Showing posts sorted by date for query PALM OIL. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query PALM OIL. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, March 07, 2026

The Future of Forests

Source: Resilience

Our species’ origin and destiny are entangled with the roots and branches of trees. We evolved in and around trees, and we’ve learned to breed and plant them for their fruit, nuts, wood, and blossoms, taking their seeds with us as we migrated—hence the English walnut, native to Persia, and the Georgia peach, native to China. It’s a relationship that has carried us around the globe, often in boats or carts made from trees.

While human communities have benefitted immensely from trees, tree communities (i.e., forests) haven’t always fared so well in the bargain. In this article, we’ll trace the ups and downs of this relationship and inquire why it has grown more one-sidedly abusive in recent decades. Unsurprisingly, many recent challenges to the health of forests have emerged because of climate change—even as forests are proving to be one of the planet’s primary climate-stabilizing systems.

Finally, we’ll explore what we can do to defend and restore forests in the face of global warming and other threats. Along the way, we’ll dip into some of the most intriguing recent scientific findings about trees and forests.

The Ghosts of Forests Past

During recent millennia, the world’s forests have changed in size, composition, and sometimes location. Consider central Europe: During glacial times, the region was mostly treeless; but starting about 10,000 years ago, with higher temperatures and melting ice came the flourishing of dense oak, lime, and hazel forests, forming a mosaic pattern across the landscape. During this period, human settlements gradually expanded, adding farms, gardens, and pastures to the mosaic. As centuries passed, and as agriculture and metal smelting proliferated, more trees were cut for wood, for fuel, and to clear land for planting annual crops and for pasturing animals. Forests contracted and sometimes expanded according to human priorities. However, by the 16th century, holznot (German for “wood shortage”) had become a persistent problem—one that contributed to the widespread adoption of coal and, later, other fossil fuels. Today the ancient central European forest is nearly gone, and its remnants are under threat.

North America saw a similar evolution. In 1800, the region of what is now the southeastern United States was covered by a vast, 93-million-acre expanse of old-growth longleaf pine stretching from Virginia to Texas. This arboreal ecosystem had been carefully tended for centuries by Native peoples, who used managed burning to create clearings among towering, fire-adapted trees. Early explorers recorded extraordinary plant and animal biodiversity in a dense, mature silvan landscape. But by 1820 the forest was facing rapid clearing for settlement, agriculture, and roads, a process that accelerated greatly with the advent of steam locomotives, which initially burned wood for fuel while also lugging timber to distant cities.  

Altogether, nearly one-third of the world’s forests have been lost over the last 10,000 years, with forest cover on habitable land shrinking from 57 percent to 38 percent (forests formerly covered 40 percent of Earth’s total land surface, while today they cover 30 percent). The pace of loss accelerated greatly in the last century, with half of all historic deforestation occurring after 1900.

Although global deforestation rates peaked in the 1980s and later slowed, they remain high, especially in tropical regions, due to logging and agriculture. But, in the current century, a new threat is emerging that could result in the loss of over half the area of the world’s remaining forests by 2100 from wildfire, drought, flood, and heat stress.

Forests as Climate Victims

Recent research suggests that climate change will have a range of impacts on forests, most of them destructive. It’s widely understood that tree species that have adapted to conditions prevalent over the past few thousand years will need to migrate toward the poles to thrive in a warmer world. However, forests are lagging up to 200 years behind the necessary rate of migration, raising the prospect of widespread forest collapse. Further, the composition of most forests is shifting toward faster-growing, less resilient tree species.

2020 study showed that forests are becoming younger and shorter—largely due to the climate crisis but also to the human introduction of non-native trees—and this is reducing their overall carbon storage capacity. They’re also becoming simpler, populated by fewer species. Unfortunately, the species that appear to be losing out are ones that grow more slowly and anchor forest ecosystems, supporting diverse webs of life—especially in the tropics, where biodiversity is highest.

When fast-growing trees dominate a forest, storms, drought, and pests can cause more damage. Slower-growing, long-lived trees often have deeper roots, sturdier trunks, and denser wood that help forests resist drought and pests. Further, pollinator insects, birds, and mammals are often adapted to slow-growing trees.

Finally, due to climate change and shifts in forest composition, wildfires are getting worse, currently burning more than twice as much tree cover annually as they did 20 years ago. Carbon emissions from forest fires increased by 60 percent globally between 2001 and 2023, with boreal forest emissions nearly tripling, according to NASA research. Particularly in the tropics, forests are facing tipping points where they may become carbon sources rather than sinks due not just to wildfires but also intensified droughts and reduced soil carbon stability. 

Forests as Climate Heroes

As all this is happening, we are learning more about forests’ role in stabilizing the global climate. Trees provide shade, cool the local environment through transpiration, moderate global water cycles, and remove carbon from the atmosphere. Through these four benefits, forests offer perhaps our best realistic hope for minimizing the climate crisis.

You’ve surely noticed that it’s cooler to sit under a tree than to stand in blazing sunlight. That’s why cities with more trees enjoy lower surface temperatures in summer months. Forests provide the same service on a vast scale, and as forests are cut, local surface temperatures rise significantly.

Forests also cool the land through transpiration. Trees draw water from the soil up to their leaves, where it evaporates. Much of the energy needed to evaporate the water comes from heat in the air; as that heat energy is transferred to water, the air cools. This is the same mechanism that makes you feel colder when you step out of a pool.

A single tree in a tropical forest can cool local land and air equivalent to the work of two household air conditioners, evaporating up to 150 gallons of water per day. Forest canopies cover a large surface area, which can evaporate millions or billions of gallons a day. When forests in tropical regions are cut down, this evaporative cooling stops, and the land surface warms. This is happening with the enormous Amazon rainforest, and the consequences will be global. Borneo is seeing a similar pattern. In 2018, researchers surveyed people in 477 villages, and found that the villagers clearly understand that deforestation on the island is resulting in hotter temperatures that threaten the health of their families.

With all that evaporation going on, you might think forests would have a net drying effect on the surrounding land. But the opposite is true. Forests create their own rain and fog, regulating water cycles to keep soils moist year-round. Meanwhile, tree roots minimize erosion and provide habitat for beneficial soil organisms. Forests reduce weather extremes (including droughts and floods) and maintain conditions that benefit not only trees themselves, but the entire web of life in sylvan ecosystems.

Trees also remove carbon and store it in their roots, trunks, branches, and leaves. Altogether, the world’s forests store roughly 860 billion tons of carbon in their biomass, deadwood, litter, and soil. As a critical carbon sink, they actively absorb a net 7.6 billion tons of CO2 annually—about 1.5 times more than the United States emits each year.

The authors of a recent meta-study offered this summary:

“The substantial body of research we review reveals that forest, water, and energy interactions provide the foundations for carbon storage, for cooling terrestrial surfaces, and for distributing water resources. Forests and trees must be recognized as prime regulators within the water, energy, and carbon cycles.” 

The Intelligence and Resilience of Trees

As we’re learning more about the vital role trees play in maintaining stable, habitable environments, we’re also beginning to appreciate trees’ intelligence, sociality, and resilience. Research reveals that trees form complex, interdependent networks that enable them to both cooperate and compete.

While some scientists maintain that “intelligence” implies conscious thought in brains—which plants, of course, don’t have—Canadian forestry scientist Suzanne Simard argues that the complex, agency-driven behavior of trees constitutes a form of intelligence. Trees express this intelligence through communication, memory, and resource sharing.

Trees communicate both below and above the ground. Under the soil surface, they connect their roots via fungi, allowing them to share nutrients. Research suggests this network (the “Wood Wide Web”) can, in some cases, transfer nutrients from older “mother trees” to younger seedlings. Trees also send chemical and electrical signals root-to-root, prompting neighbors to prepare for threats like disease or drought. Above ground, trees release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air when attacked by pests such as caterpillars, signaling nearby trees to strengthen their defenses by producing tannic or phenolic compounds.

In addition to communicating, trees sense their environments in ways we’re just beginning to understand. Recent studies suggest trees can react to the sound of running water or the vibrations of pollinator wings. Simard and German forester and author Peter Wohlleben posit that trees can learn from past experiences, such as droughts, and make decisions about resource allocation. Dying trees even seem to know the future: before they expire, they warn their offspring to start making new root connections.

Much of this recent forest research focuses on the role of large, old trees acting as hubs in arboreal networks, nurturing young trees and maintaining forest stability. Simard contends that mother trees are anchors of forest communities, and are remembered by other trees after they die.

What We Can Do for a Forested Future

The intelligence of trees creates and maintains resilient arboreal communities. If we humans are to survive, we must similarly build and restore our own resilient communities. We can learn from trees as we continue to benefit from them. But for that to happen, humanity must begin treating the forest as more than just a monetarily valuable resource.

