Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4VFYRaltcc&list=PL5vtMLUWgYehCTEfSmgEzAEC9Dvt9FZmc
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior Show less
We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
We think too much and feel too little.
More than machinery.
We need humanity.
We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat.
As if that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad, worse than bad.
They're crazy.
You've got to say, I'm a human being.
God damn it.
My life has value.
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature.
Don't give yourselves to Brukes.
Men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, or what to feel, who treat you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon potter.
Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men!
Machine men with machine minds and machine hearts.
You're beautiful.
I love you.
Yes.
You're beautiful.
Thank you.
Ha ha.
It is showtime.
It's time to buckle up for making sense of the madness.
And who loves you and who do you love?
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmes here.
And the big question is, is tomorrow finally Jeffrey Epstein Files Day?
I got to be honest, I am super skeptical as to what exactly, if anything, we are going to see tomorrow.
We have been seeing a slow drip of certain photographs and associations.
Now, I want to point out that publicly right now, the House Oversight Committee says they have about 20,000 photographs.
We're going to get into that in a moment via Epstein.
The public arena has seen, what, maybe 50 to 100 of those?
I've asked if anybody has access to a pool of larger photos, and I've yet to see it.
However, today alone, we have new photographs of not only Epstein buddying up with Noam Chomsky, but also Sergey Brin of Google.
And the Brin connection has been out there in other ways, but now you actually get to see some of the meetings that Jeffrey Epstein sat on.
So the big question is, once again, what file drop do we see tomorrow?
Now, I'm going to be reviewing a bunch of the publicly known files that we know exist, and especially when we're talking about the binders, you wonder what's in those binders, whether that's some of these photographs.
You also wonder how much of this evidence was taken from New York, how much from Florida, how much from Little St. James.
If anything exists from New Mexico and Zorro Ranch or his many other properties, like his European properties, which we have no way of knowing whether or not law enforcement of any sort ever went in there for investigations.
There's really just a ton up in the air right now.
Now, that being said, other than reviewing, this is actually going to be a very, very long broadcast, and I may go to questions and comments on this, what you think we're going to see tomorrow via this Epstein case.
We're going to play Thomas Massey earlier discussing the release of the Epstein files via tomorrow on the 19th and what we should be looking for and what he's expecting and what maneuvers the government may try to pull to not release these documents.
And he goes through it very eloquently.
And then we also have two different articles.
One we're going to read all the way through, and another I'm just going to recommend that you read because it is a New York Times article that was put out there by Mike Benz.
Now, shout out again to Mike Benz.
Mike Benz put out this tweet that says he did a five-hour live stream and he thinks he's finally cracked the Epstein case.
And he says he doesn't really get into that aha moment until hour four.
I will be honest, I have not watched this five-hour live stream.
Instead, he linked to a New York Times article, which I literally read word for word, top to bottom, didn't skim it a bit.
Now, this New York Times article absolutely presents a rather mainstream narrative in the sense that, in my opinion, they gloss over some of the most important contacts of Epstein.
But at the same time, they reveal new things and things that back up pieces like the Pottinger ultimatum, okay, by Johnny Vedmore, where he talked about the relationship between Stanley Pottinger and, of course, Jeffrey Epstein.
And one of the things that, again, is not mentioned in that relationship.
First of all, they act like they're the first people to talk about this relationship.
No, they've confirmed now they were in business together.
But Vedmore was all over this, okay, and for a multitude of reasons outside of this article as well, including a Ron-Contra.
Now, also in this article, as I'm going to show you, they show you very early on in that era where Jeffrey Epstein is now mentored by somebody else who is what?
An arms industry dealer.
Now, they gloss over, but admit in this article, Jeffrey Epstein as a liaison into the Middle Eastern affairs with Israel, Netanyahu, others, other recent prime ministers of Israel at the time.
Okay, and then on top of that, his Middle Eastern connection, again, glossed over to Saudi Arabia.
They don't even mention the passport, right?
So in a lot of ways, you know, this piece is really interesting because it shows how, you know, he would be, in many ways, very, very, I would say, appealing to the intelligence community, whether or not it would be the CIA, British intelligence, Israeli intelligence, all of which seem to probably have a role here.
Again, when you have Prince Andrew's role, I think Prince Andrew's mentioned once, and certainly not even with the Virginia Guffray Roberts thing, the article also, to its credit, talks about a vast relationship, a personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and David Rockefeller.
