An Arabian blogger's defense of censorship (2005)

The hyperlinks no longer work but I'm republishing this post from my old blog (December 2005) for future reference. I was reminded of these notes and the reference to Stephen Carter by David Brooks' reflections in Atlantic upon the death of Gertrude Himmelfarb. When I revisit these old links I wish I had copied more content but now that the original link is gone, all that went with it is lost forever.

Now this is an interesting read. Nomaadic writing at "a secret blog from Arabia" tells why he doesn't object too much when he runs into blocked internet sites. For those of us for whom a completely unrestricted internet is a model of freedom in the highest form, this is more than alien, it can be downright offensive. But the arguments are pretty straightforward. If they make sense to this writer, they are not too far off the charts for many others who do not express themselves as openly. The comment thread bears out this observation. Those who disagree with the writer do not treat him as anything close to an extremist or a madman.
As I read this post, I couldn't help thinking how many conservative Americans would be able to understand and agree with his thinking, if only he were advancing their agenda rather than that of a conservative and concerned Muslim.

This image appeared at blocked sites in 2005.

Most people surfing the web from within the borders of the UAE may have at least once in their travels come across this blue and red proxy banner asking for your apology. The official line being, that the website you had been trying to access is blocked as a result of its content going against the ‘ethical, religious and cultural values’ of this country. While some label this block as an intrusion into the private lives of individuals and a restriction of personal liberty, others view it as an essential instrument to help maintain some kind of social order (or at least the illusion of order) in a country that is still rapidly evolving from traditional Muslim conservatism to Western liberalism.

Evidently, the camps between being ‘pro-proxy’ and ‘anti proxy’ can be sharply defined along the lines of cultural differences. Typically, those who are against the proxy are Western liberals based here and abroad and who have been witness to a history of fighting for the freedom of speech and the application of universal ‘democratic’ rights. Conversely, those who are pro-proxy are usually Local, Arabs and others from a Muslim background.
[...]
...we should remember that the West has had years to evolve to the level of liberalism and freedom of expression that it practices today. On the other hand, the UAE is still a young country and lifting the block here is the equivalent of placing your child in front of the TV, giving her a remote control and a selection of pornographic DVDs to watch.From an Islamic point of view, the argument against the removal of a proxy is even more potent. As Islam is not a token religion, to block pornographic websites and simular material is viewed as a highly positive thing to do. As the UAE is officially an 'Islamic' country then Etisalat has every right to exercise levels of censorship. [Etisalat is a multinational Emirati based telecommunications platform operating in 15 countries across MENA] 
[...]
...I find it ironic that many offensive (and inoffensive websites) are blocked to protect the integrity of this society, but I can still turn on MTV at 1pm in the afternoon and watch two women simulate lesb!an sex in the latest pop video. There should either be censorship of material that is deemed anti-Islamic across all the media or no censorship at all. I prefer the former. What we don’t need is a vague one sided application of censorship that appears to be based on arbitrary reasoning, instead of a genuine concern for the fabric and well being of this society.

It's an eye-opener, folks. This doesn't strike me as any fire-breathing extremist. Make of it what you will. I think it may be an example of what an ordinary man on the street could be thinking in many parts of the Arab world.

That one phrase, "Islam is not a token religion" jumped off the page at me. I immediately thought of Stephen Carter's The Culture of Disbelief, sub-titled How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion. In it are page after page of the many ways that what we like to think of as liberal democracy have eaten away at core values of many faiths.

When the Supreme Court of the United States, ostensibly the final refuge of religious freedom, struck down a Connecticut statute requiring employers to make efforts to allow their employees to observe the sabbath, one Justice observed that the sabbath should not be singled out because all employees would like to have "the right to select the day of the week in which to refrain from labor." Sounds good, except that, as one scholar noted, "It would come as some surprise to a devout Jew to find that he has 'selected the day of the week in which to refrain from labor,' since the Jewish people have been under the impression for some 3,000 years that this choice was made by God." If the Sabbath is just another day off, then religious choice is essentially arbitrary and unimportant, so if one sabbath day is inconvenient, the religiously devout employee can just choose another.

