I'm sure most of my readers are familiar by now with the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein on charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy. It reportedly has the potential to be absolutely explosive in its impact. However, there may be another aspect to it. Charles Hugh Smith speculates that it may be evidence of, and/or the result of, a conflict between factions within the so-called "Deep State".
I have long held that there is a camp within the Deep State that grasps the end-game of Neocon globalism, and is busy assembling a competing nation-centric strategy. There is tremendous resistance to the abandonment of Neocon globalism, not just from those who see power slipping through their fingers but from all those firmly committed to the hubris of a magical faith in past success as the guarantor of future success.
. . .
The faction within the Deep State that no longer accepts traditional fictions is gaining ground, and now another fracture in the Deep State is coming to the fore: the traditionalists who accept the systemic corruption of self-serving elites and those who have finally awakened to the mortal danger to the nation posed by amoral self-serving elites.
The debauchery of morals undermines the legitimacy of the state and thus of the entire power structure. As I recently noted ... America's current path of moral decay and soaring wealth/power inequality is tracking Rome's collapse step for step.
Enter the sordid case of Jeffrey Epstein, suddenly unearthed after a decade of corporate-media/elitist suppression. It's laughable to see the corporate media's pathetic attempts to glom onto the case now, after actively suppressing it for decades: Jeffrey Epstein Was a Sex Offender. The Powerful Welcomed Him Anyway (New York Times) Where was the NYT a decade ago, or five years ago, or even a year ago?
Of all the questions that are arising, the signal one is simply: why now?
. . .
Here's my outsider's take: the anti-Neocon camp within the Deep State observed the test case of Harvey Weinstein and saw an opportunity to apply what it learned. If we draw circles representing the anti-Neocon camp and the moralists who grasp the state's legitimacy is hanging by a thread after decades of amoral exploitation and self-aggrandizement by the ruling elites, we would find a large overlap.
But even die-hard Neocons are starting to awaken to the danger to their power posed by the moral collapse of the ruling elites. They are finally awakening to the lesson of history, that the fatal danger to empires arises not from external foes but from inside the center of power as elite corruption erodes the legitimacy of the state.
The upstarts in the Deep State have united to declare open war on the degenerates and their enablers, who are everywhere in the Deep State: the media, the intelligence community, and on and on.
There's more at the link. The entire article makes very interesting reading, as do the references it contains. Recommended.
Obviously, I have no idea whether or not Mr. Smith's speculation comes near to the truth or not. However, I agree with his thesis that out-of-control moral corruption within a state has usually proved to be a sure sign (with the benefit of hindsight) of that state's impending collapse. That's a lesson that history teaches us time and time again. He uses Rome as his example, but one could cite the same factors in many other nations, kingdoms and empires around the world over millennia. We've seen it most recently in states such as the former Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and most recently Iran, where a coterie of corrupt mullahs and their "revolutionary" allies is effectively running the state for their own purposes, ignoring the needs of the people and siphoning off taxes and profits to fund their own priorities. It's already led to internal protests, which are apparently increasing. Can Iran survive this internal conflict? Not indefinitely, IMHO. Sooner or later, either the regime must collapse, or it must try to ensure its survival by bringing about the collapse of any and all social structures opposed to it - just as we've seen in Venezuela.
There's been much speculation that Epstein's success has been the result - the fruit - of blackmail and extortion. If that speculation has now reached the point of public comment, exposing its authors to legal action for slander and libel, yet they're still confident enough to make such assertions . . . draw your own conclusions. This is clearly informed comment, not just scandal-mongering. They wouldn't be saying it if they weren't confident of their ability to defend themselves, if necessary. From where is their information coming? Could it be that factions within the "Deep State" are providing it?
I'm certainly looking forward to hearing more about former President Bill Clinton's "at least 26 trips aboard Epstein’s Boeing 727, between 2001 to 2003".