The JPMorgan document confirms that Gathering 4 was not merely theoretical. By the time Epstein sent that email, Staley had been taking strategic direction from him for at least a year — forwarding internal documents, reporting on crisis meetings with the Federal Reserve, accepting compensation advice from a prison cell. The ‘gathering’ on the financial system was the public-facing version of a private relationship already operating.
Gathering 3 is confirmed in the same way. The JPMorgan document shows all four named participants routing through Epstein to Staley during the same period: Ehud Barak visiting during official US government trips and being reported to Staley in real time; Staley writing ‘Meeting Blair in a few minutes’; Summers forwarding questions about Madoff and JPMorgan; Bloomberg being positioned by Epstein with Barak ten days before the September 2013 summit. The ‘Conference on Power’ was already convening informally at 71st Street.
Gathering 1 proposed a representative of the NSA as a participant for research on evolutionary code dynamics, cryptography, and genetics. The Sonnenberg email — Epstein discussing NSA signals intelligence for biological research with a member of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board — confirms the NSA connection was already operational through JPMorgan’s own intelligence liaison.
The seven gatherings were a formalisation of capabilities already running through the bank. The JPMorgan compliance file, without knowing the gatherings email existed, independently documents the operational reality behind five of the seven topics.
Epstein’s Seven
On 31 August 2011, Epstein sent an extraordinary email to both Staley and Erdoes. He proposed a formal commercial relationship between himself and JPMorgan, listing the assets he could bring: Middle Eastern sovereign clients, G20 regulatory expertise, and named individuals as potential partners — ‘Pritsker?, David Stern?, (prince Andrew?, he is now allowed to make money)’ — while acknowledging ‘my current unfortunate rainbow’.
He noted that Middle Eastern leaders were ‘wary of a strictly JPM approach as it represents to them a quasi-US govt arm’ and proposed himself as the buffer. He described the fee structure in hedge fund terms: ‘the money gets 1/2 % 1 out of the 2 fee, and usually 5 of the 20 carry’. He referenced the G20 regulatory work — ‘last time with Great Britain etc. was successfully handled, with no blow back, and i would argue great value to JPM’.
He was openly pitching JPMorgan’s two most senior executives on formalising the switchboard as a revenue-sharing enterprise, with a British royal as a named partner, acknowledging his criminal conviction, and arguing that his value justified the risk.
Neither Staley nor Erdoes rejected his approach.
While Epstein was designing Project Molecule and pitching the formalisation of his advisory role, the final pages of the document reveal him simultaneously pursuing litigation against the bank.
Epstein had personal investments in Bear Stearns and Highbridge hedge funds managed through JPMorgan. He lost tens of millions. The settlement negotiations, documented from September 2010 through July 2011, show him working the leverage with precision.
On 28 March 2011, Epstein forwarded Staley an email about Glenn Dubin, founder of Highbridge: ‘It should now be apparent to both you and Glenn’s own counsel that there is a serious problem... Glenn now admits to knowing about the Zwirn plane in Sept or Oct of 06... He is in a box... The money for the plane was taken from the Highbridge managed acct. Highbridge was owned by JPM at that time. This is ugly’.
Rather than engage JPMorgan’s General Counsel Steve Cutler directly, Epstein deployed his own attorney Kenneth Starr — the former independent counsel21 — to apply pressure. On 7 February 2011, Epstein wrote to Starr: ‘Steve Culter at JPM, says he has left a number of messages for you... He is the lead counsel... and needs to be reassured that I am a good egg’. Starr obliged.
When Cutler proved difficult, Epstein went to Erdoes. On 30 May 2011, he wrote: ‘I expressed in no uncertain terms in talking with Condren that I view this as a dispute… as a family disagreement,. hopefully not discounted, by my well stated desire, never to file suit. that should not be a factor in a fair resolution of both issues’.
The framing — a ‘family disagreement’ — carries an implicit threat. Epstein was reminding JPMorgan that he had visibility into the bank’s internal exposures, while assuring them he preferred to resolve things quietly. He settled for $9.2 million, and the bank’s own lawyer Jim Condren thanked him for being ‘professional and candid’ in their dealings.
At the same time, Epstein was structuring opaque wealth vehicles for the bank’s most valuable clients. On 12 May 2012, he wrote to JPMorgan’s Paul Morris: ‘client buying a huge art work, what form should he buy it in.. delaware trust. Ilc.. need answer mon night. (the scream, for your info only)’. Four days later, Morris sent Epstein a draft LLC structure for purchasing Edvard Munch’s The Scream on behalf of Leon Black — the Apollo Global Management founder who paid Epstein at least $158 million in fees. The painting sold for $120 million. Epstein was building the bespoke legal architecture to move high-value assets off the public ledger and into private trusts — the ‘funky assets’ he had described in the DAF blueprint.
The switchboard operator accumulated the network’s liabilities, structured its most sensitive transactions, and used both to guarantee his position. Loyalty flowed upward through shared knowledge of what the compliance file politely calls ‘confidential JPMC information’. The bilateral lock — everyone knows enough to damage everyone else — was the operating system.
A November 2025 memorandum from the Senate Finance Committee to Senator Ron Wyden22 — based on newly unsealed JPMorgan records from the same SDNY litigation — quantifies the scale of what the compliance document describes.
Between 2002 and 2016, JPMorgan filed seven Suspicious Activity Reports on Epstein’s accounts, flagging a total of $4.3 million in transactions. In August and September 2019 — after Epstein was arrested and subsequently died — the bank filed two further SARs flagging over 5,000 suspicious wire transfers moving approximately $1.3 billion through his accounts. The value of the transactions reported after his death was nearly three hundred times greater than the value flagged while Epstein was alive.
Epstein was one of JPMorgan’s top five largest private clients. He belonged to an elite group the bank internally called the ‘Wall of Cash’. A 2003 due diligence report noted that his accounts ‘generated one of the largest annual revenue flows of private clients in the private bank’. In 2010, Paul Morris — the same banker who appears throughout Exhibit 144 coordinating property purchases and portfolio construction — ranked Epstein among his largest clients with a net worth of $500 million.
The bank earned over $8.1 million in fees from Epstein between 2009 and 2014 alone.
A separate internal transaction summary is more direct23: ‘Epstein is GIO’s biggest revenue producer’. Not one of the largest. The largest.
The Senate memorandum also reveals that John Duffy — the Private Bank CEO whom Paul Morris asked Epstein to meet at the end of Exhibit 144 — counselled Epstein on how to structure cash withdrawals to avoid triggering reporting requirements. When a risk management executive flagged $160,000 in suspicious cash withdrawals, Duffy replied: ‘this is a better pattern than I thought... I did ask him to withdraw this cash from his aviation account for these payments’.
A JPMorgan executive coaching Epstein on how to restructure withdrawals to evade suspicious activity reporting.
The memorandum further documents that Mary Erdoes approved continued engagement with Epstein after his formal termination as a client in 2013 — specifically to maintain his role as intermediary with Leon Black. Internal emails show Duffy telling Erdoes that Epstein ‘maintains he will become Leon’s primary advisor and will be calling the shots’. Erdoes’s response, in its entirety: ‘Y’.
The bank also processed at least $25 million in payments from Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell, including a single transfer of $18.3 million in 1999 and a $7 million wire in 2007 used to purchase a Sikorsky helicopter. No timely SARs were filed on these transactions.
JPMorgan ultimately paid $290 million to settle the victims’ class action24 and a further $75 million to settle the US Virgin Islands enforcement action25 — a combined $365 million.
The Senate Finance Committee concluded that the evidence supports the finding that JPMorgan underreported Epstein’s suspicious financial activity ‘to protect Epstein as a client’.
In 2016, Rainer Liedtke published Agents for the Rothschilds: A Nineteenth-Century Information Network26, drawing on the Rothschild Archive London to document a recruitment and intelligence operation spanning the European continent. The agents were placed in locations where the Rothschild banks lacked a permanent presence. They carried out transactions, gathered political and economic intelligence, and forwarded information that enabled the family to make decisions ahead of competitors and governments. They were operationally essential — but, as Liedtke notes, ‘such men never gained access to the decision-making circle of the family’.
Reading the JPMorgan document alongside Liedtke’s research, the parallel is difficult to ignore.
Epstein gathered political and economic intelligence: the fourteen foreign ministers, Barak’s geopolitical assessments, Mandelson’s government material, the Maldives borrowing requirement. He forwarded information ahead of competitors, including Treasury term sheets during the financial crisis, Abu Dhabi finance discussions, and Congo mining licences from President Sassou N’Guesso. He carried out transactions, from Project Molecule to the DP World channel to the China-Dubai ports proposal. And his fee structure proposals to Erdoes and Staley — 10% of profits, hedge fund carry, payment through an intermediary entity — mirror precisely the compensation model Liedtke documents, in which the agent profits from the network but remains permanently outside the core.
Liedtke records one significant failure in the nineteenth-century system. August Schönberg, dispatched to New York and later known as August Belmont, declared himself the Rothschild agent on Wall Street without authorisation. The distance between New York and London made control impossible, and the family was forced to tolerate him. Epstein told Peter Thiel in 201627: ‘as you probably know I represent the Rothschilds’. The JPMorgan document shows him operating as though this were true — routing sovereign relationships, designing financial products, deploying political assets — while the DOJ releases show Ariane de Rothschild forwarding Jacob Rothschild’s correspondence to Epstein’s gmail by close of business28.
Agents for the Rothschilds
There is no mention of the Bank for International Settlements, the NGFS, the Sustainable Development Goals, digital currency, the Rothschild family, Ariane de Rothschild, the $25 million advisory contract, or any of the research portfolio — Goertzel, Bach, Nowak, Virza — documented in the original essays. The document makes no reference to Ehud Barak’s operational protocols, the Geneva breakfasts, or the reporting hierarchy established in Epstein III.
The reason is simple. The document records only what JPMorgan’s compliance team could see from inside the bank. They had no visibility into the upper tiers of the architecture — the Rothschild correspondence, the intelligence channels, the digital currency operation, the research funding. They could see Epstein’s instructions arriving. They could not see where those instructions originated.
The DOJ releases provide the view from above Epstein. The JPMorgan compliance document provides the view from below. The Senate memorandum quantifies the financial flows. One archive shows the chain from Jacob Rothschild through Ariane to Epstein. Another shows the chain from Epstein through Staley into JPMorgan’s institutional machinery. The third documents $1.3 billion in suspicious transactions flowing through accounts the bank’s senior executives were personally supervising.
The three archives interlock — and none had any interest in confirming the others.
Epstein III
The JPMorgan compliance team produced, under oath, a chronological record establishing the following.
Epstein managed the promotion, compensation negotiations, strategic direction, and internal political positioning of JPMorgan’s investment bank CEO. He received confidential term sheets sent to Treasury and the Federal Reserve during the 2008 financial crisis. He held security clearance and arranged private audiences with fourteen foreign ministers and heads of state.
He designed JPMorgan’s China expansion strategy in operational detail. He managed the bank’s Gulf relationships through the chairman of one of the world’s largest logistics operators. He deployed a former EU Trade Commissioner and a member of the British royal family as commercial assets. He designed the financial product — internally named ‘Project Molecule’ — that became the proof of concept for the impact investing architecture. He proposed formalising all of this as a revenue-sharing enterprise with the bank.
He secured a bank executive’s loyalty by deploying Nobel laureates and Ivy League presidents to assist his daughter’s graduate school admissions. He simultaneously pursued litigation against the bank over hedge fund losses, leveraging internal knowledge of mismanagement to extract a $9.2 million settlement while framing it as a ‘family disagreement’. He structured bespoke legal vehicles for the bank’s wealthiest clients to move high-value assets into private trusts.
The compliance summary devotes half a page, in hedged language, to references to young women. It devotes twenty-two pages to the switchboard function. The Senate Finance Committee subsequently documented $1.3 billion in unreported suspicious transactions flowing through the same accounts. The bank paid a combined $365 million in settlements.
The ‘impact investing’ architecture Epstein designed through its executives is now the standard model for development finance worldwide.
Epstein
The February 2011 email is the Rosetta Stone29. It states the operating logic of a trillion-dollar financial architecture in two sentences, in plain English, preserved independently in two separate evidentiary records — one produced by the Department of Justice, the other by JPMorgan Chase.
The tension is making money from a Charitable Org. Therefore the money making parts need to be arms length.
Impact investing’s entire proposition is that private capital can earn returns while pursuing social objectives. The Sustainable Development Goals provide the definition of what counts as a social objective. The compliance frameworks — TCFD, NGFS, the EU Taxonomy — provide the classification criteria. The blended finance layer directs public money to de-risk private investment. And the arm’s length that Epstein specified is the distance between the philanthropic foundations that write the classification criteria and the private investment arms that extract returns from the structures those criteria govern — owned, in many cases, by the same families.
The Rockefeller Foundation coined ‘impact investing’ and funded the reporting standards. Rockefeller private capital invests through the vehicles those standards classify. The Gates Foundation underwrote GHIF’s losses and funds the research feeding the compliance frameworks. Gates’s private office invests through the structures those frameworks govern.
The foundations ‘sell’ the ‘social good’, while their investment arms profit. The separation at ‘arms length’ runs through corporate structures only.
The ‘social good’ functions as the authorisation layer — the thing that makes the conditionality acceptable, the surveillance presentable as ‘transparency’, and the private extraction invisible. And never mind Epstein not caring about ‘the social good’, himself, per Greg Wyler30.
Epstein said so himself. JPMorgan documented it.
Three sources confirm it.