In America, of course, where there is a multiplicity of faiths and a long (if blood-stained, bigoted and uneven) history of tolerance, we aim to make space for as many differences of faith as possible, by treating those variations more as differences of opinion than variations on truth. The result is, as Carter points out, that "the religiously devout come to treat their faith communities as simple interest groups, involved in a general competition for secular power [so] it should come as no surprise if everybody else looks at them the same way."
Before we jump to quick judgement of this blogger's point of view, we might reflect on whether the alternative has resulted in unmitigated blessings.

Alaa Al-Aswani: The surprise that awaits Sisi (& Trump?)

Alaa Al-Aswani is one of Egypt's leading public intellectuals. I transcribe his weekly columns at Deutsche Welle for future reference. This column which is about Egypt it carries a warning for America as well. Our president and Sisi were cut from the same cloth.

When David Cameron was Prime Minister of Britain (2010-2016) newspapers published his photo while working in his office, and a modern coffee maker price of 140 pounds appeared next to him .. Then public opinion erupted in Britain and the messages poured down on Cameron website, all of which ask one question: "Did you buy the precious coffee machine from your own money or from the British people's money?"

Alaa Al-Aswani is one of Egypt's leading public
 intellectuals. I transcribe his weekly columns
 at Deutsche Welle for future reference

Cameron was not angry and did not accuse the questioners of being traitors who financed their goal of bringing down the British state, but he said: "The taxpayer has the right to make sure that his money is spent in a proper way." He then published a copy of the invoice showing that he purchased the coffee machine with his own money.

Days ago, a court in New York sentenced President Donald Trump to return two million dollars to his charitable organization because he took from this amount and used it to fund his campaign in violation of the law. This strict control of public money exists in all democratic countries. The citizen there owns the public money and does not allow the president to spend it without supervision. Misuse of public money is a serious enough charge to dismiss the president. A citizen in a democratic state is the symbol and sole master of the state, and he chooses the president in fair elections, then he monitors him and may isolate him if he misuses his powers. Do we compare that with what is happening in Egypt?

Al-Sisi borrowed debt until Egypt's debts reached an unprecedented size in its history. Indeed, the Minister of Finance himself said in a television interview that the income of the Egyptian state has become barely enough to pay the debt installments and interest. Consequently, the state only has more debt to cover its expenses. More than half of the villages in Egypt without sanitation and government schools are in dire straits, and government hospitals suffer from severe neglect and a lack of capabilities. Millions of Egyptians lead a life unworthy of human beings. All of these tragedies did not prevent Sisi from spending billions in order to hold loud advertising conferences without benefit other than satisfying Sisi's dream of being a world leader and satisfying his love to talk in front of the cameras.

Even if this was achieved by hosting thousands of people from all over the world and spending lavishly on eating and drinking and flooding them with gifts in order to clap warmly whenever Sisi uttered a sentence even if it was naive or meaningless. Hypocrites in the Egyptian media say that the Sisi festivals are not spent on from the state budget, but rather that they are funded by businessmen. Even if that were true, wasn't it the first time that businessmen spent on hospitals and schools instead of this clowning? Surprisingly, Sisi refuses to hold him accountable for his spending of public money and considers this to be ingratitude and lack of manners from the people, and he stated before that in defiance of: "Yes, I am building new presidential palaces and I will continue to build them." [Does this seem familiar?]

What is the difference between the English citizen who revolted against the Prime Minister for a coffee machine and the Egyptian citizen who sees his president owes his name and then drains billions of presidential palaces and propaganda conferences. The difference is that the democratic countries have no repression, but in Egypt, a comment you write on Facebook will send you to prison .. In addition, the citizen in democratic countries grew up as the owner of the real country, but we in our country are treated as guests of the ruler.

