The Epstein Network and the Crisis of Western Civilization

We are publishing a transcript of Dr. Anthony Monteiro’s opening remarks from the Saturday Free School’s February 14, 2026 session. The Free School meets every Saturday at 10:30 AM EST, and is streamed live on Facebook and YouTube.

I think it’s unavoidable that we return to the Epstein files, and that we ask the right questions and frame this whole crisis in the right manner. 

I don’t know how many people saw Pam Bondi testifying before a House committee last week. She was acting like something out of a Harry Potter movie—that shrill voice, that attempt to act outraged, and she’s a bad actor. But she functioned in a certain way because there is more to this than she or the ruling elite are prepared to talk about and want to obscure. 

But she’s not the only one. The mainstream media is obscuring this. If this were just about pedophiles and pedophilia, they would have no problem. If this were just about Jeffrey Epstein as we think we know him, there would not be a problem. It is about pedophilia, but only in a very small way. I think in historical time the pedophilia question will be a footnote to a larger question. 

Three million files have been released; we’re told that there are 3 million more and there’s a lot of redactions. But even if we had the 6 million documents and even if everything was unredacted, we still are only looking at the tip of the iceberg because the emails—that’s what they are, emails. You know how emailing is, you don’t say everything. When you’re emailing among friends or texting among friends you don’t say all that you want to say because you don’t have time to write it all out or whatever. These emails only suggest something about more extensive and real conversations between these people. 

But what have we learned thus far? That’s why none of this can be dismissed. Even people more attuned to studying the elites have learned things that few people, if any, knew, or hardly knew.

Even though Epstein is this big question mark, we don’t know who he is, how he came to occupy the position that he did. There was nothing remarkable about him at all. He worked for a short period on Wall Street and was by all accounts an abject failure. He claimed some kind of intellectuality and interest in science and knowledge and all of this but there’s no evidence of it. 

He was, again, not a politician. He was not a diplomat. He was not a “statesman” yet he attracts all of this to himself. He is this magnet. So the conclusion that we have to draw, if even provisional, is that what we are calling Jeffrey Epstein was more than that. 

And so what was in the deep structure, the deep plumbing of what we call Jeffrey Epstein? I heard one commentator say that more recent accountings are that Epstein gave out over a billion dollars in his lifetime. But Jeffrey Epstein was never assessed to be worth more than half a billion dollars. So where did the other money come from? Or where did even the half billion come from? His lifestyle was even excessive for a billionaire, and especially a billionaire in the 2010s and such. 

Jeffrey Epstein is a mystery that has to be solved. However, without solving that mystery, there are certain things that we can already begin to map. And I want to use the word mapping because we are talking about geographies and connections. By geographies I’m not talking about a physical geography and when I say map I’m not talking about the map of a physical territorial geography. 

Mapping the Epstein Network

We’re talking about a method of connecting what would seem to be disparate and unconnected nodes. I want to use the word nodes, because each of the nodes that we know about at this point is very significant.

For example, take Woody Allen. Woody Allen by many accounts is the greatest modern filmmaker, certainly the greatest modern American filmmaker. But Woody Allen in this constellation has to be viewed as a node, a point that has in itself a kind of attractiveness. He attracts, as gravity would have it, others to him. So he is the center of a larger network of filmmakers, propagandists, producers, Hollywood, et cetera. And of course we know the power of Hollywood, the power of imaging, the power of fiction, the power of imagination. 

So if you really want to understand Woody Allen as America’s greatest filmmaker, he is America’s greatest filmmaker because he imagines America, especially white Americans, for themselves, which is a huge power. And of course, we now know Woody Allen is a pedophile, a creep. He took his partner’s adopted daughter—by the way, an Asian, a Korean—which cannot be dismissed because it has a resonance with what Epstein and them were doing in trafficking young women from Eastern and Central Europe, i.e., what they would consider inferior nations. 

I interpret what Allen did with Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter, his adopted daughter; he took her and groomed her from a child to fulfill his sexual depravity, which was a betrayal of the child and a betrayal of Mia Farrow, and then to marry her to make it appear that there was some kind of noble intentions here and he walks away scot-free. The courts in New York exonerated him. I don’t even think he paid anything in damages to anyone. But nonetheless, he is a powerful node in this constellation.

Take for example this guy who was a huge figure in Norway’s politics [Thorbjørn Jagland], including being the head of the Nobel Prize Committee, which gives out the Nobel Peace Prize every year. He gave out and decided pretty much who would get the Nobel Peace Prize. But Norway was seen as this important diplomatic center for the West because Norway, allegedly and actually, never had a military and was, we supposed, a center of a peace ideology. 