1
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank,%20N.A.,%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20(S.D.N.Y.%202022)/EFTA02811478.pdf
2
▻https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/lee-bollinger
3
▻https://mvrepublic.com/news/waheed-sought-epsteins-help-with-500m-loan-for-maldives-leaked-emails-re
4
▻https://www.reuters.com/article/business/maldives-says-china-to-lend-it-500-million-idUSLNE87U02Q
5
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01041050.pdf
6
▻https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-10/new-red-roulette-memoir-claims-china-kidnapped-billionaire
7
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01170475.pdf
8
▻https://giin-web-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/giin/assets/press-release/giin-launch-2009.pdf
9
▻https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/bellagio-breakthroughs/many-paths-to-one-mountaintop-antony-bugg-levine-on-building-
10
►https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank,%20N.A.,%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20(S.D.N.Y.%202022)/EFTA02811643.pdf
11
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01301112.pdf
12
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01835616.pdf
13
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00662165.pdf
14
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01894270.pdf
15
▻https://www.mas.gov.sg/publications/monographs-or-information-paper/2023/purpose-bound-money-whitepaper
16
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02686453.pdf
17
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00667304.pdf
18
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01088079.pdf
19
▻https://fas.org/publication/sonnenberg
20
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01817977.pdf
21
▻https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62893927
22
▻https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/memorandum_to_senator_wyden_on_jpmc-epstein_redactedpdf.pdf
23
►https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank,%20N.A.,%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20(S.D.N.Y.%202022)/EFTA02811643.pdf
24
▻https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65879833
25
▻https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jpmorgan-settles-epstein-lawsuit-with-us-virgin-islands-75-mln-2023-09-26
26
▻https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344247639_Agents_for_the_Rothschilds_A_Nineteenth-Century_Information_
27
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00832976.pdf
28
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00677095.pdf
29
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01300940.pdf
30
▻https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00641066.pdf
#finance #crime #élites #banques #politiqie #relations_internationales
Epstein - ein Agent des Kreml ?
▻https://overton-magazin.de/top-story/epstein-ein-agent-des-kreml
Voici une bonne explication de la raison d’être du réseau Eptein : Les relations entre les ricjes et puissants du monde règne la méfiance. On ne peut alors faire confiance qu’aux personnes avec qui on partage de sales secrets.On crée de la confiance en se compromettant. C’est horrible alors que ça se fasse au moins dans des conditions agrèables. Une île aux jolies jeunes femmes encore mineures est l’endroit parfait pour ces rites d’initiation au monde des vrais riches et puissants.
15.2.2026 von Arian Schiffer-Nasserie - Ein paar unverantwortliche Bemerkungen zu Macht und Verantwortung.
1. Wenn der Fall Epstein bzw. seine zunehmende Veröffentlichung die Eliten des Westens inklusive Präsidenten, Aristokraten, Finanzoligarchie, Medienmogule ein wenig zu kompromittieren droht, dann bedeutet das für verantwortungsvolle Denker der westlichen Leitmedien (vgl. z.B. NZZ vom 10.02.) nur eines: Russland war’s! Beweis: Cui bono?
2. Besorgniserregend daran ist die Bereitschaft der freien Welt und ihrer freien Presse zur Selbstimmunisierung gegen Fakten, die das halluzinierte Selbstbild des eigenen Vereins und seiner Eliten auch nur sanft ankratzen könnten.
3. Weil nämlich nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf, geht’s offenbar mit dem Teufel zu. Was ansonsten gerne zur Diskreditierung abweichender „Narrative“ ins Feld geführt wird, ohne sich die Mühe ihrer Widerlegung zu machen, das ist in diesem Fall schlicht geboten: Die Selbstimmunisierung erfolgt durch eine waschechte Verschwörungstheorie.
4. Nicht besser steht es um jene, die die unschönen Fakten zwar anerkennen, um sich aber im gleichen Augenblick angewidert vom eigentlichen Fall abzuwenden.
5. Für sie handelt es sich bei Epstein, Gefährtin und Geschäftspartnern um eine schreckliche Ansammlung von Perversen – ohne das geringste Interesse an den Gründen und Grundlagen ihrer „Perversion“. Die mehr- oder minderjährigen Girls auf den Schößen der Reichen und Mächtigen gelten ihnen spiegelbildlich als unfreiwillige Opfer eines Verbrechens, das ganz und gar nichts mit den üblichen Gepflogenheiten ihrer feinen Gesellschaft zu tun hat – kaum wird die Arschkriecherei wortwörtlich als private Chance praktiziert.
6. Dabei sind die Motive der Beteiligten gar nicht so weltfremd und unverständlich, wie es nun das Unverständnis aller Welt glauben machen will.
a) Die „Vernetzung“ der Agenten von Geld und Gewalt ist die Basis ihrer Erfolge, weil sie sich nun mal wechselseitig brauchen: Das Geschäft der Reichen beruht auf den Entscheidungen der Mächtigen. Und deren Macht beruht auf dem Geschäft der Reichen. Journalisten brauchen die Nähe zu den Machern für ihre Storys und die Macher brauchen gute Presse. Und alle brauchen Vitamin B, um als Agenten ihrer Sache in Konkurrenz zu ihresgleichen voran zu kommen. Dabei sind sie auch auf Makler angewiesen, die sich das Ihre vom Arrangement ausrechnen. Ein solcher war Jeffrey Epstein. Und an ihm kam zusehends keine/r mehr vorbei, der oder die nach oben wollte.
b) Dabei ist allen Beteiligten selbstverständlich, die eigenen Interessen auf der Basis der spezifischen Erpressungsmacht als „Chancen“ für jene vorstellig zu machen, die man für die eigenen Zwecke zu instrumentalisieren sucht: Arbeitsplätze, Steueraufkommen, Investitionen, Rechtssicherheit, Subventionen, Zölle, Wahlkampfhilfe, Folgeaufträge, Kontakte, Renommee, internationales „Engagement“ etc. pp.
c) Arbeit ist für die Manager von Staat und Kapital daher vor allem schwerste Beziehungsarbeit. Da kommt es auf Tuchfühlung, Fingerspitzengefühl und echtes Vertrauen an, gerade weil und nicht obwohl man sich begründet misstraut. Und Vertrauen ist gerade dann gegeben, wenn sich alle Beteiligten auch mal von ihrer verletzlichen, von ihrer weichen Seite zeigen…
d) Beziehungsarbeit und Vertrauen brauchen weder Blaumann noch weiße Weste. Viel nützlicher ist da schon die Bereitschaft, sich wechselseitig kompromittierbar zu machen. Zum Beispiel durch einen Verstoß gegen jene sittlichen Maßstäbe und Werte, in deren Namen man den Rest der Welt verantwortungsvoll terrorisiert.
e) Nichts liegt da näher, als das Schöne mit dem Nützlichen zu verbinden, um die Steifheit von Verhandlungen zu entspannen – zumal es ja auch Chancen für junge talentierte Models bietet.
f) Fotos der Ereignisse, die Beteiligung von Geheimdienstlern und Zeugen aus den Eliten der ganzen Welt dürften insofern kein Kollateralschaden, sondern Geschäftsgrundlage von Orgy-Island gewesen sein.
7. Nicht nur die Berechnungen der beteiligten Verantwortungsträger sind ganz von dieser besten aller Welten, die es bekanntlich gegen „autoritäre Regime“ zu verteidigen gilt. Die Berechnungen ihrer Opfer sind es auch: Erst reißen sich diese (in berechnender Hingabe) den sprichwörtlichen A. auf, um per Modelagentur u.ä. in den Dunstkreis der Mächtigen zu kommen und dann werden sie von der feinen Gesellschaft – eigentlich wenig erstaunlich – eben auch in den selbigen ge# ! Hoffnung und Enttäuschung liegen eben oft dicht nebeneinander und manchmal sogar unter einer Decke im selben Bett.
8. Dabei wäre die Geschichte übrigens vermutlich für alle Beteiligten rühmlich ausgegangen – und viele Täter und Opfer hatten sich damit ja auch bereits gerühmt – wenn nicht …
a) nach langen Abwehrversuchen die Justiz unter dem Druck des neuen Zeitgeistes (Stichwort: #me too) eine Neubewertung jener Anzeigen vorgenommen hätte, die sie zuvor so professionell abgeschmettert hatte;
b) das ganze darüber öffentlich verhandelte Schlamassel zum Material des Machtkampfes zwischen den Eliten des politischen Amerikas avanciert wäre;
c) und schließlich in der uneingeschränkten Veröffentlichung der dokumentierten Perversionen durch die US-Regierung unter Trump gemündet wäre.
Was einst als wechselseitige Versicherung gedacht war, hat sich inzwischen in sein Gegenteil verkehrt. Die „Epstein-Files“ liefern den verfeindeten und konkurrierenden Saubermännern und Sauberfrauen inzwischen überreichlich das Material ihrer wechselseitigen Diskreditierung. Und deshalb und nur deshalb will inzwischen auch niemand mehr etwas mit seinem alten Kumpel Jeffrey und seiner schönen Gefährtin zu tun haben. Fast könnte man von einer glücklichen Fügung sprechen, dass der gute alte Epstein in Untersuchungshaft tragisch verstarb und einfach nichts Kompromittierendes mehr sagen kann. Nun ja.
Die seltsame Ironie des Falles: Die tatsächlich relevante Brutalität der Beteiligten, nämlich ihre Kommandogewalt über das Schicksal ihrer Untergebenen, ihr Kommando über die globale Arbeiterklasse, über Krieg und Frieden, über Konjunktur und Krise, über Hunger und Elend – also mehr oder weniger über das Leben und Sterben der gesamten Welt – und die spiegelbildliche Bereitschaft der Untergebenen, nämlich jede Sauerei als persönliche Chance zu interpretieren, verblasst am bornierten Maßstab der Völker, ob die Eliten diese ihre Macht auch genau so glaubwürdig, fromm, moralisch und mit weißer Weste verkörpern, wie es die braven Knechte und Mägde im Gegenzug für ihre treuen globalen Dienste von ihrer Herrschaft erwarten dürfen.
#USA #élites #occident #corruption
Ce qu’il faudra faire pour vaincre l’#extrême_droite
L’extrême droite se nourrit du #désespoir économique, de l’#insécurité et de l’#exclusion. Pour la priver de ses ressources, ceux qui veulent préserver la #démocratie doivent proposer un contre-discours axé sur la #dignité et l’#appartenance, ainsi qu’un programme politique conçu pour favoriser l’#inclusion_économique et la #résilience_climatique.
De l’Allemagne aux États-Unis en passant par le Brésil et au-delà, l’extrême droite gagne du terrain. Si les détails varient d’un pays à l’autre, le schéma est étonnamment cohérent : l’extrême droite prospère lorsque les économies ne parviennent pas à assurer le #bien-être, l’#équité et la #sécurité.
Ce n’est pas une observation nouvelle. #Antonio_Gramsci, #Karl_Polanyi et d’autres penseurs du XXe siècle ont diagnostiqué le #fascisme comme une réponse réactionnaire à l’#instabilité_capitaliste et aux mouvements progressistes qui avaient émergé pour contrer ses excès. Dans The Great Transformation, Polanyi a fait valoir que le « #déracinement » des marchés des #relations_sociales avait créé un terrain fertile dans lequel l’#autoritarisme pouvait s’enraciner.
À notre époque, #Nancy_Fraser, de la New School for Social Research, a décrit comment le #néolibéralisme érode la #solidarité_sociale, alimentant le #populisme exclusif. D’autres analystes soulignent que l’#austérité et la #précarité rendent les citoyens vulnérables aux #discours_simplistes qui désignent des #boucs_émissaires.
Ainsi, l’histoire montre comment le #chômage_de_masse, l’#inflation et la baisse du #niveau_de_vie peuvent favoriser l’#extrémisme, en particulier lorsqu’ils s’accompagnent d’institutions faibles, d’une #polarisation_politique ou de discours exploitant les #griefs et les #peurs. Tout comme la #Grande_Dépression a ouvert la voie au fascisme en Europe, la #crise_financière mondiale de #2008 a créé les conditions d’un retour du #nationalisme à travers le monde.
Aujourd’hui, nous sommes confrontés à une nouvelle itération du même cycle. Bien que l’#Allemagne ait initialement fait preuve de résilience pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, la crise énergétique déclenchée par l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie l’a particulièrement touchée. Comme l’ont montré les économistes Isabella M. Weber et Tom Krebs, la hausse des #coûts_énergétiques s’est répercutée sur l’ensemble de l’#économie, la fixation des prix par les entreprises amplifiant les pressions inflationnistes. Alors que les ménages étaient en difficulté, le parti d’extrême droite Alternative für Deutschland a vu sa popularité monter en flèche.
Aux États-Unis, des décennies de #désindustrialisation, de stagnation des #salaires et d’augmentation des inégalités ont érodé l’idée que chaque génération fera mieux que la précédente. L’Inflation Reduction Act de l’ancien président Joe Biden était une initiative ambitieuse visant à relancer la politique industrielle et à stimuler la fabrication écologique, mais son héritage s’est avéré éphémère. Donald Trump a exploité le mécontentement suscité par la hausse des prix après la pandémie et a remporté les élections de 2024 en utilisant comme arme l’#aliénation et le #ressentiment, en désignant comme boucs émissaires les immigrants, la #mondialisation et les « #élites_urbaines ».
Le #Brésil illustre une autre dynamique. Des millions de personnes sont sorties de la #pauvreté sous le gouvernement du Parti des travailleurs du président Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva dans les années 2000, mais beaucoup ont vu ces acquis s’inverser, tandis que d’autres ressentent de l’amertume d’être exclus des programmes sociaux. La révolution numérique rend le travail plus précaire. Lula a tenté de restaurer certains des acquis perdus depuis son retour au pouvoir en 2023, mais il est confronté à un Congrès dominé par l’extrême droite et ses alliés.
Même si Jair Bolsonaro a été condamné pour tentative de coup d’État, d’autres dirigeants d’extrême droite au Brésil promettent également un retour à l’ordre, à la stabilité et à la foi religieuse. Leur rhétorique met l’accent sur l’#esprit_d’entreprise et l’#autonomie. Bien que séduisante sur le plan émotionnel, l’idée selon laquelle les individus sont responsables de la pauvreté ignore cyniquement les obstacles structurels qui bloquent la mobilité socio-économique.