Since the military assumed power in Egypt in 1952, the Egyptians have become helpless. The decision is always made by the president, and the Egyptians have no choice but to obey. How much have we paid for the presidents' ignorance, vanity, and love for appearing. Did Abdel Nasser consult the Egyptians in the decision to unite with Syria, in the nationalization of private companies, in the war in Yemen, or in the expulsion of international forces in 1967, which resulted in a war that resulted in the greatest defeat for Egypt in its history? Did Sadat consult the Egyptians in concluding a peace agreement with Israel? Did Mubarak consult them in any decision he made, and did Al-Sisi consult them before he drowned them in trillions of debts? Did he consult them on his projects, which he admitted to most of them, that they are done without feasibility studies? The Egyptian citizen starves as a result of policies he did not participate in making and dies in wars he has not decided to fight, and he and his children will remain indebted as a result of loans that no one has consulted about. Don't the Egyptians understand all of this?

There is a special nature for Egyptians that will be discovered by those who read Egyptian history. They understand everything that is happening in their country and realize the enormity of the injustice they are subjected to, but they seem to be completely surrendered and submissive until the dictator continues in his injustice and reassures that his rule has settled forever. Then the greatest surprise will occur and the people will rise up to uproot tyranny from its roots. The people seemed to surrender to injustice and corruption during the Mubarak era to the point that they mocked the opposition more than once and when social media circulated the call to demonstrate on January 25, mercenary regime mockers mocked them, then the surprise occurred, the Egyptians rose up and forced Mubarak to step down and then forced the military council to arrest Mubarak And try him.

Sisi now appears completely reassured after he messed with the constitution to remain in power to what God wills and threw tens of thousands of his opponents in prisons. There is no doubt that Sisi believes that he can make the country and the people whatever he wants and there is no doubt that the people have prepared for Sisi the biggest surprise and he will announce it soon.

Democracy is the solution

Notes on India's CAB Bill (Citizenship Amendment)

Noted for future reference...
As a surge of ethnic nationalism washes across the globe India's latest permutation takes the form of legislation aimed at discriminating against Muslims. The Wikipedia link to The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, of the Parliament of India will change over time so that link will be a more timely way to track what happens next. Meantime, I'm noting this Facebook exchange for future reference in response to my query about the meaning and implications of this latest example of bigotry enshrined in law.

RP -- To all my Indian American friends who support Modi and his domestic policies, just imagine if the US government decides to take away your American citizenship on the grounds that you are not American enough and there is already a homeland for Hindus where you can go back to. See if you will find that legally and morally acceptable. That's exactly what is happening to Indian Muslims gradually. And please also note that most Indian Muslims have lived in India for generations and for a much longer time than any of us has been in the US.

JB -- The intent is clearly malevolent. But the spin that is being sent out is that the new law (or regulation or whatever it is) applies to *immigrants* with *asylum* status, not "citizens" already -- something like DACA but with Muslims not included.
Does that mean there are or may be second or third generation Indians from other countries who remain in asylum status, and are therefore still not citizens? (No birthright citizenship, apparently...)
Modi and a surge of Hindu nationalism is obviously surging, but how much of the spin is factual?

RP to JB -- the asylum facade is a ruse for a more malevolent plan for disenfranchising Muslims in India - a Hindu fascist grand plan, in my opinion. Life long Indian Muslim citizens have also fallen in the citizenship trap. I will let others who know more elaborate. PS, NA please weigh in.

PS to JB -- there are indeed second and third generation Tibetan refugees who are not citizens. But the law does not apply to them. It applies specifically to refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and from these countries those refugees who are Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist. It offers fast track citizenship to these. As you say, the intent is malevolent. As to the spin, it cannot afford to be too persuasive. Because they do want to convey to their supporters that this is pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim. And yet have plausible deniability about its anti-Muslim content.