Given the current accelerating rate of destruction, our top priority must be to defend native forests and the mother trees that anchor them. Globally, the most dedicated forest defenders are Indigenous peoples, who according to some estimates currently protect 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity. In the Brazilian Amazon, Indigenous communities’ efforts to assert collective land rights have reduced deforestation by 66 percent. In Sumatra, Farwiza Farhan (co-founder of HAkA, an NGO protecting the Leuser Ecosystem) has confronted illegal palm oil companies to protect old-growth forests. In Zambia, Honorary Forest Officers (HFO) protect the Imanda mushitu forest from illegal logging and inspire the next generation of conservationists. In Nigeria, Forest Guards risk their safety to stop poachers and loggers, offering a first line of defense against forest destruction.

Beyond forest defense, our next priority must be reforestation. While major global reforestation projects like Africa’s 8,000km Great Green Wall and the Bonn Challenge (aiming to restore 350 million hectares) attract significant funding, community-driven efforts in the Amazon, Madagascar, and Indonesia often achieve their goals with lower cost; such efforts depend on the work of dedicated campaigners like Leah Namugerwa of Uganda, a youth climate activist.

However, it’s essential to consider where we should be planting trees in a warming world. This can start with forecasting the likely future climate regime for areas targeted for reforestation efforts and then planting trees that will thrive in that climate; in effect, helping forests migrate. A 2026 study found that strategic planting with future climate considered, such as in Canada’s boreal forest edge, could significantly boost carbon removal. 

More thought must also be given to the kinds of trees being planted. Commercially driven reforestation efforts often focus on fast-growing species that yield straight, easily milled timber. However, this results not in a forest ecosystem but in a tree plantation. In recent decades, tree plantations have been growing in total acreage while native forests have been shrinking, though native forests are far better for climate change remediation and maintenance of biodiversity. We should be planting more slow-growing native trees, in mixed patterns that reproduce healthy, self-sustaining ecosystems—and that requires creating habitat for animal species that have evolved with native forests. Like all other organisms, trees depend on relationships: with other plant species, and with pollinators and seed spreaders. Holistic reforestation programs in Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho, as well as proponents of “mini-forests,” are taking steps in this direction.

In 2023, about 84 billion dollars were spent globally on reforestation and forest protection. This year, roughly 700 billion dollars are likely to be spent just on AI data centers. Humanity would get by just fine without AI, as we have done for 99.999 percent of our history. But without trees, humans may not persist.

The future of forests and that of humanity will be intertwined, like our pasts. The decisive question facing us is: Will it be a balanced relationship that can endure, or an extractive one doomed to failure?

The Hidden Power of Forests

March 26, 2026 – 10:00am US Pacific

Learn what forests can teach us about community resilience with National Geographic Explorer at Large Dr. Nalini Nadkarni and Tsimshian scientist Dr. Teresa Ryan.Email

avatar

Richard is Senior Fellow of Post Carbon Institute, and is regarded as one of the world’s foremost advocates for a shift away from our current reliance on fossil fuels. He is the author of fourteen books, including some of the seminal works on society’s current energy and environmental sustainability crisis. He has authored hundreds of essays and articles that have appeared in such journals as Nature and The Wall Street Journal; delivered hundreds of lectures on energy and climate issues to audiences on six continents; and has been quoted and interviewed countless times for print, television, and radio. His monthly MuseLetter has been in publication since 1992. Full bio at postcarbon.org.

Monday, March 02, 2026

As Iran attacks Dubai, the tax-free haven for the global elite could see ‘catastrophic’ fallout — ‘this can also send shockwaves globally’


Jason Ma
Sun, March 1, 2026 

Iran’s retaliation to the U.S.-Israel bombing campaign has focused heavily on its neighbors around the Persian Gulf, threatening their status as destinations for financial giants, billionaires, and wealthy tourists.

The area’s success at attracting capital from around the world over the years and diversifying away from oil could also make it a threat to global markets.

“Moved to Qatar to hide from taxes now I am hiding from Missiles,” a worker in the finance sector, who has been documenting the volleys of Iranian airstrikes from his balcony, quipped on X.

While the U.S. has military bases in the region that have also been targeted, analysts say Iran’s strategy is to inflict pain on America’s Mideast allies, including the United Arab Emirates, hoping they will pressure President Donald Trump to end combat operations.

Until then, however, social media is filling up with images of luxury hot spots literally on fire as Iran continues to lob missiles and drones at them.

An airstrike on Dubai’s Fairmont The Palm Hotel sparked a fire while also spreading panic on the famous Palm Jumeirah artificial island, where many of the city’s wealthiest residents live.

Smoke was also seen near the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, after a drone appeared to be intercepted and exploded. And in nearby Abu Dhabi, debris from another drone impacted the Etihad Towers. Kuwait City’s international airport was also attacked by a drone.

Meanwhile, DP World suspended operations at the Jebel Ali port—the largest container port in the Middle East and a key piece of Dubai’s economy—after a berth caught fire because of debris from an intercepted missile.

The port and adjacent free-trade zone account for 36% of Dubai’s GDP, and hundreds of ships near the Strait of Hormuz have frozen in place out of concern that Iran will close the vital chokepoint.

On top of that, the attacks from Iran have caused airspace to shut down around the Gulf, which has emerged as a major global airline hub that’s also a major driver of the regional economy.

“What is happening in UAE could be catastrophic, unless they pressure Trump [to] defeat Iran quickly and decisively or to fold (taco) right away,” Marko Kolanovic, former chief strategist at JPMorgan, warned on X. “With 88% of expats, tourism, finance, air and shipping exposure, this can also send shockwaves globally.”

He pointed out that Dubai suffered a real estate crisis in 2009 and 2010 that was largely contained to the city, but still had implication for global financial markets.

“This situation is much worse,” Kolanovic added.

A key question for Dubai’s future is how many expats will flee and whether they will eventually come back, now that their illusion of safety has been shattered.

Dubai has long cultivated an image of iron-clad security with many residents leaving their cars and homes unlocked. But Iran’s attacks have sparked a rush to airports, and panic-buying in some supermarkets.

“This is Dubai’s ultimate nightmare as its very essence depended on being a safe oasis in a troubled region,” Cinzia Bianco, a scholar at the European Council on Foreign Relations, posted on X. “There might be a way to be resilient but there is no going back.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com




'Disgusting and evil.' Trump faces MAGA backlash on Iran.

Zac Anderson, USA TODAY
Sun, March 1, 2026 at 4:41 PM MST

After unleashing operation "Epic Fury" in Iran, President Donald Trump is facing MAGA skepticism at home as the military campaign threatens to strain his political coalition heading into the midterm election.

Trump campaigned as a staunch critic of U.S. wars in the Middle East, and his aggressive foreign policy moves since returning to office have sparked backlash within the MAGA movement, including accusations he has betrayed those who subscribed to his anti-interventionist, “America First” pledges.

Polling indicates many Republicans are wary of military involvement in Iran, presenting a challenge as the president works to keep them motivated in a crucial election year. That skepticism has been aired publicly by prominent voices on the right since the U.S. and Israel launched a military campaign targeting Iran’s leadership, missile sites and nuclear program.


More: Do Americans support Iran strikes? Here's what new poll says


U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks to Cabinet Secretaries during military operations in Iran, in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. February 28, 2026. The United States launched military strikes and "major combat operations" against Iran on Saturday, President Donald Trump said, targeting the country's missile capabilities.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the joint strikes with Israel on Iran, an Israeli source confirmed to USA TODAY.

This image was provided by The White House.


U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with CIA Director John Ratcliffe, accompanied by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, during military operations in Iran, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. February 28, 2026. This image was provided by The White House.

A satellite image shows black smoke rising and heavy damage at Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's compound, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Tehran, Iran February 28, 2026.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks to Cabinet Secretaries during military operations in Iran, in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. February 28, 2026. The United States launched military strikes and "major combat operations" against Iran on Saturday, President Donald Trump said, targeting the country's missile capabilities.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the joint strikes with Israel on Iran, an Israeli source confirmed to USA TODAY.

This image was provided by The White House.More

Tucker Carlson, a long-time Trump backer and former FOX News host who recently attended a White House event, was scathing in an ABC News interview, describing the Iran operation that was launch on Feb. 28 as "absolutely disgusting and evil."

Others in the MAGA sphere questioned how the operation squares with the spirit of the president’s political movement, which over three White House campaigns centered around a more populist approach that eschewed years of GOP foreign policy orthodoxy on utilizing American military might.

“I don’t see how this is in keeping with the president’s MAGA commitment. I’m disappointed,” Trump ally Erik Prince, a private military contractor, said March. 1 on a podcast hosted by Steven Bannon, who served as White House chief strategist during Trump’s first term.

Former GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has become a fervent Trump critic after years as one of his top supporters in Congress, accused the president and his team in a flurry of social media posts after the initial attack on Iran of betraying their promises.