Now, we've talked about his relationship here in some of these globalist organizations, such as the Trilateral Commission, which is discussed, and the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR, is not discussed.
But the article is extensive.
Probably it will, at least it took me a little bit over an hour to read and get through.
And we're going to highlight parts of that.
Then, again, this one's going to be a long one, folks.
So let's get those thumbs up now.
We are going to go over this New York Magazine article.
And it's snarky.
It's a bit ridiculous.
But it delves with, was Stanley Kubrick via Eyes Wide Shut trying to warn us about Jeffrey Epstein?
And in many ways, I had this conversation just the other day with a friend about Eyes Wide Shut and certainly the nature of its revelation of the upper echelons of society being into sexual depravity, mind control, human trafficking, and the abuse of children.
And that's all in Eyes Wide Shut.
So, I mean, say what you will.
I think that there's a lot there.
So we're going to talk about that as well.
A ton to go over here.
So let's get the thumbs up, subscribe, share.
Remember, the main topic here is, are we getting the Epstein files tomorrow?
We're going to start there and we're going to edge it out.
I can't do it without you.
Folks, again, without you guys, this isn't possible.
You know, 75,000 subscribers.
And by the way, we dip down below that after those controversial takes of Candace Owens and Erica Kirk, who just met and took on some of my controversial takes that were so bad at the time.
Please consider donating.
About half of our audience is brand new all the time.
By the way, we got a goal of 10 super chats over the next hour.
If we hit those super chats, we will go live full throttle no matter when it happens of any of the Epstein files that do drop tomorrow.
So please consider donating via the buy me coffee down below.
Do want to tell you about marigoldresources.com.
They sell it and buy businesses.
They also support the broadcast.
Give them a shout out.
If you're into that sort of thing, we're in that market right now.
RCReader.com.
They got a piece on Tina Peters.
I interviewed Tina Peters before they threw her in prison.
Very glad she's out.
Let's get into some of the new Epstein stuff.
And by new, I mean stuff that the DOJ has been sitting on for Lord knows how long.
And quite frankly, no matter when these investigations began into Epstein, if any, this material was there by the intelligence community, some of which may be cultivated by Epstein himself if he was working with them as an asset.
Again, one of the things that is barely discussed is that document, which shows him working with the FBI at some point.
So here's Bill Gates.
I'm not sure if anybody's uncovered the woman that he's next to.
Here's some Chomsky playing action with Epstein.
And think about that.
I mean, Chomsky's so establishment.
So establishment, man.
And that's kind of what makes me upset.
They've portrayed this guy as the bees knees of anti-establishment, anti-war, manufacturing consent.
And look at the players that he really played with.
And look at the colors he showed during COVID 1984.
And look at his ability to not even dare to question 9-11.
Makes me ill.
And that guy's still, you know, still alive.
And there's Bryn.
Okay.
So this is at the House Committee of Oversight on Government Reform, apparently.
This is at Epstein's estate.
Is that right?
Or no, that's Copyright House Committee of Oversight and Reform.
Okay.
Why do they, you know, that, let's stop right there.
Why do they even get a copyright of this stuff?
It's our tax dollars.
I mean, they don't own anything.
They shouldn't get royalties on this.
I mean, come on.
Talk about public domain.
My goodness.
And where's the rest of it?
And there's Bannon and Epstein.
I'm still waiting, Steve.
I still want all those interviews to see what he has to say.
Now, another thing that really bothered me about this New York Times article that we're going to get into is there's just a small subsection of the Ghelain-Maxwell relationship with Epstein.
They very much in this New York Times article take the narrative that this relationship was one as it was portrayed by Maxwell in that interview with Todd Blanche that anybody can go and check out in full.
The audio quality is terrible, but you know what?
We'll bring it right over.
We'll bring it right over for everybody if we can.
There it is right there.
Oh, no, wrong thing.
Of course it wouldn't work.
Why would it work right?
There it is right here.
Sorry about that, folks.
Sorry about that.
There you go.
Yeah, that was just, you know, Epstein wanted to see the world with his DNA.
I mean, the guy, another thing in this article is you see he was very good at manipulating people, especially women.
There were times where he was supposedly dead broke and bouncing checks.
You wonder who was supporting him during that era.
He lied about his entire education to get the hire at the Dalton School and then into Bear Stearns.
And again, a bunch of hard drives.