Turns out he’s down with Epstein, down with all of the trafficking and young girls. The royal family of Norway! Well, that has to be seen as a node. This guy on the Nobel Prize mechanism, the cultural capital that comes with the capacity to give the Nobel Prize, you know, and all of that political and cultural capital—as the West would call “soft power.” That is a node in Europe. 

This other guy was the head of the European council, I don’t know how powerful it is, but it is a node. Oslo, Norway is a center for peace negotiations—one of the last Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations was called the Oslo Accords: a node. Then you get the founder of Victoria’s Secret, Lex Wexner. Okay. Billionaire. I guess, you know, inventing Victoria’s Secret is not an earth-changing event, but he was rich and he was connected to other Jewish billionaires who didn’t have any ideas and no ideology. But anyway it was a node. 

Then let us take the Silicon Valley billionaires. Let’s start with the most visible—Peter Thiel, the founders of X and Facebook—Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg—that’s a node. Whether Silicon Valley is a node in itself, I don’t know. But let’s say it is. 

Thirty percent of the value of Wall Street is based on Silicon Valley corporations. That is one of the most powerful nodes in the economic trajectory of capitalism now with AI and these data centers and all of that. I guess we would have to draw that node a little bit larger. But then what comes out of that and what it is connected to is one of those mappings of elite corporate power and interconnectedness. 

What banks, what financial institutions, both globally and nationally in the United States? It’s so much when you talk about them and their power. Thirty percent of Wall Street is Silicon Valley, so that’s a node. Then there’s the Wall Street bankers—Barclay’s bank, which is British but nonetheless Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and its CEO. I would say that in many ways there are several nodes that we could say are Wall Street banks, like Chase.

Then there is Noam Chomsky and he is coming off to be a bigger player in all of this than we knew. As a public and cultural figure I would say his node would be even larger than Woody Allen’s. 

Epstein and Scientific Racism 

Then we take the scientific and academic worlds where, in some ways, Epstein had a larger impact than we can imagine. For the moment I’m kind of separating Noam Chomsky from them here. I want to talk about two areas: String theory and theoretical physics, and eugenics. Eugenics is what, at one time, we called scientific racism. 

It is the use of biological evolutionary science to justify racial inequality and to say it is natural and built into the biology and genetics of the human population. These are separate. But what we saw as the node of string theory, let me just start there—the promise of string theory was that it would solve the problem that neither Einstein’s relativity theory or quantum mechanics could solve, that is to unite classical physics with quantum physics, what they called a unified theory of everything. 

If that could have been achieved, it would have established those who achieved this as the “greatest geniuses of all time.” Now you know this “genius hierarchy” is a big part of the Epstein movement. Peter Thiel and the Zuckerbergs and Elon Musk, they are over-consumed with genius because they view themselves as super geniuses. 

String theory was going to establish “finally” the civilizational superiority of the West but, and this is a subtext, the particular genius of Jewish scientists. It was a Jewish project. If it had been successful, it would have established the main people in the vanguard of string theory as having surpassed Einstein. It would have forever connected theoretical physics and this theory of everything to the state of Israel as well as to the American state, both of which are built upon white supremacy. 

This is one of the great paradoxes of modern Jewry. The victims of theories of racial supremacy are today in the forefront of promoting racial supremacy. That’s an important node. Its tentacles and the networks connected to it went into every major American university including Harvard, MIT, Yale, University of California, Berkeley, Stanford—they’re all connected to this.

Then there is the node of biological and scientific racism which was intended in the 21st century, as in the 19th century, to prove that colonialism and slavery were natural and to overthrow them was an aberration. 

I want to connect this to Noam Chomsky, who was a “soft critic” of eugenics, and it comes across in the Epstein files, the emails, where they don’t say everything but they say enough. This evolutionary biology, what we call also social Darwinism, this eugenics project which goes back to the 19th century, especially after the defeat of chattel slavery. 

Thus a new explanation for enslavement or racial subordination was needed. Thus it would come from science and not from moral arguments which would make it “objective.” It reappears with unbelievable force and passion in the 21st century.

So you get this kind of mapping, you get this so-called Jeffrey Epstein in the middle and then these tentacles to these nodes but then these nodes being connected and then if you can envision—let’s just say that’s one concentric circle. But then there are others and others—you know what I’m saying? 