Les #chocs_internationaux – ruptures de la chaîne d’approvisionnement pendant la pandémie, volatilité des marchés énergétiques, #conflits prolongés, effets inflationnistes du #changement_climatique – ont également alimenté la montée des forces d’extrême droite. Ces problèmes exigent une coopération transfrontalière, mais les extrémistes les exploitent pour attaquer le #multilatéralisme, le présentant comme un « #complot mondialiste ». Les #droits_de_douane punitifs de Trump incarnent cette réponse, présentant le commerce mondial comme une lutte à somme nulle dans laquelle les étrangers sont les ennemis des travailleurs américains.
Ces discours simplistes unissent les mouvements d’extrême droite plus que n’importe quel ensemble de politiques communes. Chacun repose sur une opposition fondamentale entre « nous » et « eux ». Comme le note la sociologue brésilienne Esther Solano, ces discours séduisent ceux qui se sentent abandonnés, en faisant des immigrants, des minorités, des féministes, des militants pour le climat et d’autres groupes des ennemis. Dans un monde binaire de gagnants et de perdants, la #complexité disparaît dans les mythes d’une #pureté_culturelle et d’une grandeur nationale révolues.
Pour contrer ces discours, il faut plus qu’une réfutation raisonnée. Si les racines de l’ascension de l’extrême droite sont en grande partie économiques, il sera impossible de la vaincre sans une nouvelle #vision_économique.
Cela signifie, pour commencer, s’attaquer à l’inflation à sa source. La récente vague d’inflation était moins liée à une demande excessive qu’à des chocs d’offre, à la #spéculation et à des fragilités structurelles. Pourtant, l’orthodoxie économique a continué à privilégier les hausses de taux d’intérêt et l’austérité, pénalisant les travailleurs et les plus vulnérables. Les gouvernements doivent plutôt utiliser des #outils_fiscaux – soutien au revenu, #allégements_fiscaux sur les produits de première nécessité, renforcement des #services_publics – pour protéger les ménages, tout en investissant dans les capacités nationales en matière d’#énergies_renouvelables, de #sécurité_alimentaire et de production durable. Il faut lutter de front contre la spéculation des entreprises en appliquant les #lois_antitrust, en renforçant les règles de #transparence et en sanctionnant les pratiques abusives en matière de #prix.
Une deuxième priorité consiste à investir massivement (et stratégiquement) dans les #infrastructures_publiques. Des #transports au #logement, en passant par la #santé et l’#éducation, le domaine public doit être reconstruit. La propriété publique ou la réglementation des secteurs clés garantirait la fiabilité, l’équité et la #résilience_climatique des services. Mais l’#investissement seul ne suffit pas. Les institutions doivent être rendues plus transparentes, responsables et participatives, afin de restaurer la #confiance dans le fait que les gouvernements servent l’#intérêt_général.
Troisièmement, nous avons besoin d’une transition véritablement juste vers une économie à faible émission de carbone. Une politique industrielle verte peut créer des emplois et revitaliser les régions laissées pour compte tout en décarbonisant l’activité économique. Mais si elle est trop laissée au marché, la transition verte risque d’aggraver les inégalités. La #transition_énergétique doit donner du pouvoir aux travailleurs, et non les abandonner. Les emplois verts doivent être des #emplois de qualité : sûrs, bien rémunérés, syndiqués et ancrés dans les communautés. À cette fin, la #politique_industrielle devrait se concentrer sur les énergies propres, la régénération des écosystèmes et les secteurs des soins.
Quatrièmement, nous devons restaurer la confiance dans les institutions. Cela signifie apporter des améliorations tangibles dans des domaines tels que le #logement_abordable, les #soins_de_santé publics et les infrastructures résilientes. Cela signifie également démocratiser la prise de décision. Des mécanismes tels que la #budgétisation_participative, les #assemblées_citoyennes et les #initiatives_communautaires en faveur du climat peuvent permettre aux citoyens non seulement d’être témoins du changement, mais aussi de le façonner.
Enfin, pour contrer les discours simplistes de l’extrême droite, il faut élaborer de nouveaux discours audacieux. Un message de renouveau culturel et politique doit accompagner la réforme économique. Là où l’extrême droite offre la peur, la #division et des boucs émissaires, les forces démocratiques doivent offrir la #solidarité, la dignité et l’#espoir, en s’appuyant sur un #discours qui met l’accent sur le #bien-être_collectif, célèbre la #diversité et donne le sentiment que le #progrès est possible et réel.
L’extrême droite se nourrit du désespoir, de l’insécurité et de l’exclusion. Bricoler les contours du néolibéralisme ne permettra pas d’apporter la sécurité, la dignité et le sentiment d’appartenance nécessaires pour l’affamer. Pour cela, nous avons besoin d’un nouveau modèle économique, fondé sur la #durabilité, la #justice et la solidarité.
▻https://www.reseau-bastille.org/2025/12/26/ce-quil-faudra-faire-pour-vaincre-lextreme-droite
#à_faire #résistance #fisc #fiscalité #économie #gauche #contre-discours
ping @karine4
C’est risqué non ? Comment un tel surplomb depuis des positions instituées pourrait-il acquérir une puissance instituante ?
#politique_de_gauche #discours_de_gauche #confiance_dans_les_institutions
Le #fascisme est-il de retour ? avec Chantal Delsol et Asma Mhalla
— Permalink
#totalitarisme #europe #autorité #autoritarisme #technologie #politique #impérialisme #démocratie #dictature #élite #autocratie #domination
#polarization by Design: How Elites Could Shape Mass Preferences as AI Reduces #persuasion Costs
▻https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04047
— Permalink
#massmedia #personalization #influence #manipulation #generativeai #artificialintelligence #LLMs #domination #ideology #elite #democracy
Trump, Epstein und die Demokraten : Eine kriminelle herrschende Klasse
▻https://www.wsws.org/de/articles/2025/11/14/pers-n14.html
Comme toujours chez nos camatades trotzkystes la description du statut quo est correcte quoique incomplète et leurs revendicatioms sont trop romantiques pour nous rapprocher même d’un millimètre de la lutte finale évoquée dans niore chanson préférée. Il est vrai que sousTrump l’impérialisme a laissé tomber son masque civilisé et nous entraîne dans l’abîme de sa chute sans cacher ses intentions.
Français : ▻https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2025/11/15/pers-n15.html
Anglais : ▻https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/11/14/mzkc-n14.html
14.11.2025 von Patrick Martin - Die Veröffentlichung von mehr als 20.000 E-Mails aus dem Nachlass von Jeffrey Epstein wirft ein neues Licht auf den verdorbenen und kriminellen Charakter der amerikanischen herrschenden Klasse. Was die Dokumente offenbaren, sind nicht nur die privaten Perversionen eines Individuums, sondern der Charakter der gesamten kapitalistischen Elite – ihre miteinander verflochtenen Netzwerke aus Finanzwelt, Geheimdiensten, Medien und Politik – und das Ausmaß ihres moralischen und sozialen Verfalls.
Epstein agierte jahrzehntelang als gut vernetzter Mittelsmann für die Reichen und Mächtigen. Er vermittelte minderjährige Mädchen an eine Klientel, zu der Milliardäre, Politiker, Diplomaten und Geheimdienstmitarbeiter gehörten. Er war überall dort präsent, wo Einfluss gesucht, gehandelt und in Geld umgesetzt werden konnte – in enorme Geldsummen.
Epstein hatte Verbindungen nicht nur zu Wall-Street-Größen und führenden US-Politikern, von Bill Clinton bis Donald Trump, sondern auch zu Personen aus dem Ausland, darunter der ehemalige Prinz Andrew, jetzt Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, Bruder von König Charles III. Epsteins enge persönliche Beziehungen zum ehemaligen israelischen Premierminister Ehud Barak und anderen hochrangigen Beamten deuten auf langjährige Verbindungen zum israelischen Geheimdienst hin.
Die neu veröffentlichten E-Mails enthüllen das Ausmaß von Epsteins Integration in elitäre Kreise, einschließlich regelmäßiger Kontakte zu hochrangigen Politikern, Medienvertretern, Akademikern und außenpolitischen Strategen. Sie bestätigen auch, dass diese gesamte Gesellschaftsschicht sich seiner Verbrechen sehr wohl bewusst war – und aktiv daran arbeitete, sie zu vertuschen.
Nirgendwo wird dies deutlicher als in der Verbindung zwischen Epstein und Donald Trump. In einer E-Mail aus dem Jahr 2011 erinnert Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell daran, dass ein Opfer von Menschenhandel, das später als Virginia Roberts Giuffre identifiziert wurde, „Stunden” mit Trump in Epsteins Haus verbracht hatte, dass dies jedoch ein „Hund, der nicht gebellt hat”, war – die Episode war nie öffentlich bekannt geworden.
Eine weitere Reihe von E-Mails aus dem Jahr 2015 zeigt, wie Epstein sich mit dem Schriftsteller Michael Wolff, Autor einer feindseligen Biografie über Trump, darüber abstimmt, wie man Informationen als politisches Druckmittel einsetzen kann, zu einem Zeitpunnkt, an dem Trump Kandidat für die Präsidentschaftskandidatur der Republikaner war. Epstein prahlte damit, Fotos von Trump zu haben, die diesen mit Mädchen in Bikinis in seiner Küche zeigen. In einer E-Mail schrieb er, dass Trump „alles über die Mädchen wusste.”
Die nun veröffentlichten 20.000 E-Mails liefern zahlreiche Details zu Epsteins Verbrechen, doch er selbst wurde im August 2019 in seiner Zelle erhängt aufgefunden – unter Umständen, die stark darauf hindeuten, dass auf höchster Ebene beschlossen wurde, nach dem Motto „Tote erzählen keine Geschichten“ zu handeln.
Die Demokratische Partei hatte während der gesamten Amtszeit der Biden-Regierung reichlich Gelegenheit, sich mit der Verbindung zwischen Trump und Epstein zu befassen. Stattdessen tat sie nichts, denn der Skandal betraf auch prominente Demokraten.
Der Fall Epstein ist schon für sich genommen eindeutig von Bedeutung. Die Entscheidung der Demokraten, nun einige der belastendsten E-Mails zu veröffentlichen, in denen Trump namentlich erwähnt wird, und die massive Berichterstattung in den Mainstream-Medien deuten jedoch darauf hin, dass der Fall als Waffe in den undurchsichtigen Konflikten innerhalb der Finanzaristokratie wiederbelebt wird. Diese betreffen in erster Linie den Krieg gegen Russland in der Ukraine und Trumps rücksichtsloses und unberechenbares außenpolitisches Verhalten im Allgemeinen, einschließlich der Einführung von Zöllen, die den Welthandel stören.
Die gesamte Finanzaristokratie unterstützt die Ziele der Trump-Regierung, doch es wächst die Befürchtung, dass Trump zu verhasst und zu unberechenbar ist oder die Gefahren zu sehr außer Acht lässt, um sein Programm des Klassenkampfs erfolgreich umzusetzen. Die scheinbar unaufhaltsame Ausweitung der Staatsverschuldung, die Schwankungen an den Finanzmärkten und der Anstieg sowohl der Entlassungen als auch der Inflation sind allesamt Symptome einer herannahenden Wirtschaftskrise von globalem Ausmaß.
In diesem Zusammenhang ist es aufschlussreich, dass die Demokraten beschlossen haben, sich Trump in Bezug auf den Regierungsstillstand zu fügen, ihn aber im Epstein-Skandal zu bekämpfen. Nach den „No Kings“-Protesten und dem Debakel der Republikaner bei den Wahlen am 4. November haben die Demokraten als Schlachtfeld nicht die Verteidigung von Arbeitsplätzen und Sozialprogrammen gewählt, sondern die schmutzigen Beziehungen zwischen Trump und dem verurteilten Sexhändler.
Trump sieht sich auch mit zunehmenden Abwanderungen innerhalb der Republikanischen Partei konfrontiert. Der Sprecher des Repräsentantenhauses, Mike Johnson, kündigte nach wochenlangen Verzögerungen am Donnerstag überraschend an, dass das Repräsentantenhaus nächste Woche über einen Beschluss abstimmen werde, der das Justizministerium dazu zwingen würde, alle Epstein-Dokumente zu veröffentlichen. Johnsons Kehrtwende erfolgte, nachdem klar geworden war, dass die Unterstützung für die Maßnahme eine kritische Masse erreicht hatte.
Die Maßnahme wird wahrscheinlich vom Senat blockiert oder von Trump mit einem Veto belegt werden. Doch die Konzentration auf Epstein wird dazu dienen, die parteiübergreifenden Verhandlungen über Kürzungen der Bundesausgaben, die Aggression der USA gegen Venezuela und die verstärkten Angriffe auf Migranten und Geflüchtete zu verschleiern.
Was Trump betrifft, so sind die Maßnahmen zur massiven Eskalation der Kriegsvorbereitungen gegen Venezuela nicht zuletzt auf die sich verschärfende Krise der Regierung zurückzuführen. Am Donnerstagnachmittag gab Kriegsminister Pete Hegseth bekannt, dass das Pentagon die „Operation Southern Spear“ starten werde, nachdem bei zwanzig Angriffen vor der Küste Venezuelas und Kolumbiens mindestens 76 unbewaffnete Zivilisten getötet worden waren.
Es wäre nicht das erste Mal, dass eine amerikanische Regierung versucht, innenpolitische Probleme zu lösen und den Rahmen für einen massiven Angriff auf demokratische Rechte zu schaffen, indem sie außenpolitisch zu militärischer Gewalt greift.
Die Arbeiterklasse darf sich in diesem Kampf innerhalb der herrschenden Klasse hinter keine der beiden Fraktionen stellen. Der Fall Epstein ist nicht nur eine Anklage gegen Trump – er ist eine Anklage gegen die gesamte Bourgeoisie. Er legt die korrupte Physiognomie einer herrschenden Klasse offen, die längst jede Verbindung zu demokratischen Prinzipien oder sozialem Fortschritt aufgegeben hat. Sie hat die Macht an Gangster, Betrüger und Räuber abgegeben.