And we're going to show you some of that.
So these are like, again, I wonder, they say they have 20,000-plus photographs.
Maybe some of these photographs are in these albums.
Possible.
But then we have the burned discs that we know about that are marked AV shoots right here.
See that?
AV shoot?
Celine.
Selena.
A V shoot.
Okay.
A V photos.
See?
And someone, it looks like it could be even Selena 2 right here.
And then you have the hard drives that had evidence tape on them.
Okay.
That shows that they were part of some kind of investigation prior to that.
And then you have Bradley Edwards here.
And we're going to bring up Bradley Edwards as well because he worked with Statley Pottinger that we now know for sure worked with Epstein, even though we knew that via Vedmore years ago.
When he essentially won against Epstein because Epstein decided not to go to civil court with him and instead, you know, write an apology letter.
And then on top of that, there was an undisclosed sum of money.
Look at all the documentation right there that we should get to Mari.
In some way, shape, or form, we should get all of that.
Now, have we gotten some of that?
I bet we have.
I know we have.
Because we've seen Edwards names on these filings, and he represented so many of these women.
And so much of this documentation has really been around for years and years and years and years.
And we've highlighted that here.
Okay?
So, I also want to point this out.
They do talk about Towers Financial really briefly.
They do talk about Steve Hoffenberg in this New York Times article, and Hoffenberg allegedly to the National Enquirer.
And remember, National Enquirer's gotten things right where others have gotten it wrong.
He says that Epstein really did have his house in Manhattan for sure rigged up with video cameras and had blackmail on people.
And that, yes, the government had this, but had buried it.
Just throwing that out there.
Now, Ben's here.
This is where I got this from.
Apparently, he did this stream five plus hours long.
And he wanted to break down this article here.
Okay, and this is the article.
Okay, let's bring it up just on its own.
Scam schemes, ruthless cons, the untold story of how Jeffrey Epstein got rich.
Okay.
I'm going to copy that for everybody.
Put that in the live chat.
Let's get the thumbs up, subscribe, and share.
If you're new, ring that bell so everybody can read along.
Okay.
Now, first and foremost, I keep talking about the big thing that they don't want to reveal, and I don't expect to see much headway on, except for maybe hidden headway, is the arms dealing.
Okay, so let's control F.
And why can't I get Control F on this bad boy?
Huh?
We can't do it.
We just, there we go.
There we go.
So arms.
Bam.
And there it is.
Okay.
One of Bear Stearns' contacts who would prove invaluable to Epstein was a junior saleswoman and former Miss Indianapolis named Paula Heil.
She would expose Epstein to a previously unseen world of wealth, privilege, and possibilities.
They started dating before he left Bear Stearns.
We tracked down a financial self-help book Hale wrote in 1981 that was dedicated to Jeffrey.
That year, the couple traveled to England.
While they were there, Hale took Epstein to visit a rich acquaintance of hers, Nick Leese, at his family's countryside manor.
There, they met Nick's father, Douglas Leese, a defense contractor with extensive connections in the arms industry and the British government.
He took an immediate liking to Epstein.
Soon, Epstein was making regular trips to England and spending time in the lease's rarefied world.
Epstein tutored Douglas' younger son, Julian, and Julian taught him to shoot.
Douglas mentored Epstein, let him tag along for meetings with British and international elites, and took him on as a consultant with an expense count.
Right there, they're telling you that he was mentored by an arms dealer while doing international arms deals over in Europe.
And they failed to mention that later on, Prince Andrew is their arms dealer.
I mean, what else do you have to say?
All integrated with Wall Street, all that dirty money.
And then, like I said, another huge revelation in this.
I mean, there's a ton of other little tidbits where Epstein gets this information to track down money and just nobody knows how he does it.
And you wonder if those are intel connections or he tracks down an individual that they couldn't find.
Wonder how that happens.
Now, here, check this out on Sanley Pottinger.
All right, once again, all this stuff discussed by Vedmore years ago.
Here, I'm going to show you the article.
In fact, it's called, he did a series of articles on it over at Newspace, the Pottinger Ultimatum, right?
And here's the thing: if you go to DuckDuckGo, you type it in top things, top things.
You go to Google, and to their credit, you have to undo this because you don't see anything about Vedmore.
It'll break it down.
And on the right-hand side, the third one down is the Pottinger identity.
But, like, even though this has everything here, it doesn't even go to his website.