The 21st Century White Supremacist Worldview

There is an expanding connectivity of all of this. It is limitless, which if completely mapped would bring into itself, one way or another, the entire Western white ruling class. 

Now I’m going to make the argument that they were held together ideologically and in worldview. People can say, “When I was on Epstein’s island I didn’t see any young girls.” Like Trump will say, “Well, I never did that.” No, you didn’t have to do that. You did worse because the point was to condemn humanity for a thousand years—the Hitlerian idea of a thousand-year Reich. 

They saw a thousand-year rule of white civilization and white men. That’s what they saw and that’s what held them together. It was a worldview. 

All of this is connected because of an ideological and worldview commonality. And it was based upon the future. And hopefully as we work on this and other others work on this, there will be a mapping of these connections. And this frankly will be a generational research project. 

We will not know it all immediately. We will know a lot but we will not know it all. The question is: will we know enough to completely expose the nature and worldview of the people that make up the Western ruling class? This is Western except for those Indians—and I always ask the question: why are the two centers of string theory, a failed project, the U.S. and India?

The collapse of string theory should affect Indian science. String theory itself affected—and I don’t know how or to what degree—the Indian scientific community. The two centers of string theory are the United States and India. Now what I asked myself: what y’all doing in this? Is this a strategy for white approval or for the Indian elite scientists to become white in substance if not in physicality? You know, so the question is what y’all doing here? But they were there. So what has happened to the Indian string theorists? Are they in a mental breakdown? 

But nonetheless, let me make my point. I think we learn from the standpoint of knowledge and worldview and I think that is the key thing. What bound all these different nodes together and their extension in other concentric circles? What bound all of this together? And it was not pedophilia. Although they are morally depraved, all of them, it was not pedophilia. 

It was a worldview concerning a thousand-year Reich—a thousand years of Western rule. Paradox and irony. Jeffrey Epstein, a Jew, is at the head, well—allegedly—of a project that has its origins in Nazi Germany. Many Jews, how many, I can’t say, some decades ago came to terms with the European Jewish Holocaust and said, “Let’s now get on with what we do. Hitler was wrong, but not all of his ideas.” The victims of eugenic theory now are promoting eugenic theory. The victims of a genocide are now carrying the same thing out in public. If ever there was a case that perhaps the Jews are ethnically so as defined by themselves, but they are not religiously so. They’re without morality, without religion. But the Jewish people are going to have to confront this. What have they become? 

But let us take two nodes on this mapping—Noam Chomsky and eugenics theory. We don’t have to go into a lot of, you know, who Noam Chomsky was, how he was branded, what he was made out to be. We know just from the files that have been released—that’s just the tip of the iceberg—that he had a warm, friendly, and respectful relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the individual. 

I just want to make it clear again that the relationship with Epstein was deeper than just between two Jewish men because it was the connecting of two nodes, of two networks. Of course, Jeffrey Epstein is a super node to whom all of these networks connect. But the connection of Noam Chomsky to Jeffrey Epstein—some people can make the argument—well, it was ethnicity and Jewish ethnicity. I wouldn’t argue against that. 

There was something about Jewish solidarity of Epstein, Noam Chomsky, and Woody Allen. One—Noam Chomsky claiming the moral high ground on all issues: “I am a critic of the excesses of Israel. I’m a critic of U.S. imperialism and the neocons.” He stands out as this moral force and thus he attracts thousands and thousands of people to himself because they believe they could trust him. And then he had this huge academic reputation, not unwarranted—perhaps not as big as we sometimes believe—but not unwarranted. 

And thus he abandons that to become a “moral force” in the struggle against imperialism. But then he is comfortable with two people who have records of pedophilia. Very comfortable. Now that’s a big question. And how do you, the moral icon, overlook Woody Allen? That’s a hard thing to do. By the time he is interacting or connecting with Epstein, Epstein had already been convicted and served time for trafficking in young girls. And that was only the tip of the iceberg. He got a slap on the wrist. It was no real trial. And he only slept in the jail and he did his business during the day. So he walked around. I mean it was nothing. And then [Chomsky] was advising Epstein on how to restore his public image.

Okay. Well, then we learn something else, only in a brief email. Epstein was overly consumed with eugenics, the theory of racial supremacy, and the biological proof that racial supremacy is not just an ideology; it is, in fact, scientifically grounded. Epstein is overly consumed by this and he reaches out to Noam Chomsky—at least in this one email. There’s probably so much more. They had conversations about it. He was asking Chomsky over and over again, I’m certain: “What do you think of the genetic basis of racial inequality?”