Greene called the Trump administration “sick (expletive) liars” in a Feb. 27 post declaring, “We voted for America First and ZERO wars.”
Regime change war

The Trump administration’s focus on regime change in Iran is adding to the backlash. The president announced that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had been killed along with other top leaders, and has called on the Iranian people to rise up and replace the regime, even as he has warned against regime change efforts in the past.

“We must abandon the failed policies of nation building and regime change,” Trump said at the 2016 Republican National Convention.

The deaths of three U.S. troops in the operation also has heightened tensions.


Former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican from Georgia, speaks to reporters as she arrives for a closed-door meeting with House Republicans, at the Republican National Committee office on Capitol Hill on March 25, 2025, in Washington, DC.More

“This was absolutely unnecessary and is unacceptable,” Greene said in a March 1 social media post. “Trump, Vance, Tulsi (Gabbard), and all of us campaigned on no more foreign wars and regime change. Now, America soldiers are dead.”

Many GOP lawmakers and other conservatives are rallying around Trump as the military operation unfolds, with some dismissing the idea that the president is out of synch with MAGA.

Let Trump 'cook'

Longtime Trump adviser Jason Miller said MAGA’s priorities are the same as the president’s, “Full stop.”

“We voted for President Trump because we believe in HIS decision-making & HIS judgment to keep us safe,” Miller said Feb. 28 on social media.


Plumes of smoke rise following reported explosions in Tehran on March 1, 2026, after Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed a day earlier in a large U.S. and Israeli attack, prompting a new wave of retaliatory missile strikes from Iran.More

FOX News host Laura Ingraham asked conservative podcaster and former Trump FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino what his message is to “some of our friends on the right” who point out that Trump campaigned against regime change and is now pursuing that goal.

Pete Hegseth Finally Comments on Iranian Strikes After Being MIA on Social Media

Blackwater Founder Fumes to Steve Bannon About Iran Strikes: ‘I Don’t Think This Was in America’s Interests’

“Can you give the man a chance to cook a little bit?” Bongino responded Feb. 28, adding: “Maybe give the guy five minutes before you’re already crapping on everything he did.”

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, said on NBC’s Meet the Press that the Iran military operation is fully aligned with Trump’s America First agenda.

“America First is not isolationism, America First is not head in the sand,” said Graham, one of the most outspoken GOP hawks. “America First is not to get entangled. We’re not going to have any boots on the ground in Iran.”
Election questions

Trump also faced MAGA criticism after his decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites last year. It quickly quieted down, though. That attack was a single event that didn’t spiral into a broader conflict and there were no U.S. deaths. Polls since then have shown overwhelming support for the president among Republicans.

The latest conflict already has resulted in American casualties, though, and is more open ended, with the U.S. and Israel already launching multiple strikes and the president offering an uncertain timeline for how long it could last.


U.S. Navy sailors prepare to stage ordnance on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during the U.S. attack on Iran at an undisclosed location, Feb. 28, 2026.

A University of Maryland survey conducted two weeks before Trump struck Iran again found that just 21% of U.S. adults favored launching an attack, including just 40% of Republicans. After the operation began, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found 27% of Americans approved, including 55% of Republicans.


With a sizeable portion of his party opposed or unsure of his use of force in Iran, Trump could be treading into politically perilous ground as he seeks to rally the GOP ahead of the midterms and maintain enthusiasm.

Mercedes Schlapp, a Trump ally who served in his first administration and in the administration of former Republican President George W. Bush, said in a CSPAN interview shortly before Trump struck Iran that it’s not something his MAGA base wants and that the midterms will be fought on the economy.

“I think that if the administration moves towards… more military tactics, a more aggressive posture into Iran, I think that that could be detrimental for Republicans going into the midterm elections,” Schlapp said, noting she worked for Bush during the Iraq War and “it became a very unpopular war quickly.”

This sweeping Trump assault has us headed for a hellscape of unimaginable dimensions


John Casey
March 1, 2026 
RAW STORY


A banner depicting Donald Trump hangs outside the Department of Justice. REUTERS/Kylie Cooper

The first days of a bombing campaign almost always look successful. Targets are hit. Explosions dominate headlines. Leaders declare strength. But wars are judged by what follows: retaliation, escalation, unintended consequences that unfold in days, weeks, months, and years.

For example, Israeli sources said on Saturday that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the initial bombings. But if he is dead, who comes next? His death after 35 years in power would likely trigger a prolonged, ugly and tumultuous struggle.

Further back, remember George W. Bush and his rush to declare “Mission Accomplished," shortly after the attack on Iraq in 2003?

That pattern of not thinking and planning ahead for what comes next mirrors Donald Trump’s life of losing. His deals and grand ideas often look triumphant at the start. Later, collapse, chaos, and damage become clear.

Trump’s decision to join Israel in bombing Iran is shocking the world. It feels reckless and ego-driven — both for Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu — undertaken without fully reckoning with the grave consequences such action could unleash.

Yes, Iran is dangerous. Yes, it should never have nuclear weapons. Yes, the regime’s mass killing of protesters is abominable. But behind the curtain of cruelty is an entrenched military and ruthless theocratic leadership capable of spreading unimaginable horror throughout the Middle East.

It’s already begun.

But let’s start in the U.S., with a president who campaigned in 2024 on ending wars through dealmaking.

Trump has ended nothing. He has built nothing. He has stabilized nothing. That assessment isn’t limited to what’s happening now. It reflects how he has carried himself throughout his life. He is not a winner. He is a loser. He does not create peace. He creates chaos.


Now he has detonated that chaos in the most volatile region on Earth. Why now? For what purpose? For how long?

Trump repeatedly claimed that last year’s U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities “obliterated” them. Obliterated. He has insisted on that word, dismissing experts who said otherwise.

So why are American bombs once again falling on Iranian soil? You don’t obliterate something and then have to obliterate it again.


There has been no publicly presented evidence that bombing Iran is in America’s best interest. None. No imminent attack disclosed. No ticking-clock intelligence, laid before Congress.

And what of Congress? Article I of the Constitution is clear: Congress has the power to declare war. Trump didn’t seek it. He didn’t secure it. He didn’t build bipartisan consensus. He simply acted. Congress represents the voice of the American people. We, and our elected officials, should decide whether to put American troops in harm’s way.

Trump failed to rally NATO. After years of threatening to weaken the alliance, flirting with abandoning European partners, even floating the absurd notion of invading Greenland, he has left the United States diplomatically diminished.


Rather than assembling a coalition, he has tethered America’s fate to another leader who thrives on confrontation: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu has long viewed Iran as Israel’s existential enemy. Iran harbors deep hostility toward Israel and Netanyahu. Netanyahu is polarizing in the Middle East, controversial at home. Trump is viewed globally as erratic, incapable of restraint.

Two unpredictable leaders do not create stability. They do not project peace. And if these two have rid Iran of the equally unpredictable Khamenei, God knows what lies ahead.


This is a sweeping assault with no clearly articulated endgame against an adversary as hardened as it is brutal. If Khamenei is dead, his revolutionary forces will surely retaliate to an extreme.

There has been no serious explanation of what victory looks like, only assurances that bombing will continue. Escalation feels inevitable. Regional war is plausible.

Experts have warned for weeks that a full-scale attack on Iran could ignite the Middle East.


Iran is not isolated. It has a network of proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen. They are all capable of striking American assets and allies. Retaliation could be relentless, U.S. troops potential targets.

Shipping lanes could be disrupted. The Strait of Hormuz, through which flows a significant share of the world’s oil, could become a choke point. Energy markets would convulse. Inflation would spike. A fragile global economy, rattled by Trump’s erratic tariff obsession, could tip toward crisis.

And then there’s Russia, which was blunt in response to the bombing, saying it was an “unprovoked act of armed aggression.”

Moscow has deepened ties with Tehran. Iran has supplied Russia with drones. Russia has offered diplomatic cover. By attacking Iran in a sustained way, Trump risks entangling the U.S. in a broader dynamic that could spiral beyond control.


When military powers circle the same battlefield, miscalculation is a real probability.

Even within U.S. military leadership, alarm bells have been ringing. Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine has warned that a full-scale confrontation with Iran would come with “acute risks,” along with being extraordinarily costly and unpredictable.

This is not Venezuela. Iran is no pushover. It is one of the most volatile regimes in the world, rivaling North Korea.


And now we have added another unpredictable actor — the habitual liar that is the President of the United States.

This is the man who has failed at virtually every major endeavor he has led, too many to list. He is not a steady leader. He is a coddled billionaire who has never faced meaningful consequences for his mistakes.

Trump, who thrives on confusion, lies, and chaos, has not clearly articulated objectives, sought congressional authorization, or built a multinational framework. And we are supposed to trust him?

We are headed for a hellscape of unimaginable dimensions.

