Post

@JohnnyVedmore

https://twitter.com/danielkorski/status/1076576311144054784?s=21

More from @JohnnyVedmore

Johnny Vedmore

@JohnnyVedmore

Apr 3

The Pottinger Ultimatum: The Takedown of Jeffrey Epstein by @JohnnyVedmore

In 2013, the plot to takedown Epstein began. Virginia Giuffre was soon represented by CIA super spy Stan Pottinger.

This is the story the CIA doesn't want you to know 👇

🧵1/12

newspaste.com/2023/07/07/the…

The Pottinger Ultimatum: The Takedown of Jeffrey Epstein - A @JohnnyVedmore Read Through

Listen to the read-through of the article👇

For more Johnny Vedmore Read Throughs go to youtube.com/playlist?list=…

Support Johnny's in-depth journalism here newspaste.com/home/support-n…

🧵2/12

NEWSHOUND #23 - The Takedown of Jeffrey Epstein - The Pottinger Ultimatum with @JohnnyVedmore

In this NEWSHOUND, Johnny Vedmore explores the source material behind his NEWSPASTE article The Pottinger Ultimatum.

For more NEWSHOUND go to

🧵3/12 youtube.com/playlist?list=…

Read 12 tweets

Johnny Vedmore

@JohnnyVedmore

Jan 19

Epstein 101: Blackmail and Extortion - A @JohnnyVedmore Read Through

To truly realize what Epstein & Maxwell had designed & to understand influence operations more generally, you must first be able to tell the difference between blackmail & extortion.

Read the Article Below👇

🧵1/8

Epstein 101: Blackmail and Extortion by @JohnnyVedmore

Epstein and Maxwell’s primary goal was to infiltrate the halls of power. Their priority targets were those Democratic politicians who had the potential to make it to the White House. To truly realize what Epstein and Maxwell had designed and understand influence operations more generally, you must first be able to tell the difference between blackmail and extortion.

Before investigating the complex criminal enterprise created by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, any commentator needs to understand the crimes which were being perpetuated by the couple. Many people refer to Epstein and Maxwell’s main sexual compromise operations as “sex blackmail” and you will often hear the word “blackmail” being bandied about by the media discussing this enthralling and dark example of organized sexual exploitation.

You may also be led to believe that, as this is one of the most well-researched cases in modern history, every angle has been examined. However, the operation they ran and how it functioned is not fully understood by most, and the facts often take a back seat to the many more salacious scandals involving politicians and celebrities.

The majority of those interested in the case assume that the famous faces who were targeted by Epstein’s operation were simply being blackmailed and they don’t truly understand the nuance involved in such an intelligence operation. However, Epstein and Maxwell were not just blackmailing people they were mostly extorting their targets, the difference between blackmail and extortion must be understood if you truly wish to realize the seriousness of the crimes committed by these infamous international child traffickers.

🧵2/8

A History of ‘Black Mal’

The term “blackmail” is believed to have been first used in Scotland during the 1500s and it is supposed to have originated from “black mal”. This term was a way to describe a payment farmers and property owners made to prospective plunderers in return for not having their land damaged. Linguistically speaking, the modern way in which we use blackmail is a combination of two separate terms, with the modern usage becoming a combination of black money (“black”) and rent (derived from an old Scandinavian word “mal” meaning “agreement.”)

Unlike modern times, in early Scottish law, both sides of a blackmail scheme were considered criminals. The Laws and Customes of Scotland, published in the 17th century allows us the insight behind the reasoning for also prosecuting the victims of a blackmail scheme, stating clearly,:

“The reason the givers are liable is because they maintain the thieves.”

For most people, the concept of blackmailing an individual or an organizational structure seems a relatively simple process to identify and understand. But, like any illicit activity, blackmail is much more complex and nuanced than most people can first comprehend.

Blackmail is regularly defined as an attempt to obtain money, goods, or favours from a person by threatening to publicize information that would incriminate, embarrass, or otherwise socially damage the victim. For blackmail to exist a few constituent parts are required. Firstly, there needs to be a perpetrator and, although it is often perceived as a “white-collar crime”, in reality, anyone can commit blackmail. Secondly, a blackmailer requires a victim and, even though anyone can become a victim of blackmail, the most likely targets of these operations are people with political power who have access to government or corporate secrets, however. the most important factor for a perpetrator of blackmail is that their target has financial resources. Thirdly, once a perpetrator has identified their target, they issue their demands followed by a threat to reveal socially or economically damaging information if those requirements are not met. But there are many contradictions both legally and practically concerning the subject of blackmail.