Hey, wasn't Sergey Brin involved?
And oh, yeah.
So read all that, but now in this, all right, again, very, very important.
People need to understand how important this is.
Okay?
Just, it blows my mind.
Stanley Pottinger, okay, worked with the CIA during the Iran-Contra thing.
Okay?
Epstein had been spending extravagantly, and despite his lofty compensation at Bear Stearns and his work for Lease, he found himself strapped, even occasionally bouncing rent checks.
Back in New York, he joined forces with John Stanley Pottinger, a lawyer who had recently left a senior post in the Justice Department.
Epstein, Pottinger, and Pottinger's brother rented a penthouse office in the Hotel St. Marie's on Central Park, South.
The broker, Joanna Cutler, told us that Epstein initially stiffed her on the commission.
According to Epstein's friend Bob Gold, Epstein and the Pottingers pitched tax avoidance strategies to wealthy clients, including some of whom Gold believes Epstein met through Bear Stearns.
The short-lived business partner has not previously been reported.
And it is especially notable because decades later, Pottinger would team up with Brad Edwards to represent scores of women who accuse Epstein of sexually abusing them.
Edwards told us he knew only that Pottinger and Briefly shared an office, not that they were in business together.
Pottinger would later say he met Epstein through a client.
Okay.
On top of all that, Edwards asked Pottinger if he was working for the CIA at the time.
So again, kudos to Johnny.
Johnny nailed it.
Johnny was all over it years ago.
Okay.
So the other big thing we're going to get into in this article, and like I said, it's a long one.
It's a long one.
There's a younger Epstein.
I want people to read this because, again, it's actually a masterclass in both investigative journalism, but then narrative management and control all the way through.
Okay?
Get down.
I mean, again, a long one.
It starts talking about what?
His work with Rockefeller.
Let's just do it.
Rockefeller.
There it is.
So there's a whole deal about, and they kind of don't even mention a lot of the Clinton stuff.
But they do talk about the Rockefeller stuff and internal documents from the Rockefellers that show they were, at least he was that donor class in meeting with him.
Epstein claimed to do business for Rockefeller.
Okay.
But at the same time, that was denied later on.
Rockefeller family.
I mean, talk about Zen New World Order and globalism.
Peak.
Peak.
So we're going to take a break from this information.
Again, the New York Times article is there.
It is in the chat if you want to read it.
And now we are going to break for Thomas Massey.
And I'm going to just let him talk for the next 14 minutes on what to look for via this documentation.
After that, we're going to get into this New York Magazine article on Epstein.
Congressman Thomas Massey, we're about 48 hours from the deadline for the Attorney General to produce all of the Epstein files according to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed on November 19th.
So that makes the production of these materials in a publicly searchable format due on December 19th.
And I wanted to talk about some of the things to look for and what we may be anticipating and some of the unique aspects of this project.
Let's start out with how will you know if they've released all the materials?
Well, one of the ways we'll know is there are people who have covered this case for years, and I've talked to them in private, and they know what some of the material is that's back there.
But the other way that we're going to know is the victims' lawyers have been in contact with me, and collectively they know there are at least 20 names of men who are accused of sex crimes in the possession of the FBI.
These would reside in the FD 302 forms.
The FBI fills out these forms to summarize or memorialize what a witness gave them as far as the testimony when they interviewed with the FBI.
So if we get a large production on December 19th and it does not contain a single name of any male who's accused of a sex crime or sex trafficking or rape or any of these things, then we know they haven't produced all the documents.
It's that simple.
So that's a good thing that we will know.
One of the really novel things about the way we went about this, as opposed to my other experiences on the Oversight Committee or the Judiciary Committee, is that this is a law.
It's not a subpoena.
So what we've seen in the past is that Congress issues a subpoena to the executive branch and the executive branch ties up in court and tries to delay and obfuscate.
And they know that if they drag it to the end of Congress, that congressional subpoena expires at the end of Congress.
And so the next Congress can't, they would have to issue another subpoena.
But what often happens is the majority changes or the person in the White House is no longer there or the person in that office is no longer there.
And so there can't be any prosecution or criminal or anything like that that carries on past the Congress.
This is very different.
This is a law.
There's no expiration date on this law.
So let's say you have an Attorney General who is not in compliance with this law.
By the way, the law specifies the Attorney General's office, not Attorney General Bondi specifically, but anybody who is in that office holding that seat.