Die Arbeiterklasse muss auf der Grundlage ihrer eigenen Interessen und mit ihrem eigenen Programm in die sich zuspitzende politische Krise eingreifen. Die Verbrechen von Epstein sind Ausdruck eines Gesellschaftssystems, das Privateigentum, Klassenprivilegien und das politische Monopol einer korrupten Elite verteidigt. Dasselbe System, das Epstein gedeckt hat, führt jetzt Krieg im Ausland, streicht Millionen Menschen die Lebensmittelmarken und setzt Polizei und Geheimdienste ein, um die Opposition im Inland zu unterdrücken.
Im Fall Epstein geht es nicht nur um die Vergangenheit. Es geht um die Gegenwart und die Zukunft. Die herrschende Elite ist moralisch und politisch bankrott. Sie kann nicht reformiert oder durch die bestehenden Institutionen „zur Rechenschaft gezogen“ werden. Sie muss gestürzt werden. Was erforderlich ist, ist eine Bewegung der Arbeiterklasse – bewaffnet mit einem revolutionären sozialistischen Programm –, um die Herrschaft der Oligarchen zu beenden und eine Gesellschaft aufzubauen, die auf Gleichheit, Wahrheit und Menschenwürde basiert.
puis ...
14.11.2025 par Jacob Crosse - Des e-mails confirment qu’Epstein offrait ses services de trafic sexuel à Trump et à toute la classe dirigeante américaine,
▻https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2025/11/14/cozh-n14.html
#USA #impérialisme #capitalisme #nantis #élites #culture_du_viol
Finanzelite zwischen Glanz und Verantwortungslosigkeit : „Mein Sohn wird das alles bezahlen“
▻https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/wirtschaft-verantwortung/grosser-treff-der-finanzelite-in-frankfurt-mein-sohn-wird-das-alles
Ils sont blancs, vieux, de droite et pas très intelligents, mais ils aiment les blagues du fou du roi Roland Berger. Voilà un portrait de la section "finance" des élites allemandes.
Le Berliner Zeitung nous livre un rapport accablant d’une rencontre organisée par l’entreprise du ministre pas si cultivé de culture allemand.
24.10.2025 von Lukas Kuite - Deutschlands Schulden steigen rasant – die Antworten der Finanzelite wirken erstaunlich einfach. Exklusive Einblicke vom Frankfurt Finance & Future Summit.
Es ist Donnerstagabend im Frankfurter Gibson Club, als Deutschlands bekanntester Unternehmensberater Roland Berger, Gründer der gleichnamigen Strategieberatung, unter Bühnenscheinwerfern steht, die mehr blenden als erhellen. 88 Jahre alt, graues Haar, fester Blick, das Glas Sekt in der Hand. Als er den Preis für die „stärkste Marke“ entgegennimmt, ist der Saal stiller, als man es von einer Galanacht erwarten würde.
„Politik ist eine schwierige Aufgabe, gerade in dieser Zeit, in der niemand sich Sorgen darüber macht, über das man sich eigentlich Sorgen machen müsste“, sagt Berger. Der Applaus kommt spät, verhalten. Zwischen Rosé und Mousse au Chocolat schauen manche der Anzugträger verlegen auf die Teller. Fühlen sie sich ebenfalls angesprochen?
Berger, der seit den 1960er Jahren auch Berater von Bundeskanzlern war, fügt hinzu: Er wollte seine Firma damals nach sich selbst benennen, um die Verantwortung zu tragen – „für meine Mitarbeiter, meine Kunden und die Gesellschaft.“
Es klingt wie ein Gebet aus einer anderen Zeit. Und es wird der Satz sein, an dem sich alles spiegelt, was an den zwei Konferenztagen des Frankfurt Finance & Future Summits 2025 zuvor geschehen ist. Deutschlands Finanzelite ist eine Antwort auf die drängendste Frage schuldig geblieben: Wer finanziert den Wohlstand der zukünftigen Generationen?
Tag eins des Frankfurter Finanzgipfels: Kapitalmarktunion – das politische Placebo
Am Mittvormittag liegt ein grauer Schleier über Frankfurt am Main. Der Himmel bedeckt, die Luft kühl, aber still, während schwarze Limousinen vorfuhren. Drinnen, im Kap Europa, ging es um Zukunft – um die Zukunft des Finanzstandorts Deutschland, Europas, vielleicht sogar des europäischen Wohlstands.
EZB-Chefin Christine Lagarde sprach über „Integration“ und „Vertrauen“. KfW-Chef Stefan Wintels über „Resilienz“. Der nicht anwesende Kanzler Friedrich Merz im Vorfeld der Konferenz über „Mut zum Wachstum“. Große Worte, die wie Reklameschilder wirkten. Nur was sie bedeuteten, blieb unklar.
Foto
Deutsche Bank-CEO Christian Sewing während der Eröffnung des Frankfurt Finance & Future Summits.Marc Conzelmann/WEIMER
Die Lösung für alle Probleme trug hier einen Namen: Kapitalmarktunion. Die Integration aller 27 Anleihenmärkte in einen europäischen. Auch: Europäische Superbörse oder „Wall Street“ genannt. Ein Begriff, den sowohl Hessens Ministerpräsident Boris Rhein, EZB-Chefin Lagarde, als auch Deutsche-Bank-Chef Christian Sewing sowie KfW-CEO Stefan Wintels in den Mund nahmen.
Kapitalmarktunion: Ein Begriff, der klang, als könne er Schulden tilgen, Wohlstand verteilen und Zukunft bauen – eine Art Wunderformel in politischem Goldpapier. Das Wunderheilmittel? Doch in jedem Satz schwang ein unausgesprochener Gedanke mit: Dass jene, die da sprachen, ihre eigene Verantwortung längst weitergegeben hatten: An die nachkommenden Generationen.
Europas Schulden – der blinde Fleck in Frankfurt am Main
Über Staatsverschuldung wurde in den Panels kaum gesprochen. Am Rande der Konferenz schon. Ein anonymer Finanzchef einer internationalen Beratungsfirma sagte leise zur Berliner Zeitung: „Ich mache mir weniger Sorgen um Deutschland, die Schuldenquote ist stabil. Aber die USA – die laufen Richtung Krise. Und niemand hier wagte, das Thema anzusprechen.“
Ein Kollege aus einer deutschen Großbank wurde direkter: „Alles wird unter ‚Infrastruktur’ abgeheftet. Aber viele Projekte bringen keine Rendite. Wir bauen Beton, wo wir eigentlich Bildung bräuchten.“ Soll hier auf den Bühnen in Frankfurt keine schlechte Stimmung verbreitet werden?
Foto
Im Kap Europa wurde über zwei Tage der Frankfurt Finance & Future Summit abgehalten.Steffen Boettcher/WEIMER
Auf den Leinwänden wirkte alles solide. Doch die Frage hinter vorgehaltener Hand lautete: Wie lange trägt ein Sozialstaat bei null Prozent Wachstum? Ein CFO sagt zur Berliner Zeitung: „Wir schieben Kosten als Infrastruktur – viele Projekte erwirtschaften nichts.“ Ein KI-Berater brachte es im Hintergrund auf den Punkt: „Wir sind zu langsam. Um meinen Sohn mache ich mir Sorgen, der für das bezahlen wird, was wir gerade verschleppen könnten.“
Schon am ersten Konferenztag war klar: Die Kapitalmarktunion war das Mantra, das alles übertönte. Lagarde nannte sie „den Schlüssel zur Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Europas“. Merz sprach von „Wachstum durch Integration“. Wintels gar von „Resilienz durch Beteiligung“. Doch wo Vision sein sollte, blieb Marketing.
Lediglich bei der IPO Night am Mittwochabend im Städel Museum wurden tapfere Unternehmen mit Weitsicht gekürt. Pfisterer, eines der weltweit größten Unternehmen für das Verbinden, Kontaktieren und Isolieren elektrischer Leiter in Stromnetzen, erhielt die Auszeichnung zum herausragendsten Börsengang des Jahres. Den spektakulären Börsengang von TKMS (Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems) Anfang der Woche hatten die Veranstalter so kurzfristig wohl nicht mehr auf dem Schirm haben können.
Am Donnerstag schlägt das Wetter um. Regen treibt über das Frankfurter Messegelände, glänzende Schuhspitzen spritzen durch Pfützen. Plötzlich steigen Windgeschwindigkeiten an, bis Schirme in den Händen der Gäste umklappen. Starke Böen jagen durch die Glasfronten des Kap Europa. Ähnlich schlägt der Ton um.
Ein Chefanalyst einer der weltweit fünf größten Beratungsfirmen gestand anonym auf Anfrage der Berliner Zeitung: „Die Kapitalmarktunion ist kein neues Wunderheilmittel. Wir reden seit 2014 darüber. Jetzt wird sie als Antwort auf Schulden, Demografie und Stagnation verkauft – aber sie löst nichts, sie verschiebt nur Verantwortlichkeit.“
„Wir brauchen 5000 Milliarden Euro bis 2045“, rief Wintels von der Bühne. „Und wir müssen über längere Arbeitszeiten sprechen.“ Das Publikum nickte, einige tippten auf ihre Smartphones. Draußen flackerte das Licht des Sturms in die Scheiben. Sieht hier keiner die Verantwortungslosigkeit?
Foto
KfW-Chef Stefan Wintels sprach rund 15 Minuten über den wirtschaftlichen Abstand von Deutschland und Europa zu den USA.Steffen Boettcher/Weimer Media Group
Was KfW-Chef Wintels euphemistisch „Beteiligung“ nannte, hieß in Wahrheit: Die junge Generation sollte investieren, während die alte weiter verwaltete. Neue Märkte sollten die Lücken stopfen, die Politik hinterließ. Schon jetzt investiere die junge Generation enorm, betonte Wintels auf der Bühne. Seine Bank steckt das Steuergeld bekanntlich in Klimaprojekte, die mal mehr und mal weniger sinnvoll sind.
Ein JP-Morgan-Berater brachte es nüchtern: „Wir brauchen mehr Risikokapital, klar. Aber das Mindset stimmt nicht. Der Deutsche hält sein Geld lieber in Beton als in Ideen.“ Ein Krypto-Broker widersprach fast trotzig: „Die Jungen holen das schon auf. Vertrauen in klassische Systeme sinkt. Krypto wird zur Flucht aus der Verantwortung der Alten.“
Damit war der Generationenkonflikt zum ersten Mal am Donnerstagnachmittag richtig spürbar: Die, die vom Kapital lebten, redeten von Vertrauen. Vor allem Wintels, der im Sommer wegen seines 1,2 Millionen Euro Jahresgehalts zum Teil auf Kosten der Steuerzahler in die Kritik geraten war. Die, die es erwirtschaften sollten, lebten längst im Misstrauen – und waren gar nicht anwesend. Die meisten Anwesenden, die unter 30 Jahre alt waren, trugen Tabletts oder Garderoben-Kleiderbügel herum, anstatt Aktentaschen oder Mikrofone.
Zwischen Panels über Compliance und Nachhaltigkeit verlor sich die Debatte am Donnerstag in Fachsprache und Standortfragen. Ein Kapitalmarktchef einer deutschen Bank sagte: „Alle reden über die europäische Börse, ob sie in Paris oder Frankfurt stehen soll. Aber keiner weiß, wo sie gebaut werden soll – wo ist die Baugenehmigung?“ Auch die Klagen über Bürokratie blieben nicht aus. Eine Bankberaterin sagte: „Wir prüfen jeden Kunden auf einer Milliarde Datenpunkte – Digitalisierung? Fehlanzeige.“
Foto
Gitta Connemann (5.v.r.), Katherina Reiches Staatssekretärin, vergab auf dem Finanzgipfel Preise an den Mittelstand.Steffen Boettcher/WEIMER
Derweil startet die Aftershowparty des Events im Frankfurter Gibson Club. Was denkt die Elite vom neuen Wunderheilmittel, der Kapitalmarktunion, wenn sie bereits Alkohol getrunken hat? Ein Sicherheitsberater: „Wir brauchen keine weitere Schuldenunion unter neuem Namen. Wir brauchen eine Verteidigungsunion, da liegt das echte Einsparpotenzial.“ Statt Börsenwände einzureißen, sollte die EU ihre „Frontlinien hochziehen“. Man hatte in der ganzen Euphorie ja fast vergessen: In Europa herrscht Krieg.
Kapitalmarktunion – die Ausrede einer Politik, die lieber über Formulare sprach als über Verantwortung? Repräsentativ war dieser Finanzgipfel sicher nicht.
Die Abwesenden der Finanzelite: Berlin, Ostdeutschland und Diversität
Kaum ein Speaker während des Finanzgipfels stammte aus Berlin, dem eigentlichen Fintech-Mekka der EU. Die Frankfurter Finanzwelt blieb westdeutsch, wohlhabend, homogen. Diversität tauchte nur im Programmheft auf.
Und als Georg Kofler, Investor aus der VOX-Show „Höhle der Löwen“, am Donnerstag sagte, Merz habe recht mit seiner Stadtbilddebatte – die „Parallelgesellschaften“ in Berlin würden ihn stören – wurde der stille Riss sichtbarer, der sich durch dieses Land zieht. Später im Gibson Club äußerte er sich auf Nachfrage deutlicher: „Mich stören vor allem die Kopftücher.“ Deswegen sei er aus Berlin weggezogen.
Ein Satz, der die Luft im Saal spaltet – und den bis auf die anwesenden Journalisten der veranstaltenden Weimer Media Group dennoch niemand öffentlich verurteilte. Kofler wird angelächelt, die Finanzelite macht sogar mit ihm Scherze. Der Wohlstand blieb unter seinesgleichen.