Sidney Wallace DeLong, a Professor at Seattle University’s School of Law, has spent his academic career studying the legal aspects of blackmail, bribery and extortion, and has become one of the foremost experts on these subjects within law. In a 1993 paper by DeLong, entitled Blackmailers, Bribe Takers, and The Second Paradox which was published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, DeLong explains:

“The criminalization of blackmail has been considered paradoxical because it would make unlawful a threat to do something the threatener has a legal right to do. The blackmailer threatens to disclose an embarrassing or harmful secret of the victim unless she is paid for secrecy. She may lawfully disclose the victim’s secret? and may lawfully make an unconditional threat to disclose it. The threat becomes unlawful only when coupled with an offer to keep the secret in return for payment. Yet, most victims of blackmail would presumably prefer such an offer to an unconditional threat: the offer cannot make the victim worse off than the unconditional threat and it might make him better off by giving him an opportunity to buy the menace’s silence. Thus, it seems paradoxical to permit the unconditional threat and prohibit blackmail.”

Within a decade of DeLong’s aforementioned paper, his work had influenced other thinkers to call for blackmail to be made legal. In another study of blackmail, which was published in the Business Ethics Quarterly in 2000, and which heavily quotes DeLong’s work, the authors of the paper entitled, The Second Paradox of Blackmail, begin by explaining:

“One so-called paradox of blackmail concerns the fact that two legal whites together make a black. That is, it is illicit to threaten to reveal a person’s secret, and it is separately lawful to ask him for money; but when both are undertaken at once, together, this act is called blackmail and is prohibited. The second so-called paradox is that if the blackmailer initiates the act, this is seen by jurists as blackmail and illicit, while if the blackmailee (the person blackmailed) originates the contract, this is commonly interpreted as bribery and is not illicit.”

What is intriguing about this paper in particular – written whilst Epstein and Maxwell’s blackmail operation was arguably at its peak – is that its authors, Block, Kinsella and Hope, use libertarian theory to reject the claim that blackmail should be unlawful, going on to claim that:

“If this act (blackmail) were legalized, then both paradoxes would disappear.”

Although many of us may be found wincing at the idea of legalizing blackmail, DeLong’s work, and that of other libertarian-leaning scholars, continue to make a case for the legalization of blackmail to this very day. In a 2020 critique of the so-called ‘MeToo’ movement, DeLong released his paper, Paradigm Shift: #MeToo and the Paradox of Bribery Secrets, published in the University of the Pacific Law Review. In this journal piece, DeLong does make it clear that the legalization of blackmail should only be applied “so long as what is threatened is not itself tortious or criminal.”

Even within the more extreme beliefs about the consequences of blackmail, it seems to be an accepted fact that some forms of blackmail are considered to be wholly unacceptable regardless of one’s ideological leanings. In the Epstein and Maxwell case, to successfully blackmail their chosen targets, the duo had to break a variety of laws in many countries.

To define Epstein and Maxwell’s industrial sex compromise operation, we must first define whether what they were doing would be wholly considered blackmail or was the much more serious crime of extortion. Many people assume that blackmail and extortion are the same actions. Both extortion and blackmail are forms of coercion and both constitute the use of threats to manipulate the actions of the victim to the benefit of the blackmailer/extortioner and/or their co-conspirators. Blackmail is a subset of extortion that uses specific threats to release damaging information about the victim. However, extortion, which like blackmail is a form of “coercion for benefit”, is accompanied by threats that can include violence, kidnapping, destruction of property or reputation, or, most pertinently, the misuse of government office.

When we examine the Epstein/Maxwell sex compromise operation it is clear that we are not dealing with simple blackmailers but, instead, their operation involved the extortion of their chosen marks. Even the most far-reaching libertarian-led, DeLong-inspired, legal eagles are unable to find a way to make Epstein and Maxwell’s operation legally acceptable. Yet, regardless of the words we use here, commonly, the majority of Epstein and Maxwell’s behaviour will continue to be described as “blackmail” whether or not it’s the most accurate term to use.

🧵3/8

Read 8 tweets

Johnny Vedmore

@JohnnyVedmore

Jan 6

Epstein 101: The Lure, Grooming & Seduction by @JohnnyVedmore

Part one of a five part series investigating the dynamics at play inside Jeffrey Epstein's human trafficking operation. Now available to read on X 👇

Watch the @JohnnyVedmore Read Through below!

🧵1/9

In the first part of this series, we'll examine the criminal profile of the notorious intelligence-linked pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, and his main accomplices. We'll also study the selection process and techniques which Maxwell & Epstein adopted to successfully lure, groom and seduce their young targets.

In among the maelstrom of varying intelligence operations that Epstein and Maxwell were involved in running at anyone time, the majority of the public attention has focused on the duo’s grooming of minors for sexual exploitation. Indeed, throughout the 1990s and until around 2005, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell ran one of the most sophisticated and unique child trafficking operations ever documented.