So if she were to leave, and let's say she's in noncompliance and has broken the law, then whoever gets in that seat is automatically obligated that day to release the files because it's directing the office of the Attorney General to produce three files from three different locations, by the way.
The U.S. attorneys have material, the FBI has material, and the DOJ has material.
Now, the DOJ will also have material, thankfully, from the grand jury investigations and trials.
But the interesting thing that I want to point out here is let's say they try the old tactic of running the clock out until the end of this Congress, which is about a year from now.
That won't work because in fact what can happen is a new attorney general can bring charges against a former attorney general.
And so what you might see is that an attorney general under Trump, if they refuse to produce these documents in compliance with the law, which would be ironic because the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the land, but if they refuse to produce these materials, then let's say whoever is the next president, their attorney general could bring charges because the statute of limitations will not have run out on noncompliance with this law.
It's unique.
It's different than if there were a subpoena and Congress had referred the person in noncompliance with the subpoena for contempt to, and who do they refer it to?
To the DOJ.
And so that's why you can never get to the bottom of these cases when it's just a subpoena.
But this is a law and it will last for forever.
The other interesting thing here in this case is we're already seeing progress as a result of this, the Epstein Files Transparency Act becoming public law 119-38.
There were three courts of interest that had grand jury material.
One in the Southern District of Florida, a judge there, and then two judges in the Southern District of New York.
These are federal courts.
They had previously said, because of Rule 6E of the criminal proceedings, that they could not give the grand jury material to the DOJ.
Interestingly, after the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed, the DOJ did go back to these judges, and I'm going to assume it was sincere.
Maybe it was an attempt to get them to say no in the hopes they would say no, but I'm going to assume they were sincere in the request from these judges.
And what they did is they requested that the judges produce the grand jury material a second time.
And in all three cases, in all three of those courtrooms, the judge said yes.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, because it's a new law, it overrides other, the pre-existing general laws.
So that's good.
We've already seen movement.
And another interesting thing we saw in those judges' rulings is that they said that they will redact, in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, information that would identify the victims.
If you remember, in the five months of siege warfare we had trying to get this legislation through the House with Mike Johnson opposing us, he would repeatedly say that the release of this material would endanger victims.
In fact, in the week before we passed it, he was still repeating that lie and we had to keep pointing him back to the law and show him the chapter and verse where it says no, redact the victims' names and identifying information.
So we've seen movement from the grand juries.
That is good news.
Finally, there's an interesting aspect of this in that Pam Bondi has said in her official capacity, but not necessarily under oath, by the way, if you say something to a TV camera in an interview and you lie in Washington, D.C., that's okay.
You can't be prosecuted for that.
So we had her saying that there was tons of material on her desk and that she was in possession of it.
And then she eventually changed her story to say that there's no material.
The only thing that really exists anymore is child sexual abuse material, pornography, and that she wasn't going to release any of that.
Well, we know that's not true.
We know that she has more material and she's going to have to produce that material.
So that puts her in an interesting position.
In order to comply with the law, she's going to have to prove or give proof evidence that shows she wasn't forthcoming in her previous statements.
Although that wouldn't necessarily be illegal.
Again, in Washington, D.C., you're allowed to spin, spin, spin, and lie, lie, lie.
And we've seen them do it before.
But there's a situation where it is illegal to lie.
And that is when you come before Congress and give testimony.
I'm sure you've all seen them.
They raise their right hand and they swear that they are going to give the truth to the best of their ability, so help them God.
And so we had Cash Battelle do that in front of the Senate when he testified.
And he said that there's no evidence in his possession that would implicate anybody else other than Jeffrey Epstein.
So when he testified in front of the House Committee on the judiciary on which I sit, I asked him that question again.
I said, you've testified in front of the Senate that there's no information that exists that would implicate other men.
I said, what about the 302 forms?
He said that his staff, I said, have you reviewed those personally?
And he said that his staff had and that he trusted them.
This sets up an interesting situation because when they produce these materials, what we're going to find out is they are in possession of evidence that other men may have been guilty.
And it's going to be credible evidence because there are going to be, I believe, multiple cooperating witnesses, i.e. the victims, who've given statements.
And those are in the possession of the FBI.
Again, we'll know if they're giving us all those documents if they produce documents that have names of men on them.
So let's see what happens Friday.