Foto
Die Marken Gala der Weimer Media Group im Gibson Club sollte den Finanzgipfel in Frankfurt feierlich abrunden.WEIMER MEDIA GROUP/Marc Conzelmann
Im Saal des Nachtclubs während der Markengala servierten junge Kellner Fingerfood. Sie waren größtenteils zwischen 20 und 30, viele mit Migrationshintergrund. Einer sagte halblaut: „Vielleicht reden die ja irgendwann auch über uns.“ Taten sie nicht.
Roland Berger mit Appell an die deutschen Finanz-Machthaber
Am Ende dieser zwei Tage stand Roland Berger. Seine Worte vom Donnerstagabend wirkten im Nachhall der Veranstaltungen wie ein Gegenentwurf zu all den PowerPoint-Schlachten: Verantwortung als persönlicher Akt. Kein Fonds, keine Union, kein Index – sondern Haltung. Jeder spürte es.
„Wenn man vom Weg abkommt, braucht man jemanden, der ihn weitergeht“, sagte er in Richtung der Veranstalterin Christiane Götz-Weimer, deren Mann als Berater nun im Kanzleramt arbeitet. Ein Satz, halb Mahnung, halb Spiegel? Ist Politik in seinen Augen wirkungslos?
Forschungsministerin Dorothee Bär (CSU) gab er noch einen Auftrag mit: „Sagen Sie Friedrich Merz, dass die Reformen noch in diesem Jahr kommen müssen. Dann geht es 2026 auch hoffentlich wieder bergauf.“ In Humor verpackt, aber dennoch klar und voller Wahrheit.
Foto
Beratermogul und Nachkriegslegende Roland Berger gab Dorothee Bär einen Wunsch für Friedrich Merz mit. Reformen sollen noch in diesem Jahr kommen.WEIMER MEDIA GROUP/Marc Conzelmann
Als die Beats durch den Club wummern, spiegelt sich vor der Tür das Regenlicht. Drinnen wurden Zukunftsbegriffe verhandelt – draußen blieb die Frage unbeantwortet: Wer übernimmt Verantwortung, und wer zahlt? Frankfurt 2025 zeigte vor allem eines: Die Debatte über Geld ist laut, die über Verantwortung leise – und sie beginnt genau dort, wo Roland Berger am Donnerstagabend aufgehört hatte.
« Biens mal acquis » : l’ex-Premier ministre libanais Najib Mikati visé par la justice française [14 septembre 2025]
▻https://www.france24.com/fr/info-en-continu/20250914-biens-mal-acquis-l-ex-premier-ministre-libanais-mikati-vis%C3%A9-
La justice française a ouvert une enquête visant Najib Mikati, ancien Premier ministre libanais et l’une des figures les plus influentes du pays du Cèdre. Avec son frère Taha, il est soupçonné d’avoir bâti un vaste patrimoine, en France et à l’étranger, grâce à des montages offshore et des acquisitions potentiellement frauduleuses.
L’Unesco malade de son ambassadeur milliardaire [15 octobre 2025]
▻https://www.lecanardenchaine.fr/politique/52112-l-unesco-malade-de-son-ambassadeur-milliardaire
Sous le coup d’une enquête du Parquet national financier, Taha Mikati, frère de l’ancien Premier ministre libanais Najib Mikati, a assuré ses arrières : en tant que représentant de la République des Palaos à l’Unesco, il bénéficie de l’immunité diplomatique. Micro-État, maxi protection ?
Comportement typique de quelqu’un qui se sait innocent.
La #méritocratie : un #mythe dépassé ?
▻https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/sans-prejuger/la-meritocratie-un-mythe-depasse-9741400
— Permalink
#mérite #inégalité #justice #injustice #éducation #politique #reconnaissance #sociologie #économie #élite
Are Elites Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking? Evidence from MBA Students
▻https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15443
— Permalink
Jeffrey Epstein was linked to the upper echelons of wealth and politics – but where did he get his fortune ?
▻https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/13/jeffrey-epstein-emails-wealth
Les crimes dont on l’accusé et condamné ne représentent qu’une petite partie des exploits de J.E. La plupart des dommages qu’il a causé et qui l’ont rendu très riche ont été le résultat de sa participation à la fraude fiscale des élites.
13.10.2025 by Edward Helmore - Jeffrey Epstein was a very wealthy man, but exactly how wealthy and where that money came from remains shrouded in mystery.
Newly unearthed emails last week shone light on Epstein’s role as freelance client development officer, acting as a channel between political figures and business titans, greasing up the former with lifestyles they could not afford and the latter with avenues of political influence.
Exposure of that channel ended the career of Peter Mandelson, the UK ambassador to the US, provoking a crisis in Britain’s Labour government, after emails showed that Lord Mandelson had steered a $1bn banking deal Epstein’s way and expressed sympathy for Epstein’s 2008 conviction for child sexual procurement.
Emails obtained by Bloomberg and others went further, showing that figures in Epstein’s network of billionaires, politicians, celebrities, royalty and intellectuals were assembled into schemes of influence.
“Jeffrey was a starfucker,” an acquaintance told the Guardian last week. “Anyone he thought had influence he would try to add to his collection. Mandelson is slippery, and impressed by money, so Jeffrey liked that.”
The spheres of influence Epstein created, emails showed, relied simultaneously on access and gifts. Bloomberg obtained a spreadsheet of expenses that in some cases appeared to sync with emails between Epstein and his former girlfriend and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s convicted sex-trafficking co-conspirator.
One expense, dated 21 December 2005, showed a $35,000 watch for “DB” – the same day that Maxwell and Epstein discussed in emails giving Bill Clinton aide Doug Band an Audemars Piguet with the same value. Band has denied receiving any watch.
In all, the emails include a spreadsheet itemizing nearly 2,000 gifts, luxury items and payments totaling $1.8m.
But the questions about the source of Epstein’s wealth have never been fully resolved. He was worth nearly $600m at his death, thanks mostly to two wealthy billionaire clients – Victoria’s Secret founder Les Wexner and, later, Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black – as well as Johnson & Johnson heiress Elizabeth “Libet” Johnson, sister of former US ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson.
Between his collection of lavish homes in New York, Palm Beach and Paris, two private Caribbean islands, two jets and helicopter, Epstein held nearly $380m in cash and investments, according to his estate.
That wealth arrived suddenly. According to associates, until the end of the 90s, Epstein was living in a two-bedroom apartment on Manhattan’s Upper East Side close to the river. It was only when Maxwell arrived from London that his lifestyle was dramatically elevated.
Epstein moved to a townhouse on 68th Street and later to a 28,000-sq-ft mansion on 71st Street, later transferred to him by Wexner in 2011.
Steven Hoffenberg, a former business partner of Epstein convicted of running a Ponzi scheme, claimed that Maxwell’s father, disgraced press baron Robert Maxwell, introduced his daughter to Epstein in the late 1980s.
A 2022 Miami Herald exposé showed complex Maxwell family transactions passing through companies in Jersey, the British Virgin Islands and Panama that it called “a decades-long modus operandi of financial deception”.
In a 2013 corporate filing, Epstein described himself as “an experienced and successful financier and businessman”, an “entrepreneur who has built several highly profitable companies” and “one of the pioneers of derivative and option-based investing”.
Of the more than $800m in revenue Wexner and Black brought in from 1999 to 2018, according to financial statements obtained by the New York Times, Epstein – who was neither a licensed tax attorney nor a certified public accountant – collected at least $490m in fees.
According to Forbes, the two businessmen supplied close to 75% of Epstein’s fee income during that period. Court records from a 2022 case brought against one of Epstein’s banks, JPMorgan Chase, show that Epstein’s US Virgin Islands-based companies were his only “revenue-generating” companies from 1999 to his death in 2019. Under the territories’ economic development program, Epstein is estimated to have saved $300m in taxes between 1999 and 2018.
A 2023 report by the then Senate finance committee chair, Ron Wyden, found Black paid Epstein $170m “for purported tax and estate planning advice”. Black has not been accused of wrongdoing. He said in a 2020 earnings call that he “deeply regretted” his association with Epstein. A report from global law firm Dechert found “no evidence that Black … was involved in any way with Epstein’s criminal activities”.
Wexner claimed after Epstein’s arrest in 2019 that Epstein had “misappropriated” more than $46m of his personal fortune and said in a letter to L Brand employees: “I know now that my trust in him was grossly misplaced and I deeply regret having ever crossed his path.”
But by 2006, with Wexner’s patronage at an end, Epstein’s Financial Trust Company, which had generated $300m in fees, generated less than $5m over five years. His 2008 conviction dealt a further blow and he returned to New York to salvage his reputation and business.
The New York Times reported last week that despite internal red flags about suspicious cash withdrawals and transfers, JPMorgan Chase continued to consider Epstein a treasured customer with more than $200m in accounts. Perhaps more importantly, he unofficially served as a client developer for the private wealth management division.
JPMorgan Chase has described its ties to Epstein as “a mistake”. Epstein introduced bank executives to some figures who would become clients, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, and to global leaders, such as Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Bill Gates, Elon Musk and Emirati billionaire Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem.
Epstein received a $15m fee for smoothing the sale of a $1.3bn stake in Glenn Dubin’s $7bn Highbridge Capital Management hedge fund to the bank. Epstein’s connections were by then more valuable than his wealth.
Epstein’s main connection to the bank was Jes Staley, later CEO of Barclays, who was found by UK regulators to have misled them about his ties to Epstein.
Conspiracy theories that Epstein was blackmailing his wealthy connections, snaring them in honeytraps that included models brought into the US, including by Jean-Luc Brunel, founder of MC2 Model Management, who – like Epstein – died in prison while awaiting trial on sex crimes charges, have not come to fruition.
But wherever the Epstein scandal goes next, and whomever else it brings down, Epstein moves like a zombie through the upper echelons of wealth and politics. “He operated a circle with many points of entry,” says the acquaintance, “but now he’s like a wrecking ball rolling across countries.”
Participant actif au génocide
#BBC Ignored Internal Request to Correct Claim Anas Al-Sharif Worked With Hamas | Novara Media
▻https://novaramedia.com/2025/09/10/bbc-ignored-internal-plea-to-correct-claim-anas-al-sharif-worked-with-h
The leaked email, dated 18 August, was sent by BBC Global News to around 1,200 BBC journalists via a distribution address called “collective newsroom editorial”. It singled out a line in a BBC News article for correction: “The BBC understands Sharif did some work with a Hamas media team in Gaza before the current war”.
The email said the sentence “should be amended” to: “A source has told the BBC that Sharif had worked for a Hamas media team in Gaza before the current conflict, but Al Jazeera has denied this and the BBC News Arabic correspondent also says that he has seen no evidence.”
The email is signed by the BBC Global News team, as well as BBC News’ senior controller of news content and the deputy CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs.
At the time of reporting, the line in question remains uncorrected on the BBC News article, last updated 13 August. The same claim was also presented as fact on the BBC News liveblog on 11 August in reporting by Jon Donnison from Jerusalem, as well as cropping up in BBC Verify reporting on TikTok.
A BBC employee told Novara Media: “This leaked email […] exposes from the inside the culture of intimidation, fear and political control that journalists are subjected to within the corporation.
“The email admits a reported line that should never have made it onto the BBC’s front page was published without evidence, yet the error [sic] remains uncorrected and no one has been held accountable.
“In any other newsroom, such a grave editorial breach on a matter of major public interest, the targeted killing of a fellow journalist, would have led to senior resignations.”
Démission ? Plus probablement promotion.
Les échelons que gravissent ces gens sont toujours empilés de cadavres.
“#élite”
Mental health in #elite sports. A continuum of strategies that athletic trainers can use to support competitive #athletes with psychological issues: a scoping review
▻https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1619802/full
— Permalink
#mentalhealth #sport #stress #anxiety #distress #exhaustion #training #education #intervention #referal #coaching #performance #psychology
La France est submergée par la cocaïne, alerte un rapport RTS - Benjamin Luis
Un « tsunami blanc », telle est l’image choc choisie par l’Office anti-stupéfiants français. Selon un rapport confidentiel de l’office, auquel ont eu accès des médias français, le pays est submergé par la cocaïne et gangréné par une économie parallèle violente, jusqu’au cœur des villes moyennes.
En France, la drogue est partout, selon le constat dressé dans le dernier rapport de l’Office anti-stupéfiants français (OFAST) paru fin juillet, un document à diffusion restreinte. Il parle d’une offre désormais « sans zone blanche », donc plus aucun territoire n’est épargné.
Dans cette offre, la cocaïne domine. Les saisies ont bondi, les prix ont chuté et la consommation s’est envolée. Plus d’un million de Français et Françaises en feraient un usage régulier.
Fusillades, guet-apens et assassinats
La violence est alarmante : fusillades, guet-apens, assassinats commandités… Près de 400 attaques liées au trafic ont été recensées en 2024, le tout dans une logique de marché, avec des tarifs fixés pour intimider ou éliminer.
Des réseaux structurés, en lien direct avec les cartels sud-américains, travaillent en coulisses. Ils s’adaptent, se numérisent et livrent désormais à domicile, investissent même les locations de courte durée.
Selon l’OFAST, la France fait face à un système criminel qui infiltre la société et défie l’Etat. Filant la métaphore du raz de marée, le ministre de l’Intérieur français Bruno Retailleau évoque une « menace existentielle pour le pays ».
Les passages aux urgences ont « plus que triplé » à cause la cocaïne
En France, la consommation de cocaïne fait peser un « poids significatif » sur l’hôpital et les services d’urgence, où le nombre de passages qui y sont liés ont « plus que triplé » entre 2012 et 2023, avant de se stabiliser l’an dernier, affirme l’agence française de santé publique.
En 2024, 5067 passages aux urgences en lien avec l’usage de cocaïne et 1619 hospitalisations (consécutives à un passage) ont été recensés. Ces taux de passages aux urgences sont « très élevés en Guyane, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur et en Occitanie ».