So Ahmediyas from Pakistan, Rohingyas from Myanmar, Hindus from Sri Lanka, or Muslims from Nepal or Sri Lanka are not going to be beneficiaries. These are countries which share borders or at wirstva short stretch of international waters with us. Afghanistan does not share a border with us.

I don’t want to go into the background for the law (north east India and Bangladesh figure in that), because that was not the question. You did concede it was malevolent in intent.

SR to JB [get a pinch of salt] -- *CAB Bill - simple FAQ*

1. Does the CAB Bill affect any of the Indian citizens.??
Ans. _No. It has nothing to do with Indians in any way_

2. Who does it apply to?
Ans. _Only to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists & Christians from *3 countries who are facing religious persecution* in those countries AND who are already in India before 1st Dec 2014.

3. Which 3 countries?
Ans. _Pakistan, Bangladesh & Afghanistan_

4. In what way does it benefit Hindus, Sikhs, Jains & Christians from these 3 countries?
Ans. _Their residency requirement has been reduced from 11 to 5 years. And they can claim citizenship as a right under this law_

5. Does this mean that Muslims from these 3 countries can *never* get Indian citizenship?
Ans. _No. But they will go thro’ the usual process of acquiring citizenship thro’ naturalization rules….11 years of residence etc._

6. Will illegal muslims immigrants from these 3 countries be automatically deported under this bill?
Ans. _No. The usual process applies. Their application for naturalization may or may not be granted depending on their eligibility_

7. Can Hindus facing persecution in other countries apply under this law?
Ans. _No_

8. Does this bill apply to other forms of persecution – Political, racial, sexual etc?
Ans. _No. The bill is very specific in its intend – Hindus…religious persecution…3 countries_

9. Why only these 3 countries ? And why only religious persecution of Hindus?
Ans. _These 3 countries have a track record of pervasive, systematic & institutionalized persecution of Hindus_

10. What about Sri Lankan tamils?
Ans. _
(1) The war has been over for the a decade now.
(2) There never was any persecution on religious lines. It was on racial lines.
(3) And over the decades of civil war the Sri Lankans have put an end to institutionalized discrimination of tamils.

11. Doesn’t India have an obligation under the UN to take care of refugees?
Ans. _Yes it does. And it is not shying away from it. But it has no obligation to offer citizenship. Each country has its own rules for naturalization. India is not going to turn away other refugees under this law. It will play host to them under UN rules, in the implicit expectation that some day they will return to their homelands when the conditions improve. But in the case of Hindus from these 3 countries, this law acknowledges the reality that the environment of persecution in these 3 countries is never going to improve_

12. Why shouldn’t Baluchis, Ahmediyas in Pakistan, Rohingayas in Myanmar not be considered for this kindness?
Ans. _ They will be considered under the existing laws. Not under this special category.

Just clarifying your doubts

PS to JB -- let me give just a little more background. In Northeast India, especially Assam, there is enormous resentment against so called Bangladeshi infiltrators. There are indeed many Bangladeshis (Hindus and muslims) who have crossed into Assam and other northeastern states, but there are many Bengalis who have been there for a very very long time too. There was horrific violence in the 1970s, resulting in an agreement (the Assam accord) in 1985 to have a register of citizens, with an amnesty for those who came in before 1971 built in. The register was never quite made - it is an impossible exercise - until now. Took 10 years. Left out huge number of people.
   There have been people left out who produced proof their family has been in Assam forever, been cleared, only to have another notice sent a month later stripping them of citizenship. One person went through this exercise three times. Ultimately decided to move to mainland India. It is astonishingly arbitrary. A person could be okayed, but his or her sibling denied, when they give exactly the same proof.
   Since Hindus Bengalis were also caught up in this weird mess, the pro Hindu federal government (the preferred Indian term is central government rather than federal government), decided to bring in this bill. Especially since they also want to extend the register to all of India - not just the NE. So there will soon be another bill, and for a period nobody will be a citizen, because they will have to produce all sorts of paper work. Which most Indians don’t have. However, the central government hopes that this bill will cover the Hindus. At least that is the dog whistle.
   But if a Hindu without all the documents wants to keep his or her Indian citizenship, he/she will have to say that all the previous claims were lies, that s/he is a Hindu refugee from Bangladesh or Pakistan (even if the said person is a Tamilian from Tamil Nadu who couldn’t speak Bangla or Urdu to save her life), get the refugee status and wait six more years to get citizenship. Alternately the central government may privately tell the bureaucrats to go easy on Hindus and wink at lack of documents (most don’t have these documents), but turn the screws on Muslims. They have official plans for lots of detention centres.