What unfolds next could reshape the global order: regional war, confrontation with major powers, economic shockwaves hitting American families, gas stations and grocery stores, terror retaliation, cyberattacks … the “acute risks” falling like dominos.

Trump falsely bills himself as the man who would keep America out of endless wars. He foams at the mouth for a Nobel. He launched a farcical “Board of Peace.” Yet he has now lit the fuse in one of the world’s most combustible regions.

Unlike his past failures, his latest bomb is far worse than a bankruptcy. Far, far worse.


John Casey was most recently Senior Editor, The Advocate, and is a freelance opinion and feature story writer. Previously, he was a Capitol Hill press secretary, and spent 25 years in media and public relations in NYC. He is the co-author of LOVE: The Heroic Stories of Marriage Equality (Rizzoli, 2025), named by Oprah in her "Best 25 of 2025.”


Trump Guns for Peace Prize

It’s obvious that Trump loves the feel of power. It no doubt gives him a rush more intoxicating than any drug.



Demonstrators burn a poster of US President Donald Trump during an anti-US and Israel protest in Peshawar on March 2, 2026 after the death of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei amid US-Israel strikes.

(Photo by Abdul Majeed / AFP via Getty Images)

Les Leopold
Mar 02, 2026
Common Dreams

Since resuming power 13 months ago, President Trump has declared he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. At the same time, he has attacked civilian boats in the Caribbean, abducted the head of Venezuela, blockaded Cuba, conducted air strikes in NigeriaSomaliaYemen, and Syria, and even threatened to invade Greenland. He bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities last June, and now is waging war to achieve regime change, not an easy task in a country of 90 million people.

What is common to all these strikes is that the target was weak. Note that Trump is not trying to topple North Korea, or force Russia out of Ukraine, or threaten China’s economic domination. His targets can’t do much harm to the US, at least in the short run, which makes it easy to score what he calls “victories.”

It’s obvious that Trump loves the feel of power. It no doubt gives him a rush more intoxicating than any drug. He is the ruler of the strongest nation in the history of the world, but he doesn’t have the freedom to unilaterally act on domestic affairs, although he constantly tries. The courts are in the way, as is popular dissent. Judges and citizens are preventing him from exerting his will, even making him change course by removing troops and immigration forces. And it will, he surely knows, get even worse if the Democrats gain control of either house of Congress.

But he has a free hand in foreign affairs. The Supreme Court won’t stop him and there is no international court that the US recognizes, nor does he believe he is morally bound by international law. He couldn’t care less about the United Nations, and he hopes that military engagement against the weak makes him look strong to the American public. Also, in Iran’s case, a war with a quick victory has the added benefit of possibly improving his paltry approval ratings by diverting public attention away from “affordability” and the Epstein files. Already the joke is that they should have called the Iran adventure, “Operation Epic Epstein.”

Just think what the total freedom to attack means for Trump. For starters he gets to deploy his toys—the trillion-dollar arsenal of US warships and fighter planes. It’s the ultimate video game for power-hungry adults. And no one can stop him abroad, and while the Republicans in Congress could, they certainly won’t.

Trump seems to believe that these military attacks will secure his place in history as the greatest president of all time. He and only he had the guts to get rid of the Iranian theocracy that has bedeviled the US since the 1979 hostage crisis. And only he will end communism in Cuba, that pesky island of resistance only 90 miles from shore. Most importantly, he is remaking the Middle East into a US-Israeli safe zone. He is showing the world that the US means business and that whatever it wants, it should get—of course in the name of protecting the US and securing world peace.

As Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Steven Miller, put it, “We live in a world , in the real world…that is governed by strength, this governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.”

Before claiming all this aggression demonstrates Trump truly is a Hitler-like dictator, we should recall that he is not the first Commander-in-Chief to follow these “iron laws of the world.” Truman sent troops to fight in Korea (1950), Eisenhower sent them to Lebanon (1958), Kennedy to the Bay of Pigs in Cuba (1961), Johnson to Vietnam (1964), Nixon bombed Cambodia (1969), Reagan invaded Grenada (1983), George H. Bush invaded Panama (1989), Clinton bombed Kosovo (1999), Obama bombed Libya (2011), Trump sent missiles to Syria (2017,2018), and Biden ordered airstrikes in Syria (2021), and Yemen (2024)—all without a declaration of war by Congress.

This is what US presidents do because they can. But no president has been quite as overtly aggressive as Trump. Even when he tries, he can’t hide his desire to dominate. He doesn’t spend time building alliances or forming a consensus at home. He just acts as if the weaker countries of the world are his playthings. He can push them around at will, first with tariffs then with bombs, and his sycophantic enablers will cheer him on. From Trump’s perspective, what’s not to like?

Nothing, unless it doesn’t end well. And there are dozens of ways his current path in Iran could lead to his own destruction. The American public is not likely to approve of these adventures, especially if prices rise because global trade is severely disrupted. More ominously, it’s possible that a war with Iran could spiral out of control, sucking the US in with ground troops and leading to yet another forever war and American casualties. That’s why MAGA isolationists also are having trouble with Trump’s foreign interventions.

And there is a question of whether the Iranians who want regime change will trust the Americans. They are certainly aware that the Afghans who assisted US forces and the CIA in their (failed) war of liberation were awkwardly abandoned during our troop withdrawal, and those who were given safe haven have in many cases been unceremoniously kicked back to their dangerous homeland by Trump.

The upshot of all this adventurism is that we may again witness a moment in history when the universe actually bends towards justice. Debilitating hubris has a way of striking down the mighty: LBJ was driven from office by his Vietnam debacle and Nixon had to resign because of his secret dictatorial actions. Will Trump blow himself up as well?

Maybe, but let’s pray, with the nuclear button close at hand, he doesn’t take all the rest of us with him.

Saturday, February 28, 2026

 THE EPSTEIN CLASS


Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

When British author David Icke wrote his seminal work, The Biggest Secret: The Book That Will Change the World, published in 1999, he was not speaking metaphorically. When he detailed the “reptilian genetic streams” of “elite” families—human-reptile hybrids allegedly engineering global events—he meant it literally. To Icke, the world is not run by mere men, but by an interdimensional species operating just outside the visible light spectrum.

While many scoff at this as the ultimate apex of human gullibility, millions have found a dark comfort in Icke’s “wisdom”. According to a landmark 2013 poll by Public Policy Polling (PPP), roughly 4 percent of American adults—between 12 and 13 million people—believed that shape-shifting lizard people control our world.

Conspiracy theories in the United States occupy a wide spectrum of beliefs. While the ‘Reptilian’ theory sits at the fringe, other theories command mainstream traction. According to that same study, 51 percent of Americans believed a larger conspiracy was behind the JFK assassination, 37 percent viewed global warming as a hoax, and 29 percent were certain that aliens exist.

Recently, these fringe ideas have drifted toward official discourse. In 2021, former President Barack Obama told NBC News James Corden that “there’s footage and records of objects in the skies, that we don’t know exactly what they are,” and later stated in 2026 that aliens are “real”. This was followed by a statement by US President Donald Trump, who declared that he will begin “the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life”. This rhetorical tug-of-war has effectively moved the ‘extraterrestrial’ conversation from the realm of the tabloid to the halls of mainstream politics. 

However, the most significant shift in public skepticism didn’t come from space, but from a private island. The ‘Epstein Files’—the documented evidence of a shadow network operated by Jeffrey Epstein—unveiled a web of influential statesmen, corporate titans, and intelligence assets. To those who believed in a ‘New World Order’ conspiracy back in 2013 (then 28 percent of the population), the millions of documents released through the US Department of Justice proceedings provided a grim validation. They pointed to a shadow government operating entirely outside the confines of democratic accountability.

The specific crimes of Jeffrey Epstein are now a matter of public record, thanks to the tireless efforts of survivors and investigative journalists. But for political science, the Epstein saga represents a ‘Galileo moment.’ It is the realization that our institutions are not the center of the political universe, but are often satellites orbiting private elite interests.

Historically, we have been taught to view the world through a few primary lenses: Realism, which focuses on state-on-state power and national security; Liberalism, which champions international institutions and the ‘rule of law’; and Dependency Theory, which highlights the economic exploitation of the ‘Periphery’, the developing nations, by the ‘Core’, the wealthy nations.

Under these frameworks, we analyzed the Nixon era through Realpolitik, the Clinton years through Liberal Internationalism, and the Bush years through Neoconservatism. But the Epstein network challenges all of them. This is no longer about Core vs. Periphery or ‘containment’ vs. ‘preemptive war’.

Traditional theory assumes leaders act on behalf of their citizens. The Epstein files suggest a different reality: a secretive social contract bound by mutual vulnerability and blackmail. In this system, shared secrets are a more stable currency than gold or votes. We are witnessing the rise of the Transnational Elite Theory. This framework suggests the true ‘state’ is a borderless network of high-net-worth individuals who share more in common with each other than with the citizens of their own countries.

