“`html
Epstein scandal and the exposure of his enormous network have struck Norway hard, the hardest among the countries in Europe so far, it was stated in NRK’s main broadcast when Børge Brende put on the blue overalls and stepped down as head of the World Economic Forum (WEF) after eight years as chief executive.

Well. My question must be: Is that so surprising? And: Who will be the next to fall?

Everyone who matters in the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (UD) and its powerful shadow circles, including our entire bloated aid apparatus, is now trembling in their trousers while awaiting new so-called revelations about sullied expenditure and people who maintained more or less close contact with Epstein and his most peculiar, far-reaching network.

An enigma

That Økokrim is deeply involved in the part of the case concerning Terje Rød-Larsen and Mona Juul, and reasonably Thorbjørn Jagland, lies in the nature of the case, as the suspicions concern corruption.

But it appears that less is required to be knocked over and lose one’s career than that sums of money change hands for other, less tangible favours in return.

A dinner with various other guests present, a few emails, text messages and who knows what, seems to be sufficient and evidently impermissible – just ask Børge Brende. Or perhaps there was more, Børge?

But why did this deceased slimy eel of a human being, Jeffrey Epstein, attract the boys’ club (and the ladies) in forward positions and above all the political rich and predators among them, as if he were a magnet; a shining star in the darkness to which everyone in this segment felt drawn? That is to me an enigma.

Concealed in mist

After all, he was convicted of abuse in 2008, and the conviction was no secret. It was after this that he truly built himself up, until 2019 when the grave allegations were presented and he not long afterwards died in prison under unclear circumstances. “Suicide,” it was said. “Murdered,” asserts the highly speculative torrent of rumours.

There are many questions and decisive details in this highly bizarre and almost incomprehensible case to which we shall never receive answers (in that respect it is, undeservedly enough, beginning to resemble the many unresolved circumstances surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy). Questions such as: Who helped Epstein to build himself up? Was he on the payroll of an intelligence service? Or perhaps several?

What does the part of the Epstein papers that has not yet been released conceal, and what has been censored? Why all the censorship, there are strikingly many and lengthy redactions in the material that has been made public… etc.

And how did Epstein die? Did he commit suicide in prison – or was he put to death in order to avoid the trial of the century with extreme power at stake and human reckonings one can scarcely imagine – on the open stage?

Be critical

One is almost tempted to say: Just drop the whole thing. If someone comes to you and acts as a “good source” in the case, that person is almost certainly after something that smells foul. How does one verify anything whatsoever in a case such as this, where the best sources tremble like aspen leaves in fear of having their heads cut off?

No indeed, I do not mean that we should cease to write and to seek something approaching the truth, in cases thoroughly shrouded in mist such as this. Only to be exceedingly critical.