Via Seema who adds: "In two easy steps:

How to destroy a nation."

RP to SR -- sounds very sanitary. However, the exception is for Muslims only. That clarifies my doubts. In Assam, Indian born Muslims including army officers who faught in Indian wars are having to prove their bona fides.

NA -- The FAQ by Sarvadaman Ray above is intellectually dishonest Sanghi whitewashing bullshit (I LOLed at how it ends: "Just clarifying your doubts". Yeah right!). The new CAB bill not only flagrantly discriminates based on religion, it lays the foundation for much uglier communal injustices downstream in combination with the NRC. It's a nasty bill that needs strong resistance. This video explains (in Hindi; esp. argument #3).

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=448885106030986

Why CAB+NRC is so much more toxic, and how it fits into a larger plan, going by Amit Shah's public speeches:

https://www.facebook.com/nandita.rao.16/posts/10162587082300704

JB -- Many thanks for these clarifications. I knew citizenship is a matter of wide variation all over the world -- one of the first things I learned in international relations. And that every country has sovereign right to set (and change) their own rules. I had no idea, however, it might literally take over a decade, an even *then* be denied.
The new law (or reg?) is clearly a sinister move targeting Muslims and all the outcries are surely justified.
I will bookmark this post and comments for future reference since they are so rich in detail. I doubt I will need to cite them for anyone else but I can keep them at the ready as notes for myself.
Again, thanks to all for these informative lessons!

MM Addendum: the amendment in the Citizenship Act 1955 is a sinister plan to take away the citizenship rights of Muslim citizens of India. The Act of 1955 was enacted in the background of independence and partition. A person can be a citizen of India by (i) birth (ii) descent and (iii) registration. The problem for people of India will be to produce documents to prove citizenship when the authorities come knocking on the door. That is where the harassment and misery will begin and a large number of citizens will be declared as non Indian.

Tony Karon is a South African-born journalist and former anti-Apartheid activist. He is currently Al Jazeera America's senior online executive producer. He was formerly the Senior Editor at Time.com. He is originally from Cape Town, South Africa, and has been living in New York City since 1993.
He raises a good question.

Does the international community have a responsibility to protect India’s Muslims from their own government? https://t.co/po7nQdMd1P

— Tony Karon (@TonyKaron) December 17, 2019

NA --  Much better FAQs here:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the CAB/CAA 2019
Untangling the complexities of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019

Citizenship has been defined as the right to have rights. Over the past six years, there have been clear political moves to fundamentally assault and redefine this Constitutional basis of both Indian nationhood and citizenship. Especially now, with the newly drafted proposed Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 and a not thoroughly debated all India-level NPR-National Register of Citizens (NRC) process. CJP is urging people to understand, organise and fight back democratically. Let’s stand up for the Constitution of India. We must unequivocally reject CAB 2019 and at the same time in the same breath, NPR/NRC. For this we need your support. 

How is the Act violative of the Constitution?
The Act violates the basic structure of the Constitution which was established by the Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharti case. This case established the supremacy of the Constitution, India’s foundations as a republic, and emphasised the importance of the Preamble that stressed on Equality (of status and opportunity) and Justice (social, economic and political). Inherent values of secularism, equality and non-discrimination are India’s constitutional ideals and aspirations which inspired the country in its struggle for independence. Equality (Article 14), right to life (Article 21) and non-discrimination (Article 15) are key Constitutional principles that this Act violates. Although the word secular was added by 42nd amendment in 1976, the case which was decided in 1973 had made it clear that while interpreting the Constitution, it should be done while taking the Preamble into consideration. 