Interestingly, Congress is adjourning a day early so that we won't be in session on Friday when these documents are required to be released, again, in a public searchable format.
And so it'll be Saturday really before we know.
Representative Roe Conna, who is my co-sponsor and the individual on the Democrat side of the aisle who co-led this effort with me the entire way, he and I will be on Face the Nation Sunday to talk about what we've learned and what they've produced.
But again, this is a very unique situation.
A lot of times, when you're talking about did the executive branch comply with a request from Congress or are they in compliance with the law, you're trying to parse out the meaning of words like emoluments or you're trying to interpret laws that were passed in the antebellum era, you know, in the Civil War, right after the Civil War, when we talked about the electors and the role of Congress in certifying electors.
But this is a case where the president who appointed the Attorney General and for whom the Attorney General works has signed a law and the ink is not even dry yet on his signature on this law.
There's nothing that's subject to interpretation.
We're not arguing whether this law is valid.
We're not arguing the case history of this law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
This is a fresh law that was passed unanimously in the Senate, passed 427 to 1 in the House, with modern terms that are not ambiguous, that federal judges have already demonstrated that they understand and that they are going to comply with.
And this president has agreed to comply with this law if he signed this law.
He had a part in making this the law, so his Attorney General has to comply with it.
And there are penalties if she does not.
And I don't want to get into that.
We may talk about that on Sunday shows.
I'm hopeful that there'll be a large document production on Friday.
One other last thing: some people have said, oh, what about the ongoing investigations?
Because if you remember, Attorney General Bondi had closed all the investigations.
There were no federal investigations.
But on the eve of the passage of our bill, she announced, and the president also put on social media that they were opening new investigations.
Now, his had a partisan bent to it, but in the wake of that, my colleagues and I, this is a bicameral, bipartisan letter that we sent to the Attorney General, and we've asked for a sit-down with her or even her staff to explain to us what is the new material that they found that warranted opening new investigations.
Because I know some of you are concerned that they're going to try to use this claim that releasing this material would impede an ongoing investigation.
The problem with that claim is we've already said in our law, in the letter of our law, that it would have to be material that would affect that particular investigation specifically.
And the redaction can only be temporary, for instance.
That's also in the law.
So they can't open enough investigations to cover up the terabytes of information that they are in possession of and that we hope to see on Friday.
So I'll keep you posted.
I'll come back on.
We'll talk about what we found and to what degree the Attorney General is in compliance with the law.
But I'm hopeful.
Thank you and God bless.
Thomas Massey's the man.
Let me say it again: Thomas Massey is the man.
We'll see what we get tomorrow.
So we're going to read this.
I'm going to break it down.
It's very snarky.
And, you know, there are parts of the quote-unquote Kubrick conspiracy theory that I disagree with, but as far as Eyes Wide Shut and what it shows us, I think a lot of it is actually pretty cut and dry.
The Eyes Wide Shut conspiracy.
Did Stanley Kubrick warn us about Jeffrey Epstein?
When Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut was released in the summer of 1999, the world shrugged.
Critics didn't know what to think, what to do with it, treating it less like a final statement of a master filmmaker and more like a bootlegged work print.
Understandable, given that Kubrick, who typically fussed over his movies until the last possible second, had died that March, just days after delivering a semi-finished cut to Warner Brothers.
The studio and his estate made the remaining tweaks.
Meanwhile, audiences had been primed by marketing to expect an explicit, boundary-pushing, erotic thriller featuring an extended orgy sequence that almost triggered an NC17 rating.
What they got instead was a much tamer, was much tamer, a slow-motion marital drama about a Manhattan doctor, Tom Cruise, rattled by his wife, Nicole Kidman's confession of an adulterous fantasy who drifts through a series of lustful but unconsummated encounters before crashing a masked sex party thrown by an elite secret society in a Long Island mansion.
Hey, we did that video on Long Island earlier today.
Weird.
The film's dreamlike atmosphere veered towards the surreal, with Cruz and Kidman doing the weirdest acting of their lives and orgy goers portrayal the masks, the password, the choreography, striking many viewers as more goofy than sexy or sinister.
But Kubrick's movies have a habit of aging into new meanings, like monoliths that take time for us apes to figure out, and Eyes Wide Shut eventually came to be seen in a different light.
Beyond the orgy, there are subtler, more disturbing moments, including a scene in which a costume shop owner appears to offer his underage daughter to Cruz's character.