These ‘sovereign individuals’ fly above national laws in private jets, moving assets through jurisdictional gaps that the average citizen cannot see. They don’t just influence the law; they exist in the gray zones in between. For decades, victims spoke out, but mainstream institutions marginalized them. In the chessboard of power, they were too insignificant to matter. The failure of oversight bodies wasn’t a glitch—it was evidence of a system repurposed to function as a support system for the elite.

The implications for our future understanding of power are profound. If the primary driver of high-level policy is no longer the ballot box or national interest, but rather the preservation of opaque, transnational networks, then our current democratic models are essentially obsolete. We are forced to admit that the political theater we witness daily—the debates, the elections, and the legislative battles—may merely be a superficial layer designed to distract from the deeper, darker mechanics of the global hierarchy.

Furthermore, this paradigm shift suggests that the ‘marginalized’ of the world are not just those in impoverished nations, but anyone excluded from this high-networked social contract. The divide is no longer strictly between the Core and the Periphery of nation-states, but between the networked elite and the disconnected public.

Now that the public sees the liberal world order as a system that applies rules only to the un-networked, it has lost its moral authority. While the old theories remain useful for understanding the history of politics, they cannot explain its current state. The elites are a powerful network capable of acting against their own governments’ national interests to achieve political power, private leverage and wealth.

Perhaps the literal lizard people have yet to be revealed in the sense that Icke tirelessly promotes. But as the Epstein saga proves, a predatory, cold-blooded, and non-accountable elite is no longer a theory—it is a documented realityEmail

avatar

Ramzy Baroud is a US-Palestinian journalist, media consultant, an author, internationally-syndicated columnist, Editor of Palestine Chronicle (1999-present), former Managing Editor of London-based Middle East Eye, former Editor-in-Chief of The Brunei Times and former Deputy Managing Editor of Al Jazeera online. Baroud’s work has been published in hundreds of newspapers and journals worldwide, and is the author of six books and a contributor to many others. Baroud is also a regular guest on many television and radio programs including RT, Al Jazeera, CNN International, BBC, ABC Australia, National Public Radio, Press TV, TRT, and many other stations. Baroud was inducted as an Honorary Member into the Pi Sigma Alpha National Political Science Honor Society, NU OMEGA Chapter of Oakland University, Feb 18, 2020.

Epstein and the Politics of Distraction

February 27, 2026

Facebook

Epstein shaking hands with President Bill Clinton at the White House, September 1993 (with Ghislaine Maxwell in the background on the right).

After the beginning of Trump’s second term, the connections between capitalism, white supremacy and imperial domination became increasingly clear. These have been highlighted through ICE raids as modern-day slave patrols, global criminal operations such as the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, and United States assistance to Israel’s genocide in Gaza as a bipartisan US and transnational corporate experiment.

The growing understanding that people in the Global South, along with Black, Indigenous and other People of Colour (BIPOC) within the imperial core, face a common enemy has galvanised an anti-colonial, revolutionary movement committed to radical transformation.

And then the release of the Epstein files flooded public discourse.

Epstein and the media
Jeffrey Epstein was a financier convicted of sex crimes involving minors. After renewed federal charges in 2019, he died in jail (officially ruled a suicide). The case triggered public outrage about ruling class impunity, media focus on unsavoury associations between the political and corporate class and a plethora of conspiratorial narratives about cover-ups.

The Epstein case became far more than a criminal proceeding; it reflects a symbolic exposure of ruling class impunity and concentrated power and a spectacle of corruption within an empire in deep crisis and decline.

The Epstein case exposed ruling class criminality while simultaneously displacing structural accountability.

Importantly, “spectacle” does not mean “fake”; it means the organisation of politics through symbolic drama that displaces structural political analysis. With spectacle, social contradictions (inequality, social crises and instability) are dramatised rather than structurally challenged.

The enduring media and public fixation on the Epstein files, particularly as their release proceeds with little accountability and continued narratives that discredit and isolate survivors, serves less as accountability and more as a political diversion from systemic injustices: Racism, capitalism, the growth of the police state and ongoing international impunity.

More troubling still, it marks another step in the erosion of democracy and the consolidation of expansionist, war-driven fascism.

Fascist spectacle

In work by Walter Benjamin, Hannah Arendt, Guy Debord, Umberto Eco and others, fascist spectacle involves anti-intellectual and emotionally driven mass mobilisation around simple moral binaries (pure people v the corrupt ruling class), where action is revered while thought is reviled; the replacement of institutional process with symbolic imagery and drama; and mythic narratives of national decay and rebirth. Political theorist Roger Griffin calls this rebirth “palingenic ultranationalism”, that is, destruction as a precondition for rebirth.

The function of spectacle is to subvert principled analysis and resistance to oppression with emotion – outrage, disgust, despair and helplessness.

Conspiracy theories are the narrative engine of spectacle. They transform systemic crisis and social instability into simple, emotionally gripping stories of social taboo-breaking, centred on hidden and untouchable enemies, laying the groundwork through which authoritarian solutions are marketed as necessary and even redemptive.

When structural violence becomes visible, but accountability remains absent, public anger often seeks explanation through personalised and conspiratorial narratives rather than systemic analysis.

Amid growing distrust and corruption in mainstream media and the rise of citizen-driven and alternative social media ecosystems, conspiracy theories surrounding the Epstein case have blossomed: Claims of secret global cabals engaged in immoral sexual criminality, ritualistic fantasies involving human sacrifice, cannibalism and ancient symbolic structures and explicitly racist and anti-Semitic tropes about hidden rulers, among others.

Theories like these, whether wholly true, partially true or false, are not new; fascist movements have historically mobilised around the idea that the nation is being secretly corrupted by a degenerate ruling class, with a radical cleansing necessary to return to a righteous path.

These narratives do not expose a corrupt system; they obscure and mystify it. By sensationalising corruption into myth and providing explicit, though untouchable, targets for public outrage, they displace rigorous anti-colonial and material analyses of structural exploitation, greed and state violence with collective authoritarian longing for a strongman and the suppression of dissent to restore order.

The criminality of Epstein and the powerful figures who orbited him and participated in his abuses have come to symbolise a degenerate ruling class with identifiable names and faces, targets who could be exposed and jailed, thereby clearing the narrative space for a heroic white knight to ride in with promises of salvation.

As Hannah Arendt warned, conspiracy thinking thrives when trust in institutions collapses. The Epstein scandal intensified the sense of a ruling class operating above the law and of a justice system which protects its own, conditions ideal for authoritarian movements to exploit by insisting the system is irredeemably rigged and that only a strong leader can tear it down.

As such, the spectacle of the Epstein scandal can absorb and manipulate public outrage, redirecting it away from necessary structural accountability in the form of decolonisation and redistribution of wealth, ultimately reinforcing the very systems it appears to challenge.

In doing so, it promotes the aesthetics of politics – the spectacle – rather than grounded critiques of capitalism and imperial power. Further, it serves to distract from failures ultimately promoting oppression and war. According to Federico Caprotti, various forms of fascist spectacle produce a “collage” which both expresses and obscures the syncretic ideology of the regime.

The grand spectacle: War

When politics becomes theatre rather than collective progress dependent on accountability, transformation or reform, crisis becomes emotional drama, drama demands release (internal resolution) or escalation and escalation inevitably finds its expression in externalised war, in which the nation performs a grand spectacle of unity and sacrifice on the largest possible stage.

War acts as a stabilising force when internal contradictions cannot be resolved through collective mobilisation. With its uniforms and marches, war channels discontent by uniting a fragmented, outraged population against an externalised enemy, transforming righteous anger at the violence, oppression and greed of a ruling class into manufactured unity, heroism and meaning through violence against “the other”.

These dynamics, outlined by Benjamin decades ago, feel alarmingly familiar in the present moment, including in the spectacle surrounding the Epstein scandal.

In this context, external conflict functions not only as policy but as emotional consolidation, redirecting internal disillusionment towards collective national purpose.

Fascist forces deploy such spectacles to distract and mobilise, and are doing so presently; accelerating the dismantling of what remains of US democracy and the post-war international order, to be replaced by a system ruled by force and naked self-interest.

Spectacle politics does not require loyalty to specific leaders but to the emotional narrative they embody, rendering individual figures ultimately expendable.

In this logic, even Trump could be discarded, sacrificed to clear the way for a “purer” white male strongman (Vance? Pence? Carlson?) who promises to cleanse the ruling class and by extension its foreign so-called “handlers” (enemies like Russia, China and Iran or even allies like Israel and Europe, the latter already being threatened by Trump), of its unsavoury elements, particularly if Trump’s baggage with Epstein proves politically irredeemable.