The Citizenship Amendment Act, hence, is violative of the ‘secular’ fabric of our constitution, as it is making a law while giving preference to certain religions thereby giving an impression that the state is unfavourable towards one religion which a secular state is not supposed to do. 

The Act also stands to violate Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth). 

Ideally, as per Article 13(2) since the Citizenship Amendment Act takes away/abridges rights conferred under Fundamental rights as mentioned above, it is to be considered as void.

[Much more at the link.]

The Epstein Puzzle

Pieces to a puzzle...

Kuhn styles himself an intellectual & banker, PhD from UCLA BRI. *One* peer sci pub 1966.

He’s a PBS popsci TV personality.

Claims no info on Epstein when they met in 2016. That’s odd. A banker does due diligence for $500K. There’s more under this hood.

— Robert Marc de El Paso (@robertmarc60) December 14, 2019

From the link...

The other donation from Epstein’s charity to Kuhn’s group came in 2017 for $150,000 and that, too, was part of Epstein’s investment into “Closer to Truth,” the series founder explained.

Epstein’s first engagement with Kuhn came a year before the multimillionaire sent in his first donation for the episodes. The two spoke on the phone and met numerous times at his apartment in New York, the shows creator says, after being introduced through a group of scientists, although he declined to name who those scientists were.

Kuhn said he had no knowledge of any of the accusations that were later levied against Epstein at the time of their first introduction in 2016 and in the future encounters he had with him. He called his behavior “reprehensible.”

“The obvious answer is that it’s totally reprehensible what’s been reported and it’s an example of how corruption can be used in human control,” he told CNBC. “It is an example of the corruption of power distorts your own reality and then exercises this power over people who are psychologically defenseless.”

Kuhn later explained that he cannot give away the money Epstein contributed because he’s already spent it on crafting some parts of the episodes but guaranteed he would, in the future, not use donor money to complete the project.

“I wouldn’t take money from anyone else to do this and if I do finish this, then I would do it with my own money,” he said. “I feel an obligation to finish it and wouldn’t ask anyone to fund it with this baggage.”

The discovery that Epstein was funding a science-based TV show is the latest example of how many who met him overlooked the financier’s previous legal disputes, which included being sentenced to a Florida jail in 2008 for soliciting a prostitute. He was sentenced to 18 months and ended up serving 13 months.

Epstein’s group finished 2018 giving out $891,000 in contributions, according to tax documents, including $10,000 to the New School in New York and $100,000 to a nonprofit called Humanity +, which describes itself as a group “dedicate[d] to elevating the human condition.”

The financial support for Kuhn’s show also gives a glimpse into how Epstein, behind the scenes, used his wealth to invest in nontraditional projects and to get access to leaders in various intellectual communities. Epstein donated regularly to Harvard and was known to have scientists as allies within the university.

Epstein had ties to a variety of scientists. According to a report by Buzz Feed News, Epstein had links to Martin Novak, a Harvard mathematical biologist, Lawrence Krauss, a legendary physicist, and George Church, a genetics professor at Harvard.

Outside of the close allegiances he had with scientists, Epstein was known to have clients in the business community, including longtime investor Leon Black. Epstein also came into contact with billionaire Bill Gates, who has since called the meetings a “mistake.”

Another past associate of Epstein’s was Donald Trump. Before he became president, Epstein and Trump reportedly used to party together but the two later had a falling out.

I came upon this link a few hours later...