Surtout des hommes trentenaires
Entre 2012 et 2024, sur 32’749 passages aux urgences liés à l’usage de la cocaïne, environ les trois quarts (74%) concernaient des hommes et l’âge médian était de 32 ans, correspondant au profil des personnes les plus consommatrices au sein de la population générale.
Sur cette période, les passages aux urgences liés à la consommation de cocaïne étaient « fréquemment associés à des diagnostics de consommation d’autres substances », en « premier lieu l’alcool » (29%), puis les narcotiques (dont les opiacés, 14%), le cannabis (11%) et les benzodiazépines (7%).
#France #élites #cocaïne #drogue #drogues #stupéfiants #mafia #corruption #épidémie_de_cocaïne
Source : ▻https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/2025/article/rapport-choc-la-france-submergee-par-un-tsunami-de-cocaine-et-de-violence-289599
A ce jour, aucun contrôle systématique à l’entrée des ministères, du sénat, de l’assemblée nationale, de l’élysée, . . .
Effectivement, et aussi les mairies des grandes villes, les conseils d’administration des grosses boites, etc . . . . .
Les prisons sont pleines, beaucoup sont en construction, histoire de fermer la bouche de celles et ceux qui ne consomment pas de la poudre blanche et savent encore réfléchir.
Droits de douane : les Etats-Unis et l’Union européenne ont « conclu un accord » commercial, annoncent Donald Trump et Ursula von der Leyen
▻https://www.franceinfo.fr/monde/usa/droits-de-douane/droits-de-douane-les-etats-unis-et-l-union-europeenne-ont-conclu-un-accor
Le président américain a par ailleurs affirmé que l’UE allait « accepter d’acheter aux Etats-Unis pour 750 milliards de dollars d’énergie. Ils vont accepter d’investir aux Etats-Unis 600 milliards de dollars de plus que ce qu’ils investissent déjà. »
Dominique de Villepin sur X :
▻https://x.com/Villepin/status/1949554013403263013
27 Juillet 2025, Jour de la Déclaration de Dépendance européenne.
1. Un traité inégal où l’un paye des droits de douane à hauteur de 15% mais l’autre aucun. Comment ne pas appeler cela un tribut ?
2. Un accord d’investissement de 600 milliards de dollars à sens unique mais qui coûtera combien d’emplois à l’Europe ?
3. Une vente forcée de 750 milliards de dollars d’énergie, mais avec quel impact sur la souveraineté énergétique européenne et la décarbonation et notamment l’objectif du net zéro ?
Il est illusoire de croire que Donald Trump arrêtera là ses revendications face à une Europe dont il méprise la souveraineté.
Il est tout aussi illusoire de croire qu’un futur président américain plus raisonnable reviendra sans contreparties supplémentaires sur l’aubaine de ces droits de douane une fois acceptés.
Jorge Liboreiro sur X : “🧵 The EU-US trade deal is objectively bad for the EU, possibly even terrible. It’s a deal that, despite its name, makes trade more expensive and unattractive. Most EU products will be subject to a whooping 15% tariff, tripling the 4.8% average rate before Trump’s second term.”
▻https://x.com/JorgeLiboreiro/status/1949584623849156645
L’accord commercial UE-USA est objectivement mauvais pour l’UE, peut-être même terrible.
C’est un accord qui, malgré son nom, rend le commerce plus coûteux et moins attrayant. La plupart des produits de l’UE seront soumis à un tarif exorbitant de 15 %, triplant le taux moyen de 4,8 % avant le second mandat de Trump.
Ou comme titrait Médiapart : L’Europe capitule
▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie-et-social/280725/l-union-europeenne-capitule-pour-eviter-une-guerre-commerciale-avec-trump
Je ne sais pas mais je vois de plus en plus les dirigeants européens comme des chevaux de Troie.
Ces « chevaux de Troie » suivent une construction géopolitique autour de la guerre en #Ukraine, soigneusement calculée il y a longtemps ( #Brzezinsky) et progressivement mise en œuvre déjà depuis les années 2000.
La coalition formée par Chirac et Schröder pour ne pas participer à l’invasion de l’Irak par les États-Unis (2003) a donné le coup d’envoi à #Washington et #Londres pour déstabiliser systématiquement l’ #UE et l’ #euro de l’intérieur.
Puis, la sortie du #Royaume-Uni de l’UE en 2016 faisait partie de cette stratégie, qui a été dissimulée par les médias occidentaux sous le prétexte d’un problème d’afflux migratoire.
–-------------------
cf. un article (en DE, moins centré sur les arguments géostratégiques) ici :
Arnaud Bertrand sur X :
"This is beyond parody:
VDL says that US LNG gas is “more affordable and better” than Russian gas in order to justify the unequal treaty she just signed Europe for, in which - among other concessions - she commits to buy $750 billion of US LNG over the" / X
▻https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1949785400588812490
C’est au-delà de la parodie
VDL affirme que le gaz GNL américain est « plus abordable et meilleur » que le gaz russe pour justifier le traité inégal qu’elle vient de signer pour l’Europe, dans lequel - parmi d’autres concessions - elle s’engage à acheter 750 milliards de dollars de GNL américain au cours des trois prochaines années.
Toute personne dotée d’une once de bon sens peut comprendre que le gaz qui vient directement de votre voisin par gazoduc est par définition beaucoup moins cher que le gaz qui doit être liquéfié, transporté sur des milliers de kilomètres à travers l’Atlantique dans des navires spécialisés, puis regazéifié en Europe.
Ce que vous avez ici est une parfaite illustration de la relation transatlantique : les #élites européennes mentent à leur propre population pour justifier leur aux #États-Unis, tout cela comme conséquence de faire de la russophobie la base de toute la politique de l’UE. Cette dernière étant d’ailleurs une conséquence directe de la décision des États-Unis de continuer à élargir l’OTAN en Europe.
Du point de vue des États-Unis, c’est parfaitement logique, c’est le bon vieux « diviser pour régner » et en tirer les bénéfices. Du point de vue de l’#UE, ils doivent mentir pour faire croire que c’est une décision rationnelle alors que la vérité évidente est qu’ils se sont fait manipuler.
▻https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1949705777695817728/pu/vid/avc1/854x480/yzU2eKyH1CRlHcV2.mp4?tag=12
Arnaud Bertrand sur X : "This is absolutely extraordinary and beyond parody:
A reporter rightly asks Von Der Leyen “What are the US concessions? What is the US giving up in the deal” VDL’s reply is that there was none because “the starting point was an imbalance, a surplus on” / X
▻https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1949866322000564350
C’est absolument extraordinaire et au-delà de la parodie :
Un journaliste demande à juste titre à Von Der Leyen : « Quelles sont les concessions des États-Unis ? Qu’est-ce que les États-Unis abandonnent dans l’accord ? »
La réponse de VDL est qu’il n’y en avait aucune parce que « le point de départ était un déséquilibre, un excédent de notre côté, et un déficit du côté des États-Unis [donc] nous voulions rééquilibrer la relation commerciale. »
C’est elle que nous avons pour négocier au nom de l’UE : quelqu’un de si totalement acquis qu’elle répète presque mot pour mot la rhétorique insensée de Trump selon laquelle les déficits commerciaux sont en quelque sorte la preuve que l’Amérique est une victime qui mérite une compensation.
▻https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1949745879683837952/vid/avc1/1280x720/EVjWqk_S8zMWN3El.mp4
Arnaud Bertrand sur X : " sleeknub She is NOT right. Trump’s trade deficit victim narrative is obviously manufactured gaslighting designed to justify wealth extraction - the US benefits enormously from trade “deficits” by getting real goods in exchange for dollars they can print for free. The ability to consume" / X
▻https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1949867921204769234
Elle n’a PAS raison. Le récit de Trump sur le déficit commercial faisant des Etats-Unis une victime est clairement une manipulation fabriquée conçue pour justifier l’extraction de richesses – les États-Unis tirent un énorme profit des « déficits » commerciaux en obtenant des biens réels en échange de dollars qu’ils peuvent imprimer gratuitement. La capacité à consommer plus que ce que l’on produit est un signe de force économique et la conséquence du dollar en tant que monnaie de réserve mondiale.
C’est simplement de la pure propagande pour faire passer la collecte de tributs pour quelque chose de raisonnable.
Jorge Liboreiro sur X :
▻https://x.com/JorgeLiboreiro/status/1949939503579189250
The EU-US trade deal just got messier: the White House has published a fact-sheet about the agreement with claims that directly contradict the European Commission’s version of events.
Let’s take a closer look.
EU and US spin conflicting versions of trade deal, sowing confusion | Euronews
▻https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/29/eu-and-us-spin-conflicting-versions-of-trade-deal
Les Etats-Unis reviennent à la charge pour demander à l’Union européenne un traitement de faveur…
►https://seenthis.net/messages/1139526
THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS
The earliest version of this article was given as a talk at a conference called by the Southern Female Rights Union, held in Beulah, Mississippi in May 1970. It was written up for Notes from the Third Year (1971), but the editors did not use it. It was then submitted to several movement publications, but only one asked permission to publish it; others did so without permission. The first official place of publication was in Vol. 2, No. 1 of The Second Wave (1972). This early version in movement publications was authored by Joreen. Different versions were published in the Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Vol. 17, 1972-73, pp. 151-165, and Ms. magazine, July 1973, pp. 76-78, 86-89, authored by Jo Freeman. This piece spread all over the world. Numerous people have edited, reprinted, cut, and translated “Tyranny” for magazines, books and web sites, usually without the permission or knowledge of the author. The version below is a blend of the three cited here.
During the years in which the women’s liberation movement has been taking shape, a great emphasis has been placed on what are called leaderless, structureless groups as the main — if not sole — organizational form of the movement. The source of this idea was a natural reaction against the over-structured society in which most of us found ourselves, and the inevitable control this gave others over our lives, and the continual elitism of the Left and similar groups among those who were supposedly fighting this overstructuredness.
The idea of “structurelessness,” however, has moved from a healthy counter to those tendencies to becoming a goddess in its own right. The idea is as little examined as the term is much used, but it has become an intrinsic and unquestioned part of women’s liberation ideology. For the early development of the movement this did not much matter. It early defined its main goal, and its main method, as consciousness-raising, and the “structureless” rap group was an excellent means to this end. The looseness and informality of it encouraged participation in discussion, and its often supportive atmosphere elicited personal insight. If nothing more concrete than personal insight ever resulted from these groups, that did not much matter, because their purpose did not really extend beyond this.
The basic problems didn’t appear until individual rap groups exhausted the virtues of consciousness-raising and decided they wanted to do something more specific. At this point they usually foundered because most groups were unwilling to change their structure when they changed their tasks. Women had thoroughly accepted the idea of “structurelessness” without realizing the limitations of its uses. People would try to use the “structureless” group and the informal conference for purposes for which they were unsuitable out of a blind belief that no other means could possibly be anything but oppressive.
If the movement is to grow beyond these elementary stages of development, it will have to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices about organization and structure. There is nothing inherently bad about either of these. They can be and often are misused, but to reject them out of hand because they are misused is to deny ourselves the necessary tools to further development. We need to understand why “structurelessness” does not work.
FORMAL AND INFORMAL STRUCTURES
Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness — and that is not the nature of a human group.
This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an “objective” news story, “value-free” social science, or a “free” economy. A “laissez faire” group is about as realistic as a “laissez faire” society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of “structurelessness” does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly “laissez faire” philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women’s movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.
For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized. This is not to say that formalization of a structure of a group will destroy the informal structure. It usually doesn’t. But it does hinder the informal structure from having predominant control and make available some means of attacking it if the people involved are not at least responsible to the needs of the group at large. “Structurelessness” is organizationally impossible. We cannot decide whether to have a structured or structureless group, only whether or not to have a formally structured one. Therefore the word will not be used any longer except to refer to the idea it represents. Unstructured will refer to those groups which have not been deliberately structured in a particular manner. Structured will refer to those which have. A Structured group always has formal structure, and may also have an informal, or covert, structure. It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured groups, which forms the basis for elites.
THE NATURE OF ELITISM
“Elitist” is probably the most abused word in the women’s liberation movement. It is used as frequently, and for the same reasons, as “pinko” was used in the fifties. It is rarely used correctly. Within the movement it commonly refers to individuals, though the personal characteristics and activities of those to whom it is directed may differ widely: An individual, as an individual can never be an elitist, because the only proper application of the term “elite” is to groups. Any individual, regardless of how well-known that person may be, can never be an elite.
Correctly, an elite refers to a small group of people who have power over a larger group of which they are part, usually without direct responsibility to that larger group, and often without their knowledge or consent. A person becomes an elitist by being part of, or advocating the rule by, such a small group, whether or not that individual is well known or not known at all. Notoriety is not a definition of an elitist. The most insidious elites are usually run by people not known to the larger public at all. Intelligent elitists are usually smart enough not to allow themselves to become well known; when they become known, they are watched, and the mask over their power is no longer firmly lodged.
Elites are not conspiracies. Very seldom does a small group of people get together and deliberately try to take over a larger group for its own ends. Elites are nothing more, and nothing less, than groups of friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities. They would probably maintain their friendship whether or not they were involved in political activities; they would probably be involved in political activities whether or not they maintained their friendships. It is the coincidence of these two phenomena which creates elites in any group and makes them so difficult to break.
These friendship groups function as networks of communication outside any regular channels for such communication that may have been set up by a group. If no channels are set up, they function as the only networks of communication. Because people are friends, because they usually share the same values and orientations, because they talk to each other socially and consult with each other when common decisions have to be made, the people involved in these networks have more power in the group than those who don’t. And it is a rare group that does not establish some informal networks of communication through the friends that are made in it.