That hint at a world where sex, power, and predation blur.
And by the way, that's absolutely real.
With hindsight, those under tones seem to foreshadow a real-world horror to come.
In the 2010s, Pizzagate and QAnon dragged rumors of elite sex trafficking rings from the fringes into the mainstream of American paranoia.
Now, let's just stop right there.
They always love it to frame Pizzagate and QAnons, you know, together.
Not the same thing.
A lot of disinfo in both, but that was to subvert and co-opt what we do know about high-level human sex trafficking.
Let's not forget, my film Invisible Empire, you know, talks about that callboy network in D.C.
Well before any of this stuff.
Okay.
Then came Jeffrey Epstein, again, was something we were reporting on during that time period.
That was initially the story was breaking.
Then came Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death.
And suddenly, an underappreciated film from two decades earlier started to look like an uncanny premonition.
You don't say.
Huh.
After a while, some began to wonder if perhaps Eyes Wide Shuttle hadn't been a little too prescient.
Kubrick was a notorious perfectionist who spent years on each of his films and demanded dozens, sometimes hundreds of takes per scene.
So the thinking went, every costume prop and the reading is there for a reason, intimate symbolism scattered across the frame for anyone determined enough to decipher.
This was the logic that led some to believe that he'd helped NASA fake the moon landing and then confess to it by putting Danny Torrance in an Apollo 11 sweater in the shining.
That idea, along with a handful of even farther-fetched ones, was presented without comment in Rodney Asher's 2012 documentary Room 237, a film presumably meant to mock such readings that may have only encouraged them.
See, it's always bad to just talk about this stuff because you might be spreading misinfo or disinfo.
And look, again, I don't know what happened there.
I've talked about all sides on it.
Certainly interesting to watch.
Shouldn't be forbidden to look into.
Tell you that.
And Kubrick didn't exactly tamp down on the myth-making.
In the final years of his life, he rarely left his estate north of London and all but stopped giving interviews, allowing his work to speak for itself and, in the absence of explanation, to be interpreted however anyone pleased.
So when Eyes Wide Shut seemed to anticipate a scandal that wouldn't come fully into view until decades later, it raised the question: what if Kubrick knew?
Bum, bum, bum.
Soon, in exactly the parts of the internet you'd expect, conspiracy theory took shape.
Kubrick had made Eyes Wide Shut a warning, an expose of an actual pedophile cult hiding in plain sight among the global elite.
The masked orgy wasn't just a metaphor for the sexual hypocrisies of the upper class or the transactional nature of intimacy or the secret compromises of monogamy or whatever.
It was a reenactment of what really happened behind mansion doors.
And once the wrong people caught wind of it, they had Kubrick killed so the movie could be re-edited to scrub the most incriminating details.
Some claim an entire 24 minutes were cut.
And yet, the theory goes, Kubrick had so masterfully invented his clues in the film, some of them survived the post-humus meddling.
Again, you never hear me talk about the missing Kubrick moments.
I've heard people debunk it from the inside.
I've heard the people that say that they've seen something.
I've heard that it was maybe of the sexually explicit nature at the time to tone it down.
I will say this, you know, him and Spielberg.
You know, Spielberg had a real thing for him.
It was rumored that they even gave the end to be edited by Spielberg.
Remember, AI was that post-humus, you know, connection from Kubrick to Spielberg.
And that is a very off-beat Spielberg movie.
I will give him that much.
And it was, again, much like a Kubrick movie where my initial viewing, I'm off-put and it feels dirty in a way.
It's not something like I'm intimately enjoying.
But later on, when you understand a lot of the messages and the imagery, it becomes really entrancing.
Just saying.
So let's continue here.
There are multiple strains of the theory, each with its own twist on which real cabal Kubrick was supposedly exposing.
Some point to the usual suspects, the Illuminati, the Bohemian Grove, garden variety Satanists.
Others zoom in on the Rothschild family, noting that it was once owned the 19th century mansion used for some of the movie's orgy exteriors.
They sure did.
And again, go look at that Rothschild party where they've got the masks just like it.
Others go a few steps further, claiming that Eyes Wide Shut was not just a predictive of Epstein's crimes.
It was literally about him.
The evidence?
Well, for starters, in the party scene near the beginning of the movie, a couple idling behind Kidman is said to look like Epstein and Ghelane Maxwell, or at least the man has gray hair.