ABC’s Epstein Story Didn’t Kill Itself
December 12, 2019

Epstein’s crimes shocked the public, and his arrest, trial and mysterious death were major stories for much of 2019. But last month, leaked footage emerged showing that corporate media knew much about these crimes years previously. Discussing one of his accusers, ABC News anchor Amy Robach was caught on camera lambasting executives at her network for killing her investigations into the sex offender because of Epstein’s connections. The clip was originally leaked to infamous right-wing troll James O’Keefe, who has a long history of producing bogus stories, but ABC employees, including Robach herself, have confirmed its authenticity. In the video, Robach complains:

I’ve had the story for three years. I’ve had this interview with [Epstein complainant] Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air. First of all I was told, “Who is Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.” Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew, and threatened us in a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will that it also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes.   “The planes” is a reference to the celebrity attorney’s frequent trips on Epstein’s infamous private jet, which he used for trafficking. 

More at the link, ending with this:

ABC’s decision to spike the Epstein exposé in order not to embarrass or implicate his powerful associates, thereby effectively enabling his crimes, is a perfect example of the danger of access journalism. Robach predicted, “There will come a day where we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.” Thanks to our corporate media system, that day was delayed by at least three years.

~~~~~

I came across another piece of the puzzle sometime in July with this story headlined Real Hedge-Fund Managers Have Some Thoughts on What Epstein Was Actually Doing.

For decades, Epstein has been credulously described as a big-time hedge-fund manager and a billionaire, even though there’s not a lot of evidence that he is either. There appears little chance the public is going to get definitive answers anytime soon. In a July 11 letter to the New York federal judge overseeing Epstein’s sex-trafficking case, Epstein’s attorney offered to provide “sealed disclosures” about Epstein’s finances to determine the size of the bond he would need to post to secure his release from jail pending trial. His brother, Mark, and a friend even offered to chip in if necessary. 

Naturally, this air of mystery has especially piqued the interest of real-life, non-pretend hedge-funders. If this guy wasn’t playing their game — and they seem pretty sure he was not — what game was he playing? Intelligencer spoke to several prominent hedge-fund managers to get a read on what their practiced eyes are detecting in all the new information that is coming to light about Epstein in the wake of his indictment by federal prosecutors in New York. Most saw signs of something unsavory at the heart of his business model. 

To begin with, there is much skepticism among the hedgies Intelligencer spoke with that Epstein made the money he has — and he appears to have a lot, given a lavish portfolio of homes and private aircraft — as a traditional money manager. A fund manager who knows well how that kind of fortune is acquired notes, “It’s hard to make a billion dollars quietly.” Epstein never made a peep in the financial world.

There is more at the link, but this is the most interesting part:

Given this puzzling set of data points, the hedge-fund managers we spoke to leaned toward the theory that Epstein was running a blackmail scheme under the cover of a  

How such a scheme could hypothetically work has been laid out in detail in a thread on the anonymous Twitter feed of @quantian1. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but in summary it is a rough blueprint for how a devious aspiring hedge-fund manager could blackmail rich people into investing with him without raising too many flags.

Here is what appears at the anonymous blogger's link:

Let's take as our starting points two givens.
(A.) You are a committed, unrepentant pedophile
(B.) Because of your old job in private banking, you are very connected to lots of very, very wealthy people
We'll also assume a goal:
(Z.) You want to become very rich
The obvious route is, well, obvious: you could just be a pimp, offering underage prostitute services to very rich people. This has two problems: you're very disposable (see: DC madam), and it's also not super lucrative. You can't charge millions of dollars up front.

The second level though follows instantly: You don't need to charge up front, just get them to have underage sex, and then blackmail them afterwards for hush money. Better ROI, but you're still a liability, and producing and receiving big bribe money raises big questions.
So, what to do? Well, the second idea has some merits.

•  First, you need to recruit people in. Have lots of massive parties at your spacious home (check), 