The operation, which targeted children and young women, was implemented subtly and the complex enterprise was more nuanced than US law enforcement agencies such as the FBI had encountered previously. In fact, while Epstein and Maxwell were beginning their many operations involving the trafficking of children and young girls, the FBI profiling methods which were designed to identify such offenders were only in their infancy developmentally speaking.

The word “grooming” may be a term which is verily used today when describing the entire process offenders use to manipulate their chosen victims, but in actuality, grooming is a term which has only been in regular use when referring to child sexual exploitation since around the 1980’s.

The use of the term ‘grooming’ in relation to the abuse and manipulation of children is also often misunderstood by many people outside law enforcement, and is in fact designed to describe just one part of the multistage process of organized child sexual exploitation. In modern times, it is a term which is often misused to generalize the entire process of what are essentially two different acts; the initial luring of the child victim and the grooming and/or seduction of the victim.

The term grooming does not apply to violent crimes against children which are perpetrated by strangers. For instance, the offering of sweets to a child before an abductor were to kidnap their victim is not classified as a grooming technique, but instead is a classic example of a ‘lure’. 🧵2/9

Grooming generally refers to specific techniques used by some child molesters to gain access to and to keep control of their child victims. The techniques a child molester employs are mostly influenced by the relationship between the offender and the victim. In an article from 1984 published in Social Service Review entitled, The Justice System and Sexual Abuse of Children, the author Jon Conte describes the process of grooming accurately, stating:

“the perpetrator involves children in sexual abuse through a grooming process in which a combination of kindness, attention, material enticement, special privilege, and coercion are expertly applied.”

Conte added a footnote linking his own 1984 description to a 1979 book by Nicholas Groth entitled Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender which had been published by Plenum Press. Until 1987, most training seminars and official FBI programs didn’t refer to this specific behavior as grooming, but instead they termed these actions as being part of the process of seduction.

There are two facts which become very apparent to everyone who has thoroughly investigated the Epstein controversy; firstly, without the grooming and exploitation of children aspects to the case, the majority of their other crimes would have probably gone largely unnoticed, and, secondly, all of their other crimes became inextricably linked to the grooming and sexual abuse of unsuspecting young female victims. The act of grooming a child may seem like a very specific criminal trait, but Epstein and Maxwell also applied their grooming skills to adults, specifically, people in power who had a weakness for forbidden fruit. Epstein and Maxwell were compulsive in their exploitative behaviour towards children but they were also willing to exploit any human, regardless of age, to meet their operational goals. Whilst exploiting naïve adults is something most people in society can suffer and tolerate to a large extent, the exploitation of children is an unforgivable act which has made the Epstein case so well renowned.

In examining the criminal behaviour of Epstein and Maxwell, it’s clear that they were guilty of abusing vulnerable girls, but, depending on how the individual victim reacted to that abuse, they enacted different strategies to best utilize that person further. They were experts in normalizing completely outrageous behaviour, and their deviant advances on their young victims, and their target's initial response, didn't seem to deter them from squeezing the most potential out of each of their quarry. To understand this seemingly sadistic bent which Maxwell and Epstein showed towards their young victims, and how they could groom so many young girls to a point where those victims had become veritable sex slaves, one must first understand the category of sexual offender which fits the criminal profiles of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

In basic criminal profiling terms, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein fit comfortably in the category of ‘sadistic preferential child molesters’. This simply means that, as pedophiles, they have a sexual preference for children above adults, and that the relationship they form with their victims is based on sadistic control, coercion, and is essentially just a way to exert power over another human who is more vulnerable or naïve due to their age and/or experience. Sadistic preferential pedophiles are the most dangerous category of pedophile and are also the rarest. One of the ways in which sadistic preferential pedophiles differ to most other pedophiles is that they are likely to engage in a longer and more complex grooming process. Epstein and Maxwell’s grooming operation began properly in the 1990’s and the majority of the organizational aspects of these criminal activities were headed by Maxwell herself.

Most criminal pedophile behaviour experienced within society is committed not by ‘preferential pedophiles’ like Epstein and Maxwell, but are instead acts by criminals who are most often better categorized as ‘situational pedophiles’6. Situational pedophiles will normally maintain typical sexual relationships with other adults, but situational pressure in their life will see them offend, often by downloading pedophile imagery and movies and storing them in a disorganized fashion.

Preferential pedophiles are much more aware of the social taboo surrounding their actions and are more likely to be extremely organized, hiding their actions whenever possible. Epstein and Maxwell, although themselves probably best classified as sadistic preferential pedophiles, understood the sexual dynamics and the wild proclivities of their targets for influence and compromise operations. These ‘marks’ were often a mix of wealthy people who were all situated in pressure cooker-like big business environments or affiliated to very stressful major political institutions or roles. Epstein and Maxwell used all of their skills and abilities to compromise these targets. so they could later be manipulated into taking actions which were normally perceived as against the target's own best interests. 🧵3/9

Read 9 tweets

Johnny Vedmore

@JohnnyVedmore

Oct 31, 2024

Musk & Epstein: The Third Culture Dossier by @JohnnyVedmore

"How Elon Musk Was Trained in Psychological Manipulation via a Jeffrey Epstein-Funded Program."