By contrast, liberation and reconciliation and an end to capitalist oppression, with its accompanying genocidal violence and planetary destruction, require a steadfast structural framework aligned with broader leftist, antiracist and anti-colonial principles. Such a framework prioritises systemic transformation over spectacle. Within this view, the Epstein scandal is not treated as the disease itself, but as a symptom of capitalism’s inherent corruption.

This piece first appeared on Al Jazeera.

Yoav Litvin is a Doctor of Psychology/ Behavioral Neuroscience. For more info, please visit yoavlitvin.com/about/  



The Epstein revelations have exposed how

 ‘Boy’s Club’ elites avoid accountability

Published: February 25, 2026 
THE CONVERSATION

The Jeffrey Epstein case is not an exception. Like the #MeToo movement, it is part of a wider continuum of violence committed by men in power, made possible by a persistent culture of impunity.

The Epstein files reveal not only sexual crimes but also a tightly interconnected social world where capital, prestige, influence and dependency circulate freely.

The idea of the “Epstein class” can make this social structure visible, but it also risks personalizing the problem, reducing it to the story of a single manipulative individual. This carries a significant analytical risk: it obscures the deeper structural dynamics of class power. The Epstein case is not about an unusual individual; it is about the normalization of a social order where extreme wealth and male dominance are closely linked.

The author’s book on the uber-wealthy. (Lux Publisher)

In my book La société de provocation: essai sur l'obscénité des riches (The Society of Provocation: An Essay on the Obscenity of the Rich), I argue that this social order is anchored in a long-lasting alliance between economic and political elites, whose interests converge around the preservation of their privileges.

This alliance manifests in an economy of excess and overabundance — the so-called “wealthporn” or “pornopulence” — created for the ostentatious enjoyment of a small, protected elite. The Epstein case is only the tip of the iceberg. It reveals a global system that treats bodies, land and resources as things to exploit and discard for profit.

The Epstein revelations also compel us to examine this socially organized and institutionally protected class. Its power goes far beyond individual behaviour and rests on three inter-related social mechanisms: co-optation, insularization and neutralization.

Our mission is to share knowledge and inform decisions.About us
Co-optation: The male-only network

Co-optation describes an organized system of male networks at the top of power structures. This is a boys’ club as described by Québec professor and writer Martine Delvaux: a closed world governed by unwritten rules of loyalty, discretion and mutual protection.

The Epstein files show that this club encompasses individuals from diverse positions — political leaders, heirs, royalty, traders, tech entrepreneurs, renowned scientists and media personalities.

The list of names — among the richest and most powerful people on the planet— speaks to the reach of this network. But the club’s power derives less from wealth alone than from the convertibility of status into social capital.

Even less wealthy members are “richly connected” — they leverage their contacts, expertise and privileged access to decision-making circles. Their networks constitute highly convertible transnational social capital, to be deployed strategically: by sharing sensitive information, facilitating tax optimization or avoidance, gaining access to influential professionals (doctors, lawyers, judges), and participating in selective social spaces (private clubs, exclusive events, yachts, gated estates).

Within this system, women are treated as objects for transaction, distinction and pleasure. Co-optation therefore functions as both a political and sexual socialization of privilege.
Insularization of the wealthy

This relational system is reinforced by a process of elite insularization, in which the wealthiest gradually withdraw from the broader world so they can live by their own rules. Extreme concentration of wealth does more than deepen inequality; it allows the privileged to retreat into “zones of secession” — spaces removed from common rules and ordinary societal constraints.

The Epstein files reveal a mobile, transnational over-class, entrenched in exceptional enclaves where social, fiscal and political obligations are minimal: private islands, gated neighborhoods, offshore tax regimes, private cities and multiple residences.

Little St. James, now called “Epstein Island”, exemplifies this logic. This 75-acre private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands featured a helicopter landing pad and multiple hidden villas. According to testimony from numerous witnesses, it was also where Epstein allegedly delivered victims to some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful men for sexual exploitation.
This photo taken in July 2019 shows a view of Little St. James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a property owned by Jeffrey Epstein. (AP Photo/Gianfranco Gaglione)

The pornopulent class does not only retreat into privatized spaces; it also seizes shared, historically public spaces, turning them into showcases of power, as seen in Jeff Bezos’s ostentatious wedding in Venice.

But the insularization of the rich isn’t just spatial or fiscal. It also entails a social and political withdrawal of elites from democratic life. Support from several figures linked to the Epstein files from authoritarian, libertarian and reactionary movements — such as Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel — fits into this pattern, as recently highlighted by Oxfam.

Read more: Donald Trump’s penchant for bullshit explains MAGA anger about the Epstein files
Neutralization of dissent

Finally, the Epstein case shows how complaints and dissent are neutralized, reinforcing class power. Despite repeated allegations and investigations, institutions meant to protect victims were circumvented, weakened or instrumentalized, while only a few people were punished. This reveals a familiar asymmetry: the more unequal a society, the more “justice” functions as protection for elites.

Neutralization relies first on unequal access to institutional resources. Specialized law firms, influence networks, PR firms and reputation industries favour confidential settlements, delay proceedings and exhaust victims.

It also relies on the close intertwining of political and media power. In the U.S., figures like Musk, Bezos, Larry Ellison and Mark Zuckerberg control media that’s increasingly aligned with Trump’s agenda in exchange for economic and regulatory benefits. By financing, acquiring or influencing media and digital platforms, the ruling elite narrows public debate and criticism.

Together, co-optation, insularization, and neutralization enable a class power that extends far beyond a single manipulative individual. They sustain a regime of predatory accumulation, in which economic and sexual violence reinforce each other for the benefit of a minority that enjoys, transgresses and flaunts with complete impunity.

Meanwhile, victims are silenced, contained by a dense network of legal, media and political protections for the elite even when some speak publicly, like the late Virginia Giuffre, without truly being heard. The Epstein case exposes a dangerous class whose power threatens not only women but the very foundations of democratic life.

Author

Sociologue et professeure à l'École de service social de l'Université d'Ottawa, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa


This article was originally published in French


The Epstein Affair, Again: “What about the Victims?”


 February 27, 2026

Press outside Wood Farm, Sandringham Estate, Norfolk. Feb. 20, 2026. Photo: The author.

Sandringham

A day after the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, brother of King Charles and eighth in line of succession to the British throne, I visited Sandringham. That’s the estate in Norfolk, England, to which Andrew returned after 11 hours in custody at Aylsham police station, some 35 miles distant.

I arrived to see a scrum of about two dozen photographers and a few reporters, standing around, chatting, talking on the phone, fiddling with their gear, trying to stay dry. Three coppers stood together, about 30 feet away, beneath a broad cypress tree, in front of a flint wall surrounding the churchyard of the 14th C. Church of St. Mary Magdlelen.

 “Quite the scene,” I said to the police, needlessly.

“Yes, sir,” said one, with finality. He had a Polish accent and pony-tail not quite tucked beneath his cap.

Undeterred, I continued: “I don’t suppose you generally see so many people here, far from the main gate of Sandringham Estate.”

“No, sir,” said a shorter one, with wide face and grey-blond whiskers. “But considrin’ the strange circ’stance, tis not surprisin’”.

“Are you expecting Andrew to come through the gate today?”

“Not very likely,” said the third, slender, older and grayer, “gi’en the way he was photographed yest’day.”

The officer was referring of course to the remarkable photo taken by Phil Noble of Reuters, showing Andrew slumped in the back of a police cruiser, as he was ferried back to his temporary home at Wood Farm in Sandringham. (He’s due to be moved soon to smaller, damper, Marsh Farm nearby.) The picture was on the front page of every newspaper in Britain (print and online editions) and thousands more abroad. Eddy Frankel, art critic for The Guardian had a field day:

“Those red eyes, like two little portals to hell, are not angry or vicious: they are dazed and overwhelmed. They’re the same eyes you see in the anguished howler of Edward Munch’s The Scream or Gustave Courbet’s Desperate Man.”

Frankel went on extravagantly, comparing the photograph to paintings and graphic art by Francisco Goya, Otto Dix, Francis Bacon and oddly, Juan Carreno de Miranda, a now little-known painter at the 17th court of Charles II, much inferior to his predecessor, Diego Velazquez. Had Mr. Frankel popped the photo of the sinking Andrew into an AI search engine?

Until recently, art history students were trained to memorize thousands of images precisely to perform the task of discovering resemblance. The idea – premised on the mostly correct assumption that art is derived from other art – is that once you recognize the pictorial bases of your target image, you can judge if they share a similar meaning. Like young physicians trained to recognize symptoms, art history students must exercise caution. Just as chest pains could mean a heart attack or indigestion, an image of a man with wide open eyes and folded hands could mean either terror or amazement.