•  invite top academics, artists, politicians to encourage people to come (check), and

•  supply lots of young women (check)

You don't even have to do anything, and most people invited might even be totally unaware of the real purpose of the parties! But, sooner or later, some billionaire will get handsy, she'll escort him to a room with a hidden camera, things happen. Morning after, you strike.
You inform him she was really 15, but you offer him a nice, neat way to buy your silence:

•  a large allocation to your hedge fund, which charges 2/20 (check).

• To ensure nobody else asks questions, you also take the extraordinary step of demanding power of attorney (check)

• The fund is offshore in a tax haven (check) and

•  nobody will see the client list (check).

• Of course, you don't really know anything about investing, instead making up some nonsense about currency trading (check), and

• nobody on Wall Street has ever traded with you (check)

The fund itself doesn't need investment personnel (check),

• only some back office people to process the wires (check).

• You don't want to money from non-pedophiles, or they'll notice you've just put it in a S&P 500 fund, so you reject all incoming inquiries (check)

A $20 million wire from Billionaire X to you with no obvious reason will raise many questions, and the IRS will certainly want to know what you did to warrant it. A $5 million quarterly fee for managing $1 billion in assets? Nobody bats an eye.
•  Because of this structure, you're extraordinarily secretive about client lists (check)

•  because they aren't clients, they're pedophiles paying you bribes, and they also are very secretive, which is why no letters or return streams ever leak (check)

Occasionally you may also try this trick on other people: important political figures, mayors, prosecutors, etc. They don't invest in the fund, but it's nice to have them in your pocket. Others (academics, artists, etc.) can just be bought with money as a PR smokescreen.
And, of course, the scam can be kept going as long as people are willing to pay, which is forever. If you're ever caught, just lean on some of your other friends in government to lean on the prosecutor to get you a sweetheart deal. There's almost zero risk.

And the last piece of the puzzle is the evidence. You'd want it somewhere remote, but accessible: a place the US can't touch but you have an excuse to visit all the time to update. Remember that offshore fund?
I bet there's a *very* interesting safe deposit box there.
Two small points of clarification:

1. This scheme works just as well if the billionaires are in on it from the getgo as a way to buy sex; I assumed that was obvious but I guess not.
2. There’s no need to invoke the Mafia/Russia/Mossad/CIA/etc, that’s just needlessly overfitting.

Addendum, January, 2020...

Jeffrey Epstein was blackmailing politicians for Israel’s Mossad, new book claims

Via Middle East Monitor

The deceased American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell were Israeli spies who used underage girls to blackmail politicians into giving information to Israel, according to their alleged Mossad handler. 

The couple reportedly ran a “honey-trap” operation in which they provided young girls to prominent politicians from around the world for sex, and then used the incidents to blackmail them in order to attain information for Israeli intelligence. 

The claims are being made by the alleged former Israeli spy Ari Ben-Menashe in a soon-to-be-released book “Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales” in which he said that he was the handler of Ghislaine’s father Robert Maxwell, who was also an Israeli espionage agent and was the one who introduced his daughter and Epstein to Mossad. 

“See, f**king around is not a crime. It could be embarrassing, but it’s not a crime,” Menashe wrote in the book. “But f**king a fourteen-year-old girl is a crime. And he was taking photos of politicians f**king fourteen-year-old girls—if you want to get it straight…They [Epstein and Maxwell] would just blackmail people like that.”

The statements made by Ben-Menashe are so far unsubstantiated, but if proven true they would provide significant evidence of Israel being involved in the blackmail of senior and prominent politicians and figures in the US.

This would only add to the state’s already-revealed track record of manipulating Western nations’ political systems, as was seen in the revelations of the Israeli lobby’s attempt to “take down” British and US politicians revealed in the past few years.

Addendum, July, 2020...

What did she see? How many girls and women did Epstein abuse? What went on at Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Here are the secrets we might learn from Ghislaine Maxwell’s case pic.twitter.com/6QZ8MfHkRM

— Bloomberg QuickTake (@QuickTake) July 4, 2020

Addendum, June, 2022...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1533082314321842179.html