Some groups, depending on their size, may have more than one such informal communications network. Networks may even overlap. When only one such network exists, it is the elite of an otherwise Unstructured group, whether the participants in it want to be elitists or not. If it is the only such network in a Structured group it may or may not be an elite depending on its composition and the nature of the formal Structure. If there are two or more such networks of friends, they may compete for power within the group, thus forming factions, or one may deliberately opt out of the competition, leaving the other as the elite. In a Structured group, two or more such friendship networks usually compete with each other for formal power. This is often the healthiest situation, as the other members are in a position to arbitrate between the two competitors for power and thus to make demands on those to whom they give their temporary allegiance.
The inevitably elitist and exclusive nature of informal communication networks of friends is neither a new phenomenon characteristic of the women’s movement nor a phenomenon new to women. Such informal relationships have excluded women for centuries from participating in integrated groups of which they were a part. In any profession or organization these networks have created the “locker room” mentality and the “old school” ties which have effectively prevented women as a group (as well as some men individually) from having equal access to the sources of power or social reward. Much of the energy of past women’s movements has been directed to having the structures of decision-making and the selection processes formalized so that the exclusion of women could be confronted directly. As we well know, these efforts have not prevented the informal male-only networks from discriminating against women, but they have made it more difficult.
Because elites are informal does not mean they are invisible. At any small group meeting anyone with a sharp eye and an acute ear can tell who is influencing whom. The members of a friendship group will relate more to each other than to other people. They listen more attentively, and interrupt less; they repeat each other’s points and give in amiably; they tend to ignore or grapple with the “outs” whose approval is not necessary for making a decision. But it is necessary for the “outs” to stay on good terms with the “ins.” Of course the lines are not as sharp as I have drawn them. They are nuances of interaction, not prewritten scripts. But they are discernible, and they do have their effect. Once one knows with whom it is important to check before a decision is made, and whose approval is the stamp of acceptance, one knows who is running things.
Since movement groups have made no concrete decisions about who shall exercise power within them, many different criteria are used around the country. Most criteria are along the lines of traditional female characteristics. For instance, in the early days of the movement, marriage was usually a prerequisite for participation in the informal elite. As women have been traditionally taught, married women relate primarily to each other, and look upon single women as too threatening to have as close friends. In many cities, this criterion was further refined to include only those women married to New Left men. This standard had more than tradition behind it, however, because New Left men often had access to resources needed by the movement — such as mailing lists, printing presses, contacts, and information — and women were used to getting what they needed through men rather than independently. As the movement has charged through time, marriage has become a less universal criterion for effective participation, but all informal elites establish standards by which only women who possess certain material or personal characteristics may join. They frequently include: middle-class background (despite all the rhetoric about relating to the working class); being married; not being married but living with someone; being or pretending to be a lesbian; being between the ages of twenty and thirty; being college educated or at least having some college background; being “hip”; not being too “hip”; holding a certain political line or identification as a “radical”; having children or at least liking them; not having children; having certain “feminine” personality characteristics such as being “nice”; dressing right (whether in the traditional style or the antitraditional style); etc. There are also some characteristics which will almost always tag one as a “deviant” who should not be related to. They include: being too old; working full time, particularly if one is actively committed to a “career”; not being “nice”; and being avowedly single (i.e., neither actively heterosexual nor homosexual).
Other criteria could be included, but they all have common themes. The characteristics prerequisite for participating in the informal elites of the movement, and thus for exercising power, concern one’s background, personality, or allocation of time. They do not include one’s competence, dedication to feminism, talents, or potential contribution to the movement. The former are the criteria one usually uses in determining one’s friends. The latter are what any movement or organization has to use if it is going to be politically effective.
The criteria of participation may differ from group to group, but the means of becoming a member of the informal elite if one meets those criteria art pretty much the same. The only main difference depends on whether one is in a group from the beginning, or joins it after it has begun. If involved from the beginning it is important to have as many of one’s personal friends as possible also join. If no one knows anyone else very well, then one must deliberately form friendships with a select number and establish the informal interaction patterns crucial to the creation of an informal structure. Once the informal patterns are formed they act to maintain themselves, and one of the most successful tactics of maintenance is to continuously recruit new people who “fit in.” One joins such an elite much the same way one pledges a sorority. If perceived as a potential addition, one is “rushed” by the members of the informal structure and eventually either dropped or initiated. If the sorority is not politically aware enough to actively engage in this process itself it can be started by the outsider pretty much the same way one joins any private club. Find a sponsor, i.e., pick some member of the elite who appears to be well respected within it, and actively cultivate that person’s friendship. Eventually, she will most likely bring you into the inner circle.
All of these procedures take time. So if one works full time or has a similar major commitment, it is usually impossible to join simply because there are not enough hours left to go to all the meetings and cultivate the personal relationship necessary to have a voice in the decision-making. That is why formal structures of decision making are a boon to the overworked person. Having an established process for decision-making ensures that everyone can participate in it to some extent.
Although this dissection of the process of elite formation within small groups has been critical in perspective, it is not made in the belief that these informal structures are inevitably bad — merely inevitable. All groups create informal structures as a result of interaction patterns among the members of the group. Such informal structures can do very useful things But only Unstructured groups are totally governed by them. When informal elites are combined with a myth of “structurelessness,” there can be no attempt to put limits on the use of power. It becomes capricious.
This has two potentially negative consequences of which we should be aware. The first is that the informal structure of decision-making will be much like a sorority — one in which people listen to others because they like them and not because they say significant things. As long as the movement does not do significant things this does not much matter. But if its development is not to be arrested at this preliminary stage, it will have to alter this trend. The second is that informal structures have no obligation to be responsible to the group at large. Their power was not given to them; it cannot be taken away. Their influence is not based on what they do for the group; therefore they cannot be directly influenced by the group. This does not necessarily make informal structures irresponsible. Those who are concerned with maintaining their influence will usually try to be responsible. The group simply cannot compel such responsibility; it is dependent on the interests of the elite.
THE “STAR” SYSTEM
The idea of “structurelessness” has created the “star” system. We live in a society which expects political groups to make decisions and to select people to articulate those decisions to the public at large. The press and the public do not know how to listen seriously to individual women as women; they want to know how the group feels. Only three techniques have ever been developed for establishing mass group opinion: the vote or referendum, the public opinion survey questionnaire, and the selection of group spokespeople at an appropriate meeting. The women’s liberation movement has used none of these to communicate with the public. Neither the movement as a whole nor most of the multitudinous groups within it have established a means of explaining their position on various issues. But the public is conditioned to look for spokespeople.
While it has consciously not chosen spokespeople, the movement has thrown up many women who have caught the public eye for varying reasons. These women represent no particular group or established opinion; they know this and usually say so. But because there are no official spokespeople nor any decision-making body that the press can query when it wants to know the movement’s position on a subject, these women are perceived as the spokespeople. Thus, whether they want to or not, whether the movement likes it or not, women of public note are put in the role of spokespeople by default.
This is one main source of the ire that is often felt toward the women who are labeled “stars.” Because they were not selected by the women in the movement to represent the movement’s views, they are resented when the press presumes that they speak for the movement. But as long as the movement does not select its own spokeswomen, such women will be placed in that role by the press and the public, regardless of their own desires.
This has several negative consequences for both the movement and the women labeled “stars.” First, because the movement didn’t put them in the role of spokesperson, the movement cannot remove them. The press put them there and only the press can choose not to listen. The press will continue to look to “stars” as spokeswomen as long as it has no official alternatives to go to for authoritative statements from the movement. The movement has no control in the selection of its representatives to the public as long as it believes that it should have no representatives at all. Second, women put in this position often find themselves viciously attacked by their sisters. This achieves nothing for the movement and is painfully destructive to the individuals involved. Such attacks only result in either the woman leaving the movement entirely-often bitterly alienated — or in her ceasing to feel responsible to her “sisters.” She may maintain some loyalty to the movement, vaguely defined, but she is no longer susceptible to pressures from other women in it. One cannot feel responsible to people who have been the source of such pain without being a masochist, and these women are usually too strong to bow to that kind of personal pressure. Thus the backlash to the “star” system in effect encourages the very kind of individualistic nonresponsibility that the movement condemns. By purging a sister as a “star,” the movement loses whatever control it may have had over the person who then becomes free to commit all of the individualistic sins of which she has been accused.
POLITICAL IMPOTENCE
Unstructured groups may be very effective in getting women to talk about their lives; they aren’t very good for getting things done. It is when people get tired of “just talking” and want to do something more that the groups flounder, unless they change the nature of their operation. Occasionally, the developed informal structure of the group coincides with an available need that the group can fill in such a way as to give the appearance that an Unstructured group “works.” That is, the group has fortuitously developed precisely the kind of structure best suited for engaging in a particular project.
While working in this kind of group is a very heady experience, it is also rare and very hard to replicate. There are almost inevitably four conditions found in such a group;
1) It is task oriented. Its function is very narrow and very specific, like putting on a conference or putting out a newspaper. It is the task that basically structures the group. The task determines what needs to be done and when it needs to be done. It provides a guide by which people can judge their actions and make plans for future activity.
2) It is relatively small and homogeneous. Homogeneity is necessary to insure that participants have a “common language” for interaction. People from widely different backgrounds may provide richness to a consciousness-raising group where each can learn from the others’ experience, but too great a diversity among members of a task-oriented group means only that they continually misunderstand each other. Such diverse people interpret words and actions differently. They have different expectations about each other’s behavior and judge the results according to different criteria. If everyone knows everyone else well enough to understand the nuances, these can be accommodated. Usually, they only lead to confusion and endless hours spent straightening out conflicts no one ever thought would arise.
3) There is a high degree of communication. Information must be passed on to everyone, opinions checked, work divided up, and participation assured in the relevant decisions. This is only possible if the group is small and people practically live together for the most crucial phases of the task. Needless to say, the number of interactions necessary to involve everybody increases geometrically with the number of participants. This inevitably limits group participants to about five, or excludes some from some of the decisions. Successful groups can be as large as 10 or 15, but only when they are in fact composed of several smaller subgroups which perform specific parts of the task, and whose members overlap with each other so that knowledge of what the different subgroups are doing can be passed around easily.
4) There is a low degree of skill specialization. Not everyone has to be able to do everything, but everything must be able to be done by more than one person. Thus no one is indispensable. To a certain extent, people become interchangeable parts.
While these conditions can occur serendipitously in small groups, this is not possible in large ones. Consequently, because the larger movement in most cities is as unstructured as individual rap groups, it is not too much more effective than the separate groups at specific tasks. The informal structure is rarely together enough or in touch enough with the people to be able to operate effectively. So the movement generates much motion and few results. Unfortunately, the consequences of all this motion are not as innocuous as the results’ and their victim is the movement itself.
Some groups have formed themselves into local action projects if they do not involve many people and work on a small scale. But this form restricts movement activity to the local level; it cannot be done on the regional or national. Also, to function well the groups must usually pare themselves down to that informal group of friends who were running things in the first place. This excludes many women from participating. As long as the only way women can participate in the movement is through membership in a small group, the nongregarious are at a distinct disadvantage. As long as friendship groups are the main means of organizational activity, elitism becomes institutionalized.
For those groups which cannot find a local project to which to devote themselves, the mere act of staying together becomes the reason for their staying together. When a group has no specific task (and consciousness raising is a task), the people in it turn their energies to controlling others in the group. This is not done so much out of a malicious desire to manipulate others (though sometimes it is) as out of a lack of anything better to do with their talents. Able people with time on their hands and a need to justify their coming together put their efforts into personal control, and spend their time criticizing the personalities of the other members in the group. Infighting and personal power games rule the day. When a group is involved in a task, people learn to get along with others as they are and to subsume personal dislikes for the sake of the larger goal. There are limits placed on the compulsion to remold every person in our image of what they should be.
The end of consciousness-raising leaves people with no place to go, and the lack of structure leaves them with no way of getting there. The women the movement either turn in on themselves and their sisters or seek other alternatives of action. There are few that are available. Some women just “do their own thing.” This can lead to a great deal of individual creativity, much of which is useful for the movement, but it is not a viable alternative for most women and certainly does not foster a spirit of cooperative group effort. Other women drift out of the movement entirely because they don’t want to develop an individual project and they have found no way of discovering, joining, or starting group projects that interest them.
Many turn to other political organizations to give them the kind of structured, effective activity that they have not been able to find in the women’s movement. Those political organizations which see women’s liberation as only one of many issues to which women should devote their time thus find the movement a vast recruiting ground for new members. There is no need for such organizations to “infiltrate” (though this is not precluded). The desire for meaningful political activity generated in women by their becoming part of the women’s liberation movement is sufficient to make them eager to join other organizations when the movement itself provides no outlets for their new ideas and energies. Those women who join other political organizations while remaining within the women’s liberation movement, or who join women’s liberation while remaining in other political organizations, in turn become the framework for new informal structures. These friendship networks are based upon their common nonfeminist politics rather than the characteristics discussed earlier, but operate in much the same way. Because these women share common values, ideas, and political orientations, they too become informal, unplanned, unselected, unresponsible elites — whether they intend to be so or not.
These new informal elites are often perceived as threats by the old informal elites previously developed within different movement groups. This is a correct perception. Such politically oriented networks are rarely willing to be merely “sororities” as many of the old ones were, and want to proselytize their political as well as their feminist ideas. This is only natural, but its implications for women’s liberation have never been adequately discussed. The old elites are rarely willing to bring such differences of opinion out into the open because it would involve exposing the nature of the informal structure of the group.
Many of these informal elites have been hiding under the banner of “anti-elitism” and “structurelessness.” To effectively counter the competition from another informal structure, they would have to become “public,” and this possibility is fraught with many dangerous implications. Thus, to maintain its own power, it is easier to rationalize the exclusion of the members of the other informal structure by such means as “red-baiting,” "reformist-baiting," “lesbian-baiting,” or “straight-baiting.” The only other alternative is to formally structure the group in such a way that the original power structure is institutionalized. This is not always possible. If the informal elites have been well structured and have exercised a fair amount of power in the past, such a task is feasible. These groups have a history of being somewhat politically effective in the past, as the tightness of the informal structure has proven an adequate substitute for a formal structure. Becoming Structured does not alter their operation much, though the institutionalization of the power structure does open it to formal challenge. It is those groups which are in greatest need of structure that are often least capable of creating it. Their informal structures have not been too well formed and adherence to the ideology of “structurelessness” makes them reluctant to change tactics. The more Unstructured a group is, the more lacking it is in informal structures, and the more it adheres to an ideology of “structurelessness,” the more vulnerable it is to being taken over by a group of political comrades.