Regardless of how Mr. Frankel came to his judgment of likeness, I think his interpretation is faulty. What we see in Noble’s photograph is not the “shock, pain and horror” found in associated works by Goya, Munch, Bacon, et al. What we see is simply surprise: a son caught pinching money from his father’s wallet; a student spotted cheating on an exam; or a husband discovered by his wife in the arms of another woman. Note the red-eye effect of the camera flash, calling to mind a succession of movie gumshoes (Philip Marlowe in The Big Sleep or Jake Gittes in Chinatown) employed by suspicious wives, husbands or fathers to catch and photograph their cheating spouses or errant daughters.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested (though not charged) on suspicion of selling commercial secrets to Jeffrey Epstein (“misconduct in public office). He was spotted and photographed in a police car, returning from Aylsham (a pretty and prosperous village) after being booked, fingerprinted, DNA swabbed, and interrogated. His mug-shot was taken. Andrew had been Prince, Duke of York, and the Queen’s favorite. She appointed him roving, trade ambassador — “Air-Miles Andy”, the tabloids called him. Now he’s just another punter. That’s why he looked so surprised in the photograph.

“Happy Jew Year”

The Epstein Library, as it’s innocuously titled on the U.S. Department of Justice website, is a miracle of simplicity. Just put in your search term and you’re off to the races. “Trump” has 5,240 results and “Andrew” 18,818. (Some of Trump’s have been excised.) It’s unclear if people with most hits are most implicated in Epstein’s criminality. Chomsky, distressingly, has a whopping 6,322 results, though the vast majority are duplicative or innocuous.

To test the site’s functionality, I decided to search the term “Jew”.  Epstein was Jewish, and so am I. And so were many of Epstein’s friends, patrons, beneficiaries and confidants. They included intellectuals like Chomsky, Larry Summers, Steven Pinker, and the late Stephen Jay Gould. Among his Jewish friends from the financial world were Les Wexner, Leon Black, Ronald Perelman, and Ronald Lauder.

Did the emails and letters reveal some shocking, Jewish penchant for pedophilia? Was there anything Jewish at all, I wanted to know, about Epstein’s gatherings in New York, Paris, Santa Fe or the U.S. Virgin Islands? Did he and his distinguished guests come together for Shabbat dinners, to celebrate Rosh Hashanah or read the Haggadah at Passover? Did they study Yiddish language or literature, read the great Jewish sages, Maimonides and Hillel? Did they form Marx and Freud, or perhaps Saul Bellow and Philip Roth reading groups?  Roth published in 1958, a comic short story called “Epstein” about the Jewish owner of the Epstein Paper Bag Company who contracts syphilis and shames his wife and family. That would have been a good subject for dinner-table discussion.

But no. There was nothing particularly Jewish in the 3,551 search results for the word “Jew.” What there was instead was innumerable news digests supporting the latest Israeli atrocity against Palestinians. There was also a lot of badinage between Epstein, his staff and a few friends (most but not all Jewish) containing every imaginable anti-Semitic cliché or canard. Cheap Jews?  Check. Jewish clannishness? Check. Jews as shadowy, financial puppeteers? Check. Jewish intellectual superiority? Check. Jewish racism? Check.  Here are a few examples:

Roger Schank, a pioneering AI researcher and university professor (now deceased), wrote to Epstein:

“You want genius shrvarters? I didn’t promise that, nor could I have.”  [Schank means schvartzes – a derogatory Yiddish term for Black people.]

Epstein later wrote back:

“This is the way the jew [sic] make[s] money and made a fortune in the past ten years, selling short the shipping futures, let the goyim deal in the real world.” [Goyim is a mildly derogatory term for non-Jews.]

Then there is this cheery message, from name redacted to Epstein:

“Saw Madonna on the Jew Larry King show, talking about ‘Qaballah.’ Hollywitz types, especially gentiles, who take ‘Qaballah’ lessons from some Rabbi huckster are a funny joke. Larry didn’t look amused [… ] Not that he gives a damn about any spirituality including kike spirituality.”

German business consultant David Stern, friend of Epstein and partner with former Prince Andrew, wrote about his upcoming plan to come to NYC:

“Flights are quite full so the sooner you OK our Monday meeting in NYC, the cheaper for me…. Jew is jew…. Thank you !! “

Venture capitalist and (Gentile) publicist Masha Drakova wrote to Epstein in 2017, flattering his intelligence and penchant for eugenics:

“The more Jew you are the smarter. You said you’re 98% Jew. You’re very smart. My ex-boss is 78% Jew. He is super smart, less smart than you are. I have a close friend/business partner who is 99.3% Jew. He is crazily smart. We take all Jewish people… ask them to do 23&me test. Do event for everyone who is 98% Jew.”

Epstein had plans to use his Zorro Ranch near Santa Fe as a place to inseminate young women and create a colony of mini-Epstein geniuses. Was he inspired by The Boys from Brazil, the 1978 film (from the Ira Levin novel) about a plot to create clones of Hitler?

In January 2013, comedian Alan Slayton wished Epstein “Happy Jew Year.” (The Jewish New Year falls months earlier, during the two-day holiday of Rosh Hashanah.)

And there’s this sexual insider joke, sender’s name redacted:

“I’m a Jew..do you remember? :))) No sharing…hahaha”.

Peggy Siegel (entertainment publicist) writes to Epstein about a planned party, probably in New York:

“Is it going to be 100% Jew night? Even Perelman on Yum Yum has some goyum [sic].”

Perelman is the billionaire banker and investor. “Yum Yum” is code for Epstein’s Caribbean Island.

And finally, Epstein sends the following note to an unknown recipient – possibly just himself. I leave his bad typing intact and hatred unfiltered:

“1 wrinkly old hag, just because she is ri=h she thinks she can talk down to everyone. . five=towns neauveau. a real piece of shit. dumb as a ro=k. everone knows her husmbad insfunkcig young russians e=eryone except her. nasty cunt has some use service entra=ce..”

This represents pathological insecurity. An older woman, from the wealthy, mostly Jewish, “Five Towns” area on the south shore of Long Island, New York, has condescend to Epstein! Though a college drop-out, he counts among his friends the best and the brightest in the sciences, arts, politics and business. She’s a “nasty c—t,” he says, and deploys a double entendre: “Service entrance” is slang for anal sex.

There’s no Jewish conspiracy in these messages. In fact, there’s nothing Jewish at all in them. Vulgarity has no nation. Misogyny knows no religion.

The Massacre of the Innocents

On Dec. 10, 2010, Epstein’s assistant Sarah [last name redacted], wrote on her boss’s behalf to James [last name redacted] of Ocean’s Bridge Art, inquiring about the purchase of a copy of Cornelis Cornelisz Van Haarlem’s Massacre of the Innocents (1591). Epstein was evidently prompted to buy the copy after receiving a letter, two weeks before, inquiring if he could assist a “notable collector” sell paintings by Rubens and Caravaggio. The writer [name redacted] said that an earlier Rubens sale of a Massacre of the Innocents to the National Gallery of Canada in Ontario, fetched more than $40 million.

James was apparently surprised by Sarah’s request:

“Could you let me know what the painting is to be used for, and whether it is
ultimately to be framed or mounted?… If I have a clearer idea of the intended use, I may be able to make recommendations on the size of the painting and canvas.”

“Thank you for your reply!” Sarah enthused: “This painting will be framed for use in a private residence…. could you…give me a quote on both the 12 ft. size and the 9 ft. size?”

James answers: “These are 100% oil painted, in the traditional way…. 9 feet by 9 feet 5 inches – $1999. 12 feet wide by 12 feet 6 2/3 inches $3479.”

Seeking more particulars, Sarah writes: “Hi….I’m interested in getting the 9 ft x 9ft 5inch painting and am wondering if you have ever painted this particular painting before?…”

James replies:

“We haven’t done this particular painting since 2005….Please note that our clients have included museums, interior designers, galleries and over 10,000 individual art lovers. Our art work [sic] can be found in various hotels and restaurants, and even in the Venetian Hotel and Casino (Canaletto paintings of Venice, naturally enough…!)”

 “Great!” Sarah answers. “Thank you. We would like to proceed with ordering the 9ft x 9 ft 5 in size of Massacre of the Innocents 1591.”

A few months later, Sarah writes to her associate Rich:

“Jeffrey is asking if you can Fedex the painting he had made of the Massacre of the Innocents to the ranch. It’s the large 9’x9′ canvas that we had rolled out for him to see in the entry way where they are killing babies. He wants to use it on the ranch and is hoping you could Fedex it to arrive by Wednesday?”

Here it is, with the original 1591 work by Cornelis shown below it:

Painted copy of Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem, Massacre of the Innocents, 1591. Ocean’s Bridge Art: Photo: Department of Justice.

Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem, Massacre of the Innocents, 1591. Mauritshuis, The Hague, on extended loan to Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem.