And it’s always Black people. Now, let’s keep this 100 because that is the foundation of the white supremacist social system. Black people are racially inferior. They have no rights to make a claim on the state in terms of equality or make a claim on the law in terms of equality. Any claim they make is illegitimate and special pleading because “we know” that they are biologically and genetically inferior. And now we have “genetic tests” and research that shows that, first of all, intelligence is genetically produced, that we do not all start out at the same level. Some are genetically built to be superior, others inferior. And so you have all of this research. 

At one point in the 80s or 90s, they came out with a book, The Bell Curve, which showed that in any normal distribution of intelligence, Black folk were on the downside. Black folk, our normal curve is not the same as white folk. And so the distribution of intelligence among Black people is always far lower than among white people, which is a way of saying that Black people are genetically abnormal, which you can imagine has consequences for education policy and funding, has consequences for imprisonment, has consequences for employment. It has consequences for everything that affects the lives of Black people. 

This research program began almost right after the Civil Rights Movement. Is that just a consequence? I don’t think so.

Now, Noam Chomsky, remember we’ve said here time and again, he was quite open when he states on so many occasions: “I don’t like Martin Luther King’s voice.” Now, I took it to be just like he said it. He didn’t like Martin Luther King’s voice, you know, and that would be a hard sell. When you talk about voicing and oratory skill, he’s one of the greatest of the modern time or all time. Then I had to think, is it the voice or what King stood for? And ultimately, it has to be what King stood for. 

When you connect [Chomsky’s] statement about how he can’t stand to hear Martin Luther King’s voice to his banter in an email with Jeffrey Epstein about eugenics, it becomes clear. When Jeffrey Epstein asked him his question about racial inferiority, Noam Chomsky’s response is not: This is white supremacist, this is anti-human, this is what led to Hitler’s race policy which led to the 6 million Jews being killed. None of that. 

What Jeffrey Epstein asks is could we genetically engineer inferior races to come close to the superior races? And what Chomsky says in response is, “Well it wouldn’t be practical if you could do it, even if it were viable, it’s not practical.” That’s all he said. You don’t believe Black people are equal to white people. You believe what many white people and many Jews believe— that the Civil Rights Movement was Black people making claims that were unjustified and illegitimate. And the nation out of “the goodness of its heart,” acceded to those demands for racial equality. But in fact, Black people never deserved any measure of equality.

Now, there’s something else that connects to the Jews, which was very, very unsettling at the time, because in the 1970s, the debate over policy that would implement racial equality—for example, admission to universities where we couldn’t go. Back in my time, if you had three Black people going to Harvard, that was—oh God. We all went to historically Black colleges and universities. No bad thing. A great thing, in fact, but we could not go to white universities. You know, I’m not talking about deep down south, the University of Mississippi; I’m talking about Harvard, University of Pennsylvania— the foundation of liberal, bourgeois thought. So, on the same grounds we were excluded from jobs, for example. 

You take a city like Philadelphia. You go to a construction site, you could see Black men down in a ditch digging with shovels, digging the dirt out, and a white man standing over them. I remember as a little kid, I’m saying, “why are all the Black men down in the hole digging and there’s always a white man standing over them”? 

We were excluded based on the fact that we were supposedly not intelligent enough to get into the carpenters union, the electrical workers union, the plumbers union, and all of what they call the “skilled trades.” So they were all white, but they were beneficiaries of federal funds—building roads, building certain buildings. You know, so much of construction is federal funding. We couldn’t get in there until they came up with a program known as the Philadelphia program, whereby on any federal construction site there had to be so-many Black workers and so-many Blacks in apprenticeship programs. 

Admission to college, to white universities—and some of it was voluntary—where you get a Harvard or Ivy League to clean up their reputation. So many Blacks had to be admitted each year into the freshman class. Okay? We call this affirmative action, and not just affirmative action in words, but affirmative action with quotas. So you think, well, what’s wrong with this? Isn’t this the normal flow and trajectory of the Civil Rights Movement? Equality, and you make it possible for people to rise up and have equal education, get jobs and so on. Okay, the normal opposition was felt, let us say, from Nixon. But then here come the Jewish organizations. Now dig the bad faith and it was like a stab in the heart to Black people: “We are against affirmative action with quotas because it reminds us of the Nazi use of quotas under Hitler Germany.”