Since the movement at large is just as Unstructured as most of its constituent groups, it is similarly susceptible to indirect influence. But the phenomenon manifests itself differently. On a local level most groups can operate autonomously; but the only groups that can organize a national activity are nationally organized groups. Thus, it is often the Structured feminist organizations that provide national direction for feminist activities, and this direction is determined by the priorities of those organizations. Such groups as NOW, WEAL, and some leftist women’s caucuses are simply the only organizations capable of mounting a national campaign. The multitude of Unstructured women’s liberation groups can choose to support or not support the national campaigns, but are incapable of mounting their own. Thus their members become the troops under the leadership of the Structured organizations. The avowedly Unstructured groups have no way of drawing upon the movement’s vast resources to support its priorities. It doesn’t even have a way of deciding what they are.
The more unstructured a movement it, the less control it has over the directions in which it develops and the political actions in which it engages. This does not mean that its ideas do not spread. Given a certain amount of interest by the media and the appropriateness of social conditions, the ideas will still be diffused widely. But diffusion of ideas does not mean they are implemented; it only means they are talked about. Insofar as they can be applied individually they may be acted on; insofar as they require coordinated political power to be implemented, they will not be.
As long as the women’s liberation movement stays dedicated to a form of organization which stresses small, inactive discussion groups among friends, the worst problems of Unstructuredness will not be felt. But this style of organization has its limits; it is politically inefficacious, exclusive, and discriminatory against those women who are not or cannot be tied into the friendship networks. Those who do not fit into what already exists because of class, race, occupation, education, parental or marital status, personality, etc., will inevitably be discouraged from trying to participate. Those who do fit in will develop vested interests in maintaining things as they are.
The informal groups’ vested interests will be sustained by the informal structures which exist, and the movement will have no way of determining who shall exercise power within it. If the movement continues deliberately to not select who shall exercise power, it does not thereby abolish power. All it does is abdicate the right to demand that those who do exercise power and influence be responsible for it. If the movement continues to keep power as diffuse as possible because it knows it cannot demand responsibility from those who have it, it does prevent any group or person from totally dominating. But it simultaneously insures that the movement is as ineffective as possible. Some middle ground between domination and ineffectiveness can and must be found.
These problems are coming to a head at this time because the nature of the movement is necessarily changing. Consciousness-raising as the main function of the women’s liberation movement is becoming obsolete. Due to the intense press publicity of the last two years and the numerous overground books and articles now being circulated, women’s liberation has become a household word. Its issues are discussed and informal rap groups are formed by people who have no explicit connection with any movement group. The movement must go on to other tasks. It now needs to establish its priorities, articulate its goals, and pursue its objectives in a coordinated fashion. To do this it must get organized — locally, regionally, and nationally.
PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURING
Once the movement no longer clings tenaciously to the ideology of “structurelessness,” it is free to develop those forms of organization best suited to its healthy functioning. This does not mean that we should go to the other extreme and blindly imitate the traditional forms of organization. But neither should we blindly reject them all. Some of the traditional techniques will prove useful, albeit not perfect; some will give us insights into what we should and should not do to obtain certain ends with minimal costs to the individuals in the movement. Mostly, we will have to experiment with different kinds of structuring and develop a variety of techniques to use for different situations. The Lot System is one such idea which has emerged from the movement. It is not applicable to all situations, but is useful in some. Other ideas for structuring are needed. But before we can proceed to experiment intelligently, we must accept the idea that there is nothing inherently bad about structure itself — only its excess use.
While engaging in this trial-and-error process, there are some principles we can keep in mind that are essential to democratic structuring and are also politically effective:
1) Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs or tasks only by default means they are not dependably done. If people are selected to do a task, preferably after expressing an interest or willingness to do it, they have made a commitment which cannot so easily be ignored.
2) Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to those who selected them. This is how the group has control over people in positions of authority. Individuals may exercise power, but it is the group that has ultimate say over how the power is exercised.
3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires those in positions of authority to consult with many others in the process of exercising it. It also gives many people the opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn different skills.
4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person’s “property” and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual does not have time to learn her job well and acquire the sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.
5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. Selecting someone for a position because they are liked by the group or giving them hard work because they are disliked serves neither the group nor the person in the long run. Ability, interest, and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. People should be given an opportunity to learn skills they do not have, but this is best done through some sort of “apprenticeship” program rather than the “sink or swim” method. Having a responsibility one can’t handle well is demoralizing. Conversely, being blacklisted from doing what one can do well does not encourage one to develop one’s skills. Women have been punished for being competent throughout most of human history; the movement does not need to repeat this process.
6) Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. Information is power. Access to information enhances one’s power. When an informal network spreads new ideas and information among themselves outside the group, they are already engaged in the process of forming an opinion — without the group participating. The more one knows about how things work and what is happening, the more politically effective one can be.
7) Equal access to resources needed by the group. This is not always perfectly possible, but should be striven for. A member who maintains a monopoly over a needed resource (like a printing press owned by a husband, or a darkroom) can unduly influence the use of that resource. Skills and information are also resources. Members’ skills can be equitably available only when members are willing to teach what they know to others.
When these principles are applied, they insure that whatever structures are developed by different movement groups will be controlled by and responsible to the group. The group of people in positions of authority will be diffuse, flexible, open, and temporary. They will not be in such an easy position to institutionalize their power because ultimate decisions will be made by the group at large. The group will have the power to determine who shall exercise authority within it.
►https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
traduction en français :
▻https://organisez-vous.org/tyrannie-horizontalite-jo-freeman
#horizontalité #tyrannie #pouvoir #hiérarchie #structure #Jo_Freeman #Joreen #leaders #élitisme #féminisme #militantisme #actions #limites #oppression #organisation #groupe #laisser-faire #écran_de_fumée #hégémonie #structures_formelles #structures_informelles #explicitation #règles #prises_de_décision #pinko #élite #star_system #autorité #rotation_des_tâches #rotation
Why you should quit your job and change the world – podcast | Society | The Guardian
▻https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2025/may/12/why-you-should-quit-your-job-and-change-the-world-podcast
— Permalink
#moralambition #elite #conservatism #bullshitjobs #work #idealism #utopia #moral #ambition #purpose #awareness #action #power #purity #noblelosers #influence #activism #politics #RutgerBregman #bestof
Mafias et pouvoir. XIXe-XXIe siècles
La mafia naît sur les décombres du « #régime_féodal » mais c’est avec l’avènement de la démocratie et du #capitalisme qu’elle connaît son essor. En #Italie, elle s’enracine très tôt et doit sa prospérité à des « pactes scélérats » passés avec une fraction de l’#élite politique et sociale.
Le présent livre reconstitue l’#histoire de ces #sociétés_secrètes et de leur expansion à travers le continent européen. Il visite leur berceau et en retrouve les premiers acteurs, aristocrates véreux, fermiers parvenus, tueurs à la botte… Il interroge les accointances de ces « #sectes_criminelles » avec la démocratie naissante et les suit dans leur conquête de l’Amérique. Il révèle aussi l’échec du #fascisme à éradiquer cette plaie mafieuse. Avec la #guerre_froide, on découvre la mutation affairiste des #réseaux_mafieux et leurs méthodes pour parasiter l’#économie_libérale. C’est l’époque de l’explosion du #trafic_de_drogue et des #paradis_fiscaux, où se côtoient boss criminels, hommes politiques, industriels et financiers. Avec la chute du Mur, de nouvelles nébuleuses se font jour en Europe, y compris en France, qui utiliseront ce « modèle ».
Le phénomène mafieux n’est pas consubstantiel à la démocratie, écrit #Jacques_de_Saint_Victor, et pas davantage au capitalisme ; mais il est le mieux à même de tirer profit des insuffisances de l’une et de l’autre.
▻https://www.librairie-gallimard.com/livre/9782073098870-mafias-et-pouvoir-xixe-xxie-siecles-jacques-de-sa
#mafia #histoire #démocratie #livre #féodalisme
La remarquable contribution des #élites politiques suisses au #discours_anti-immigrés
Une étude de chercheurs de l’EPFZ questionne l’origine du discours anti-immigrés qui s’est imposé en Suisse et en Europe. Elle déconstruit au passage bon nombre de clichés et souligne l’importance du vocabulaire emprunté à la #biologie.
Comment expliquer le succès du discours anti-immigrés, thème qui domine la politique suisse depuis des décennies et qui s’impose aujourd’hui partout en Europe ? En théorie, la réponse semble évidente : les électeurs réagissent à des craintes culturelles, économiques et sécuritaires suscitées par l’arrivée de migrants. Une étude publiée fin novembre dans l’American Political Science Review par deux chercheurs l’EPFZ et un chercheur de l’Université Bocconi, en Italie, questionne toutefois cette doxa. Sur la base de l’expérience suisse.
(#paywall)
▻https://www.letemps.ch/opinions/chroniques/la-remarquable-contribution-des-elites-politiques-suisses-au-discours-anti-i
#anti-immigration #migrations #réfugiés #Suisse
The Free Movement of People and the Success of Far-Right Parties: Evidence from Switzerland’s Border Liberalization
The main theories explaining electoral backlash against immigration focus on citizens’ cultural, economic, and security concerns. We test these predictions in Switzerland, which opened its labor market to neighboring countries in the 2000s. Employing a difference-in-differences design, we document a substantial rise in immigrant workers in Swiss border municipalities after the border opened. This was accompanied by a 6-percentage-point (95% confidence interval 2–10) increase in support for anti-immigrant parties, equivalent to a 32% rise at the mean. However, we find no adverse effects on citizens’ employment, wages, or subjective perceptions of economic, cultural, or security threats. Instead, we describe how far-right parties introduced novel narratives related to overcrowding to advance hostility toward immigrants. We provide evidence that this rhetoric targeted border municipalities, where it had the greatest impact on voters susceptible to political persuasion. Together, these findings suggest that elites can play a role in driving anti-immigrant votes.
▻https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/free-movement-of-people-and-the-success-of-farright-parties-evidence-from-switzerlands-border-liberalization/21D5C52BB398194097C4C00F82C9FE68
La remarquable contribution des élites politiques suisses au discours anti-immigrés - Le Temps - 15/02/2025
Comment expliquer le succès du discours anti-immigrés, thème qui domine la politique suisse depuis des décennies et qui s’impose aujourd’hui partout en Europe ? En théorie, la réponse semble évidente : les électeurs réagissent à des craintes culturelles, économiques et sécuritaires suscitées par l’arrivée de migrants. Une étude publiée fin novembre dans l’American Political Science Review par deux chercheurs l’EPFZ et un chercheur de l’Université Bocconi, en Italie, questionne toutefois cette doxa. Sur la base de l’expérience suisse.
Les chercheurs se sont intéressés aux effets de l’entrée en vigueur de la libre circulation des personnes à partir du début des années 2000 dans le canton du Tessin en comparant les zones frontières directement impactées par l’augmentation des travailleurs italiens et celles qui étaient moins exposées. Dans leurs conclusions, ils constatent que la montée en flèche du vote anti-immigrés est sans commune mesure avec l’augmentation de ces travailleurs frontaliers ou migrants, en particulier dans les zones éloignées de la frontière.
Selon leur enquête, les populations frontalières n’ont aucune raison objective à devoir protéger leurs traditions (les immigrés étant de même culture) ni de craindre des menaces économiques (l’emploi et les salaires augmentent). « Nous n’avons trouvé aucune preuve que l’ouverture des frontières augmente la perception d’un risque de chômage accru, d’augmentation des loyers ou d’une dégradation financière. » C’est même parfois le contraire qui s’est produit. Pourquoi cette peur alors ? Les auteurs suggèrent qu’il faut en trouver l’aiguillon dans le discours des élites politiques. Ce rejet s’expliquerait non pas par des craintes objectives de la population auxquelles répondraient les partis politiques, mais, à l’inverse, par un discours alarmiste distillé par de nouveaux « entrepreneurs politiques » pour bousculer les grands partis traditionnels en imposant de nouveaux thèmes.
Pour y parvenir, il fallait toutefois renouveler l’ancien discours raciste ou xénophobe pour convaincre notamment les secteurs les moins politisés de la population. On a ainsi créé un « nouveau narratif » permettant de renforcer les peurs et d’encourager l’hostilité envers les migrants sans être taxé d’extrémiste. Pour ce faire, on a emprunté à la biologie le terme de « stress de densité », une notion qui, appliquée à la société, permet d’expliquer la pression sur les villes, les transports publics, les routes, les campagnes, les supermarchés et jusqu’aux cinémas, par l’immigration.
« Le narratif du stress de la densité (Dichtestress) est attractif dans la mesure où il peut exprimer un malaise face à l’immigration sans être encombré par la connotation xénophobe des termes antérieurs comme l’Überfremdung », explique Dominik Hangartner, l’un des auteurs. Une innovation que l’on doit à l’UDC, premier parti à l’avoir introduit dans ses campagnes pour stopper l’« immigration de masse » au nom d’une protection quasi biologique du territoire. L’argumentaire de la surpopulation a ensuite été repris par les Brexiter en 2016 et plus récemment par Donald Trump qui déclarait l’an dernier que son « pays [était] plein ».
Face à ce nouveau discours, les avocats de l’immigration – pour des raisons économiques et démographiques – n’étaient pas préparés à lui opposer un « contre-discours », constate l’étude. Vingt ans plus tard, personne n’a trouvé la parade. Déconstruire le langage de ces nouvelles élites politiques est un premier pas pour réduire les peurs et s’engager dans une approche plus rationnelle de l’immigration.