The copy is faithful but lacks the vividness of the original. The musculature of the nude men is lumpy rather than taut, and the terrified expression of the mothers, for example, the one in foreground right, is vitiated. Still, all things considered, Epstein had reason to think his $2,000 was well spent. (The copyists, located in China, and must be paid a pittance for their considerable skills.)

But why did Epstein choose this subject for reproduction and display? That a sex offender – he was convicted just two years earlier of soliciting sex with a minor — would commission a painting of naked and murdered babies is to say the least, surprising. It suggests Epstein was confident that neither police nor probation officers would call on him, and that guests at his ranch would forgive his mordant humor.

And why this version of the Massacre, and not better-known ones by, for example, Peter Brueghel, Peter Paul Rubens, and Nicholas Poussin? Cornelis’ Mannerist picture – there’s another version at the Rijksmuseum – is remarkable for its nudity and exaggerated foreshortening. The buttocks of the man in the left foreground, and the body of the infant below him whose throat has just been cut, are nearly perpendicular to the canvas plane, leading the viewer into pictorial space and projecting the foreshortened bodies into ours. Cornelis constructed a claustrophobic theatre of cruelty – note the way the pictorial space at the rear is narrowed by the arch – where women and children  are controlled, rendered abject, and then killed.

Frans Hogenberg, The Siege of Haarlem and Spanish Executions, c. 1573-75, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

The painter himself was witness to such violence and nearly victim of it. As a child of 10 in 1572, he was abandoned by parents fleeing the siege of Haarlem. That’s when troops of Fernando Alvarez, 3rd Duke of Alva, killed all the citizens of the nearby towns of Zutphen and Naarden. The siege of Haarlem that followed lasted seven months, until the city at last surrendered. Though many residents fled, thousands more were rounded up and executed. Spanish Habsburg forces were finally defeated at Leiden and Alkmaar the next year. The Dutch gained full control of the North Brabant and in 1588 formed a republic.

Cornelis managed his trauma by reliving it in his two monumental canvasses of the Massacre of the Innocents. His maniera – a style pioneered by the Flemish Bartholomeus Spranger a few years before – precisely matched his own psychological needs, his “repetition compulsion” to cite Freud. As time passed and the Dutch Republic consolidated, Cornelis’s recourse to exaggerated expression and eroticized violence diminished. His later portraits and religious paintings are considerably more restrained than his Massacres. Epstein experienced no such maturation; he must have believed he had a kindred spirit in Cornelis.

What about the victims?

We may never learn what abuse occurred at Zorro Ranch near Santa Fe during Epstein’s more than two-decades residence there, or at his homes in Palm Beach, New York or Paris. Some accounts about Zorro emerged during the 2021 sex-trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. One witness, assigned the name “Jane Doe” to protect her privacy, testified that she was 14 when Maxwell coaxed her to Epstein’s Palm Beach home and subsequently Zorro Ranch to perform sexual favors for them both. Annie Farmer said she was 16 when both Maxwell and Epstein abused her at the ranch. (Her age in this case is immaterial since the age of consent in New Mexico is 16.) Another “Jane” alleged in an affidavit that Epstein assaulted her with a “device” during a visit (date uncertain) to Zorro Ranch when she was 17. (Again, it’s the assault not the age that’s important here, as far as the law is concerned.) Virginia Giuffre alleged that former Prince Andrew assaulted her in New York, the Virgin Islands, and in London, at Maxwell’s home in Belgravia. Her age at the time of these alleged assaults is unclear.

Discussion about these acts in the media, among politicians and the public is a holy mess. Anti-trafficking campaigners, feminist advocates, and many others are frustrated and angry that so much attention is focused on Epstein and the other abusers. “What about the victims?” they reasonably ask. It’s not clear how this question is being answered, except by lip service, of which there has been an abundance. Criminal prosecution would appear to be the best response, but this has so far proved challenging. Epstein himself served time in prison, was prosecuted a second time, and committed suicide rather than face the likelihood of another conviction. Maxwell is currently serving a long stretch in a prison (however gilded). Most of the other individuals (all men) accused of sexual assault are now dead. Of those that survive, their accuser is dead. There is vague talk about other abuse survivors in ongoing discussion with federal and state prosecutors, but so far, no charges have been filed and nothing about the cases has appeared in the press.

Adding to the prosecutorial challenge is the five-year statute of limitations for federal sex crimes, excluding those involving minors, below 18 y.o. There are as many variations in state statutes of limitation as there are states, though nearly all have no limitation when the victim is a minor. As a matter of justice, however, that may be the worst possible exception to statutes of limitations. So called “implantation studies” indicate that about 15-20% of subjects can be induced to accept a false memory of trauma, including sexual assault. Adding to that confusion, large majorities of clinical therapists believe that repression of traumatic memories can occur. This despite the fact that there is little scientific evidence for the existence of unconscious repression or successful suppression of traumatic experience. In sum, traumatic experiences aren’t easily forgotten, but they can be created.

Further muddying the waters is the mostly undiscussed question of prostitution. It is illegal almost everywhere in the U.S., though variously defined and prosecuted.  In some places, buyers of sex are targeted, and in others, sellers. In some, minors are exempted from prosecution.  In Maine, adult prostitutes may not be charged, though their Johns can. In Louisiana, convicted prostitutes are put on sex offender registries.

The definition of trafficking differs equally widely according to state, though inducing a person under 18 to have sex falls within that category everywhere. The federal Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, has a similar age limitation. Federal anti-trafficking laws, therefore, don’t protect people over 18. That may be the age of many of the women, according to the DOJ files and anecdotal evidence, transported to Epstein residences. In any case, so far it’s unclear how many of the women used by Epstein and cronies were prostitutes (willingly engaging in sex for money and of legal age) and how many were trafficked.

In U.S., crimes again persons and property are treated as attacks upon the state or nation, not the individual. The plaintiff is always the “People of the State of…”, the “Commonwealth of…”  or simply the “U.S.”. Though the Constitution doesn’t specifically disallow private prosecutions, Supreme Court rulings have clearly affirmed that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another.”  The crimes alleged in the Epstein (et al) cases — rape, sexual assault, trafficking, and the rest — are violations of the common good. The community’s sense of security is violated when any single person is criminally harmed. However, some breaches of the common good may be better addressed in the political than in the legal arena.

The reason Jeffrey Epstein and friends were able to do what they did for so long is that they were immensely rich. Owning multiple expensive homes, airplanes, fleets of cars, and having at your disposal servants, assistants, bodyguards, lawyers, doctors and other professionals, means that you are insulated from the contingencies of life that affect other people. It also means that you have friends everywhere who – for a price or simply the reflected sheen of lucre – will do almost anything for you. Can we really expect anyone employed or supported by a billionaire to blow the whistle on him? And if not a servant, gardener, or accountant, why a policeman or politician? Do we really expect the super-rich – the top 0.1% of the population which possesses 14% of the nation’s wealth – to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us? What about the top 0.00001 of the population (just 19 households) that control 12% of the nation’s wealth? Great disparities of wealth are inimical to justice, and if we really want to end impunity and “support the victims” of sexual and other abuse, we need to tackle inequality. There’s simply no other way.

I felt out of place among the photographers and journalists at Sandringham last week, and a bit ashamed. How ludicrous the whole spectacle seemed, and how exploitative. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested for misconduct in public office – though not yet charged. He’s been stripped of all titles, and even if he avoids prison, his life is ruined. The same is true for Peter Mandelson, former U.K. Ambassador to the U.S., former Business Secretary, former Minister without Portfolio, former member of parliament, former architect of New Labor, and so on. He’s still a life peer, but probably not for long. He may end his days in prison. I don’t have sympathy for him or Andrew, but neither do I feel good picking at their bones.

What I understood at Sandringham but couldn’t convey to my fellow journalists was the following: “You are missing the real story here. It isn’t that Andrew still lives at Sandringham, in however straightened circumstances, but that a private estate of 20,000 acres can still exist in a small country like the U.K. The crime here isn’t that Andrew passed secret, financial information to Jeffrey Epstein, but that he and his family and many others have access to such knowledge all the time and make active use of it to enrich themselves. The real crime is that the likes of Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Ron Perelman, Ronald Lauder, Leon Black and so many others in and out of Epstein’s orbit, make vast amounts of money without producing a single thing of social utility – that they can consume so much and contribute so little to the welfare of their fellow Americans.  The reckoning for Epstein’s circle – if it comes — won’t be in the courtrooms but in the voting booths and in the streets.

Stephen F. Eisenman is emeritus professor at Northwestern University and Honorary Research Fellow at the University of East Anglia. He is the author of a dozen books, the latest of which (with Sue Coe), is titled “The Young Person’s Illustrated Guide to American Fascism,” (OR Books, 2014). He is also co-founder of Anthropocene Alliance. Stephen welcomes comments and replies at s-eisenman@northwestern.edu