In other words, to flip it completely, the most bad faith, disingenuous, lying argument: to equate the lifting of a people out of discrimination with what Hitler was doing to exclude Jews and other minorities in Germany. This was a red line that was drawn, where the Jewish organizations had said that “we no longer support civil rights”. Even though they would propagandize—“Oh, Jewish lawyers were all over the civil rights movement. But then that was the red line”. We no longer support the Black struggle for equality. But we will buy every Black politician that’s prepared to be bought. 

We will pay for every Black “civil rights” organization that doesn’t really want to fight for civil rights. We will be a hidden hand in terms of finance and other things behind so much that happens in Black life. We’ll choose the next generation of leaders. We will define, through our control of entertainment and all of that, what Black music is. And by defining what Black music is, we will define what Blackness is and what image they have through the Hollywood connections and all of this.

Noam Chomsky stands on the side of the opponents and enemies of Black freedom. You could listen to all of his lectures over the last 25 or 30 years. He can talk about El Salvador. He can talk about Nicaragua. He can talk about Iran, maybe on occasion Palestine, but one thing you never hear him talk about is Black freedom, because he did not believe we could be free and equal. He did not believe it. And he was arrogant. He was belligerent. 

You could see it in his body language. You could see it if you asked him. It was like, Why are you disturbing my intellect with such a pedestrian and low question as Black people? Don’t you all realize that Black civil rights is a fake thing? Okay, this is why eugenics was not a disturbing thing for him. What I read in that email is that Noam Chomsky was saying to Epstein, “It is still a project to be researched.” 

I just want to end on this. They have to contain, to the extent that they can, these files. That’s why Pam Bondi came and she made a complete fool of herself. She was already a fool. She looks like the monster that she is. And then on top of it to behave as she did, you know, she makes real what Gramsci said of the interregnum—monsters will emerge. And she’s a cold-blooded monster but she had to disrupt; that’s what she went there to do and she had to say to those who are the allies of the Trump administration, We can’t take this any further, we can’t redact, we can’t allow these other 3 million documents to get out. 

Now the next question is: why? I think because the state is so fragile—that is, the Western state is so fragile—that anything could tip it over. You know, it’s one of those things where you get these long processes in history where kind of the regime dies by a thousand cuts. Events happen and they just collapse. That was the case with the dynasty in China. That was the case with the czarist rule in Russia. They collapsed. The czar left. The last emperor of China left. That was a collapse. We’re in one of those situations. Will it be death by a thousand cuts? Because I think the inevitability of death of the regime in this country is inevitable. But how it will go out and what role the people will play is very important. 

Everything that people talk about when they talk about Epstein is how he was a pedophile who committed suicide in jail. But now a lot of bourgeois commentators in the mainstream are now not saying he committed suicide but that he died in prison, which is a turn. 

Now some people will say he is not even dead, but however you think about it—whether he’s alive or dead or committed suicide or was murdered—the question remains—who was Epstein? How did this unremarkable man rise to the level of ultimate power in the Western world? 

Why was everybody from the royal family of England to the royal family of Norway to prime ministers, the head of the European Union, NATO, and other things, as well as the greatest intellectual and cultural icons of the United States, the greatest financial figures in the United States—why were they all in an orbit of Epstein? Could one unremarkable man accumulate all of this power? I don’t think so. So, until we get a better sense of who Epstein is, we will not be able to fully understand what linked all of these nodes. 

But we can say that a common worldview is now being revealed. And that common worldview is white supremacy. And this is larger than a capitalist civilization. This is a white supremacist civilization. It is deeper. It is deeper than previously thought. We are in, I would say, finally a new stage. And finally, if this thing is to ever be solved, the people are going to have to act. Already we are aware that there are all kinds of distractions to keep the people from thinking deeply about this crisis. “Oh, that’s nothing new. Oh, we always knew that. Oh, why are you focusing on that?” I think people who talk like that are either big dummies or connected to the deep state. 

No, nobody knew all of this, even with these limited files that are being released. So that whole discussion—“nothing means nothing.” The only thing that “means something” is a violent upsurge of the people and we take it by armed struggle and all that kind of thing. 

This has to marinate. This has to play itself out. It cannot be pre-emptively ended. It must be discussed, but it must be discussed far more intelligently than it is. And at the end of the day, I think that link, that thing that links them all, is the belief in white supremacy and the willingness to try to invent a new world where white supremacy will rule for a thousand years. 

They were seeking scientific, quote unquote, “justifications for white supremacy.” It is bigger than AI. AI was but a mechanism for the implementation of white supremacy. AI is just a part of the project. It is not the project itself.