I’ve been reflecting on that.
Epstein is connected to Andrew, and Trump. There’s a great photo of them, all three, smiling together, as a trio.
H"R"H (claim to the throne of that family is truly dubious) did not interfere with Boris Johnson’s illegal prorogation of Parliament. Waved it through. She knew all about it at least 8 days in advance - she knew the plan, and that’s basically on record. Little nasty fact the media have permitted to evaporate.
Boris and Trump are connected, clearly, and strongly by the Bannon nexus.
Andrew’s ex wife Sarah Ferguson, took a loan from Epstein when times were hard (lol). In deep.
The Queen is only at one very small remove in all this, and therefore the legitimacy of the UK monarchy. Let’s remember that royal stuff - it is connected to absolutely everything up and down society, internationally. They are not the dunderheads they portray - they’re keen business people with an eye on power and money. Twas ever thus with Kings and Queens - that’s the gig - get power, and rock it for as many generations as you can.
Centred around Epstein: What is surely a veritable Rogues Gallery of child-abusing wankers, a litany of the mighty and influential. Every single one of then deeply compromised.
So, to stop reputations collapsing and surface-level legitimacies being scrubbed clean, each and every member of the group has to recognise that it is vital that information escape is minimal, and preferably from only “small” people with little voice. They absolutely must practice Omerta.
Epstein dies, suicide / murder - he is now silent. (Andrew actually could not restrain his delight at Epstein being dead, he even during the interview chortled when it was said - impunity).
But - investigative journalists are great at eventually weeding out stories. But wealthy and powerful groups can disappear secrets for eternity.
The key to this is - there must be advantage to silence - more advantage than pointing the finger (which might, for instance, dash a rival’s ship on the rocks, taking them off the field of play).
The advantage must be that there is enough provable information on each member of that awful crowd surrounding Epstein, multiply owned, that they are currently locked into a static web of silence. They must not talk, for fear of retribution, but more importantly, the assuredness of Mutually Assured Destruction, as once the edifice crumbles, varying motivations will cause patterns of information release, cascades of provable guilt, and likely, evidence.
Epstein was likely collating all sorts of kompromat. They were all, as Andrew put it, in and out of his house and properties like people “at a railway station”. They all saw eachother, would have glad-handed, would have winked and nudged. That’s how the system rubs along. Knives up sleeves, soft leather gloved hands.
So why would the Queen allow this? There is advantage.
It could be to distract the Idiot British Electorate from Boris and Brexit. That’s a win, and it’s working. Up and down society people are gawping at the spectacle. And we know she’s in bed with Boris.
The surface idea that she’s allowing Andrew to defend his honour etc is a populist move, and no-one with brains believes this. Mind you, I’ve been speaking with lawyers who do. Tells you something. But it works - Royals speak, serfs tug forelocks, and “belief” is created. Backfires - and this was a 95% probability - and everyone basically thinks he’s lying.
The was a 95% probability. Right from the outset. So likely that it was certain.
So why allow it?
Reputational protection for the monarchy? No need really - Andrew is known as the Party Prince, and shagged his way around London in sight of all. You can push him out into the cold and tell him to fend for himself - I’ve a feeling this is a strong element. You get ready to cut him off, and he knows it.
But why not simply force him to confess? To acknowledge his failings.
Because there must be much, much worse to come out. And the inter-linkages with other powerful groups mean that he could not confess without dropping the other nasties in the cesspit too.
So - I reckon his whole game was to announce publicly to all of the Epstein Pervert [and Other] Network (EPN working for you guys??) that he was not going to talk.
The optimal gambit was to demonstrate that he’s sitting at the Round Table with his hands clasped and lips sealed. That his value is his silence, and by passive demonstration, invites everyone to the same strategy.
And if you watch the interview (I couldn’t help myself once it got going), he twice says he didn’t know who anyone was, or what they were doing there. He saw many many people, but no idea who they were. He even plainly contradicated himself in other areas - numerous - but that didn’t matter, just gristle for the grinder, just distraction (quite the Bannon technique)
He simply bumbled his way through the interview to drop the payload he’d been instructed to drop: “I will stay silent, and although I saw many people, I have no idea who they are or what they were doing”…“it was like a train station”.
He named no-one, He refused to say the girl accusing him was lying (that would land him in court with a defamation suit, and not at a time of his choosing, and require evidence from him under oath) despite saying that the events did not occur. You can’t have one fact without the other.
One member of an infamous dinner party was named by the interviewer, and Andrew made an immense show of shock and surprise at the name, at the knowledge of that person’s presence. I think this was a coded act designed to signal that the appearance of names in public discourse would not come from him.
Now note that in the climate, all the EPN members are on high-wires. One break in the Omerta, and they’re all stuffed like Christmas Turkeys. A merry cascade of information would flood forward.
And more importantly, they are under scrutiny, they are being watched. So they cannot put anything on record - it is dangerous to talk privately, to email, to tweet, to anything. It creates new evidence of the network.
Which brings me to this: Andrew is one of the very few people on the planet who could convene millions of viewers - and certainly the other guilty parties - and announce to all of them simultaneously that he is staying quiet, and naming no-one.
It was an entirely bogus interview from his side. But it may well be the silk thread that binds the code of silence, and broadcasts the strategy they can all follow to protect themselves.
These EPN people are powerful and have deep foundations in all sorts of areas of the world, all sectors and enterprises. There is a mighty resistance against wobbling that arrangement - it would be highly de-stabilising - even a righteous individual might be persuaded that there is just too much at stake to suddenly blow up all these lawyers, business people, bankers, politicians, royals, etc etc.
Personally, I’d love to have my hand on the plunger. That dynamite would blow.
With luck though, given that in the scheme of the EPN members he is a relatively poor and small cog, the whole charade is going to tumble.
The poor children. For them, I really do hope it does crumble, and they have some justice.
And that, with apologies, is all my thinking around the Andrew affair.