Read it here🧵1/20

newspaste.com/2024/10/31/mus…

Musk & Epstein: The Third Culture Dossier - A @JohnnyVedmore Read Through

Listen to the read-through of the article👇

For more Johnny Vedmore Read Throughs go to youtube.com/playlist?list=…

Support Johnny's in-depth journalism here newspaste.com/home/support-n…

🧵2/20

NEWSHOUND #28 - Musk and Epstein: The Third Culture of Control with @JohnnyVedmore

In this edition of NEWSHOUND, Johnny Vedmore explores the source material behind his NEWSPASTE article Musk & Epstein: The Third Culture.

For more NEWSHOUND go to 🧵3/20 youtube.com/playlist?list=…

Read 20 tweets

Johnny Vedmore

@JohnnyVedmore

Oct 22, 2024

Clinton & Blair: The Third Way Dossier by @JohnnyVedmore

This is how intelligence-linked left-wing British & American politicians betrayed their voters to implement a Globalist centre-ground political ideology called "The Third Way”.

Read it here🧵1/11

newspaste.com/2024/10/22/bla…

Blair and Clinton: The Third Way Dossier - A @JohnnyVedmore Read Through

Listen to the read through of the article👇

For more Johnny Vedmore Read Through's go to youtube.com/playlist?list=…

Find ways to support Johnny's in depth journalism here newspaste.com/home/support-n… 🧵2/11

Blair and Clinton: The Third Way Dossier by @JohnnyVedmore with Key Researcher Darren Kenton

This is how British and American politicians deserted their left-wing political leanings to implement a new centre-ground political ideology. The “Third Way” politics, which both Clinton and Blair adopted into the Democratic Party and the Labour Party respectively, saw the suppression of the left and right wings and began to synthesise the two nations into a singular ideological pole of far-west Globalism.

The political powder keg of the Western world has been purposely rigged to explode, with our societies primed to be decimated as a result. The far right is on the rise, and the far left will surely follow. The predictable ascendency of the two wings of the political spectrum is the direct consequence of a certain ideology. Its success has seen all major political parties in the United States and the United Kingdom lurch towards the centre ground, while at the same time purging and suppressing the natural left and right wings of their own political parties. This is the story of how a handful of elite politicians and sociologists have led us to a state of deep division and perpetual unrest.

There are only a handful of leaders who have had such an enormous impact on shaping the world we live in as the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his American counterpart, Bill Clinton. Some of the consequences of their actions while in office will reverberate around the world for decades to come. In this article we’ll trace the training of the New Labour elite via a range of programs, including Rockefeller-founded deep-state leadership programmes, official American election campaigns, and via courses emanating from prestigious universities such as Harvard.

From as early as 1984, the future New Labour top brass were being systematically selected and trained within the halls of elite universities such as Harvard and MIT, where they were being directly influenced by movers and shakers such as Larry Summers, Robert Reich and Bill Clinton. This new wave of centre-left politicians was being influenced by an alternative political ideology, or maybe it should be referred to as a new political magic trick, called the “Third Way”. Its creator Anthony Giddens was once described as “the originator of Tony Blair’s ‘Third Way’ politics” by Daily Mail journalist Michael Seamark, and Giddens’ influence on the relationship which formed between America and Britain cannot be understated.

When Tony Blair was elected as Prime Minister, he didn’t only align the United Kingdom with American foreign policy, Blair also aligned the UK with Bill Clinton’s New Democrat version of Third Way centrism. This is the story of how Blair and Clinton used Giddens’s teachings to force the US and UK to become a far-Western pole of multi-polar Globalism.

🧵3/11

Read 13 tweets

Johnny Vedmore

@JohnnyVedmore

Oct 4, 2024

This was awesome 👇

@MonicaPerezShow and I went through various deep research techniques.

It was such a pleasure to speak with someone who's so passionate about research.

x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

https://x.com/UKCExtracts/status/1582667524423852032

@MonicaPerezShow These are the articles we discuss:

David Shaw and the Rise of Jeff Bezos

https://x.com/UKCExtracts/status/1582667524423852032

https://x.com/JohnnyVedmore/status/1838994788739072278

@MonicaPerezShow Eric R. Weinstein's "Great Replacement"

https://x.com/JohnnyVedmore/status/1838994788739072278

Read 8 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Johnny Vedmore

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @JohnnyVedmore

Johnny Vedmore

Johnny Vedmore

Johnny Vedmore

Johnny Vedmore

Johnny Vedmore

Johnny Vedmore

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!