🧵Why the Epstein story matters so deeply to the political right—and why sweeping it under the rug is not just offensive, but a civilizational betrayal:
This isn’t just about Epstein. It’s about what his case reveals: a nexus of unaccountable power, intelligence cover, institutional rot, and elite impunity. The story touches every nerve the American right has been warning about for a century.
Since FDR, the right has feared the unchecked expansion of the administrative state. But the real danger wasn’t just bureaucracy—it was the fusion of that bureaucracy with the intelligence community, financial elites, and transnational interests.
Epstein is the singular window into this world. A man with no clear source of wealth, deep ties to U.S. and foreign intelligence, and access to the most powerful people in the world—running a blackmail operation under institutional protection.
The CIA won’t talk. The FBI walked away. The media refused to dig. And Israel—whose alleged involvement through cutouts like Wexner is whispered about but never investigated—remains off limits. That silence says more than any report ever could.
For decades, the right has asked: Who really governs? Who watches the watchers? Epstein gave us a glimpse. And what we saw was not a “conspiracy theory”—it was conspiratorial governance: intelligence services operating with total impunity.
This isn’t just about criminal sexual behavior—though the abuse of underage girls is itself an unspeakable crime, and one that demands real justice. But the fact that such crimes were instrumentalized for power is what makes this even more sinister.
The use of sexual blackmail to compromise institutions and shield a network of elites is not a subplot—it’s the playbook. This was kompromat as statecraft, and it operated in the open, protected by the very agencies tasked with protecting us.
The reason the Epstein story haunts the right is that it confirms our deepest suspicions:
—Our intelligence agencies are political actors.
—Our elites are compromised.
—Our allies are unaccountable.
—And our institutions lie to preserve their power.
Worse still: every time the Epstein story is buried, the very institutions doing the burying destroy their own legitimacy. The cover-up corrodes the foundation they claim to defend—rule of law, transparency, democratic accountability.
This is what Eisenhower warned of—not just a “military-industrial complex,” but the seamless merger of state power, private capital, and foreign intelligence. Epstein is a grotesque fruit of that fusion. Ignoring it won’t make it go away.
The right sees Epstein not as an aberration, but a revelation. A moment when the mask slipped. When the postwar liberal order—underwritten by secrecy, mutual blackmail, and “strategic alliances”—showed its true face.
So no—we won’t move on. Not because we’re obsessed with scandal, but because the Epstein case is the Rosetta Stone for understanding the modern American regime. And the regime knows it.
That’s why it must be buried.
That’s why we must never let it be.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NATO now openly speaks of “Cognitive Warfare”—not just controlling behavior, but how you think.
This isn’t science fiction. It’s official doctrine.
It signals a deep shift in Western military posture: the war for your headspace.
This thread is inspired by the excellent discussion of this topic by @PeterRQuinones & @NormanDodd_knew on Pete’s podcast, and by subsequent research.
According to NATO’s Allied Command Transformation:
“Cognitive warfare aims to affect attitudes and behavior by influencing, protecting, or disrupting individual and group cognition to gain advantage.”
This is not just info ops. This is jurisdiction over perception.
The human mind, NATO says, is the “sixth operational domain,” alongside land, sea, air, cyber, and space.
That means you—your priors, your judgments, your loyalties—are now considered terrain.
Leo Strauss’s reading of Plato’s Republic sees the “noble lie” as a foundational myth that binds citizens to the city. In The City and Man, he argues that such myths are essential to political life; because politics itself remains within the “cave.” (Strauss, The City and Man, p. 127)
The “noble lie” isn’t a cynical deception for Strauss. It’s a political necessity. Political life depends on shared beliefs that give the city a sense of divine order and purpose—even if they aren’t strictly true in a philosophical sense.
For the philosopher, these myths are recognized as illusions. But for the ordinary citizen, they’re the glue that holds the city together. In a world of passions and conflicts, the myth of a divine order in the city makes peace and justice possible.
James B. Jordan argues it’s not arbitrary—but deeply symbolic, rooted in biblical numerology, temple imagery, and prophetic typology. A short thread:
First, 153 is the 17th triangular number:
1 + 2 + 3 + … + 17 = 153.
Biblically, 17 = 10 (completeness) + 7 (perfection). The number points to a symbolic “fullness”—an abundant catch representing the complete ingathering of the nations into Christ’s kingdom.
Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923) is one of the buried foundations of modern political Realism. His dark anthropology — of instinct ruling reason, and of elites manipulating masses — shatters Enlightenment optimism about rational politics.
A short thread on Pareto, Realism, and today’s U.S.–China rivalry:
Pareto believed human behavior was ruled not by logic or morality, but by irrational forces he called “residues” — instincts like combination, persistence, or defense — dressed up afterward in rational “derivations” like ideologies or legal theories.
Reason was the mask, not the driver.
Thus, history — including political life — is not the story of moral progress, but the story of irrational forces working beneath the surface, only occasionally surfacing in revolutions, wars, or elite turnover.
Pareto rejected the Enlightenment faith in rational politics.
As a Christian, I hold Leo Strauss in the highest regard—not only as a thinker of unmatched precision, but as perhaps the greatest reader of texts the modern West has produced.
His reflections on Zionism are as subtle and sobering as one might expect.
Let’s explore.
Strauss had a complex view of Zionism. In his youth, he supported Revisionist Zionism—aligned with Jabotinsky rather than the secular socialism of Ben-Gurion.
He admired its dignity, its resolve, and its courage in facing the growing crisis of European Jewry.
But for Strauss, the problem of Jewish survival was never merely political.
The challenge wasn’t just to create a safe homeland—but to recover the theological substance of Judaism itself, in the face of modernity’s corrosive flattening of all higher claims.
Many assume the Jewish Passover Seder is ancient and unchanged since Moses.
But the Seder as we know it—structured, ritualized, didactic—was not practiced in Jesus’ time.
It emerged after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
Before 70 CE, Passover revolved around pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb at the Temple.
The meal was home-based, yes—but it was tethered to the Temple cult. No standardized liturgy. No Haggadah.
Then came 70 CE.
Rome destroyed the Temple. The sacrificial system collapsed.
This was the very event Jesus had prophesied.
Judaism faced a crisis: how to remember the Exodus without a Temple? How to hold the center?