See, again, I think that's a little far-fetched, but hey, what do I know?
Across these variants, one detail is usually cited as the smoking gun.
In the movie's last scene, Bill and Alice Hereford, Cruz and Kidman, are walking through a toy store with their young daughter, Helena.
Just before credits roll, Helena is shown standing near two adult male extras.
They're not extras.
Let's stop.
They're not extras.
See, that's disingenuous.
They may be unnamed characters.
They are not extras.
Who believers claim also appear at the party that opens the film.
It's not believers claim.
They are the same actors.
Okay?
The two men are at the beginning party.
All right, where you're set in this world of the elites that you can see.
And clearly, a lot of the women here are at the orgy party later.
And the other thing that's alluded to throughout the film that a lot of people don't talk about is the idea that Nicole Kidman also is one of these people that was involved with this sexual cult.
Whereas Tom Cruise is not involved in the sexual cult and never should have been there in the first place.
Okay?
Just before the credits roll, Helena is shown standing near the two adult male extras who believers claim also appear at the party that opens the film and then following them as they head towards another aisle.
No, it looks like they take her with them.
While they're indulging in their sexual relationship, it looks like the young girl goes with them.
100%.
Anybody want to challenge me in the comments down below?
Let me know what's happening there if you've seen the movie, beginning to end.
It's those actors, and it appears as though they take the young daughter.
Okay?
This second beat, according to breathless video essays and blog posts, stitched together through freeze frames, is Kubrick's final chilling reveal.
The Hartfords have handed their daughter over to the cult.
Sure seems that way at the end.
Sure seems to be maybe the hidden message.
And maybe it's, again, not both of them, but perhaps the wife.
Because continually through the movie, Tom Cruise's character is looking for a new sexual outlet, but he never gets there.
And he's tempted with these things, including what they said, the offer of an underage teenage daughter at this shop, and then the orgy itself.
And although he thinks he wants these things, he doesn't.
And he's basically represented as this doctor who's in this social climbing society.
Be careful what you wish for.
This theory has become surprisingly popular.
Versions of it circulate constantly on Reddit, YouTube, and TikTok, where today Kubrick may be remembered less as a filmmaker than a whistleblower who died for telling the truth about high society pedophiles.
And if it once lived mainly in the sewers of social media, yes, the sewers of social media.
It broke into the daylight in December of last year when Roger Avery, the co-writer of Pulp Fiction and the director of Rules of Attraction, laid out his own variation of the conspiracy on the Joe Rogan podcast.
Okay?
And look, you know, I watched that, and that's really where I'm going to, you know, cut this right here.
Because you can read the rest of it.
You've heard it all before.
I think that Stanley Kubrick was a genius.
I think that he was befriended by a lot of people in these elitist circles.
I think that he got to see on the inside of so many things, so many things that your general populace did not.
And I think that he was fascinated by them and the power structure.
But, you know, at the same time, you know, I do think people go a little too far, if you will, and exacerbate on things that may not be there.
This is, by the way, the number one viewed story over at Vulture via a New York magazine.
And the problem is, once again, it's of this mocking nature.
You know, it's of this mocking nature that we dare talk about these things.
But I would, of course, and this is an extensive article too, guys.
Could have spent another 20, 25 minutes reading it out loud.
I'm going to let you finish that one.
I'm also encouraging you to go check out that New York Times article.
And once again, with the New York Times article, the alternative media, Vindicated Again, talking about the real relationships, the arms dealing, the Rockefeller connections, the Pottinger connections, huge.
I love how the New York Times didn't credit Vedmore.
I mean, Vedmore went hardcore years ago.
Hardcore years ago.
I think that's April of what, 23?
This one's July of 23, but this is the follow-up.
Okay?
Ahead of the game, Johnny.
Yet again.
Ahead of the game, alternative media.
Folks, if you like the broadcast, thumbs it up, subscribe, share, consider donating.
We need your funds now more than ever.
I know it's the holidays, and I know it's tough out there, and I know our buckaroos have been devalued when a quarter, the silver quarter, is worth about $11 now.
It might be a little bit more.
I think we're stable at $65 an ounce silver, and it hit over $66 just yesterday because that's the arena we are now in.
And we are in a new world order, if you will.
I mean, went pretty live during the COVID-19 44 nightmare and is just pushing forward in ways people can't imagine by people that were very associated with Jeffrey Epstein.