A writer who uses the moniker Jane Rose raises a question that should be answered. First, I will publish Jane Rose’s comment, then I will give my answer.
Her comment originally appeared on the op-ed article Were Wexner and Epstein Working Together to Blackmail for a Good Cause?
By Jane Rose
Once again, Mr. Parlato, you have given a forum on your blog for a conspiracy theorist to publish the most wild, false, unsubstantiated and anti-Semitic allegations.
Where is even a shred of evidence cited by this author? Given your sole editorial discretion to print or not print any article on your blog, what is your responsibility in giving this kind of calumny a public airing? The answer is, the buck stops with you, so shame on you. You bear sole responsibility.
As to the specific allegations, this is classic guilt by association: because Mr. Wexner apparently had a close friendship and business relationship with Mr. Epstein, he must, therefore, be /blackmailing politicians. What? That’s a big leap.
Cite even one piece of evidence. You can’t. And the author doesn’t. The article is also guilty of raising the classic anti-Semitic trope of a Jewish cabal a la the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, the fictional anti-Semitic publication of the 1920s which falsely purported that wealthy Jews were engaging in a secret, evil conspiracy or plot to manipulate world events. Tsk Tsk.
The world saw where that kind of hatred led less than 20 years later with Hitler.
The reason that the United States of America supports Israel is that Israel is the ONLY democracy in the mid-east and a staunch and strategic ally of the United States. It doesn’t take any more analysis than that to explain the United States’ support for Israel. The relationship between the two countries is not based on “blackmail” as this author purports.
Mr. Parlato, for all the good work you have done in exposing the charlatan Keith Raniere, you, unfortunately, continue to repeatedly give a forum to anti-Semites. You have repeatedly maligned the deceased Edgar Bronfman (Clare’s father) who was the ONLY person with a high profile who 15 years ago very publicly and boldly stated about NXIVM “I think it is a cult’.
And for that statement, he paid a high price: It gave fodder for Raniere to turn his daughters against him, to the degree of one daughter allegedly spying on him by spyware. Despite his integrity in speaking out, you have allowed all kinds of conspiracy theories to be published on your blog about Mr. Bronfman, including one author who accused him of “criminal activities” because his father was apparently a bootlegger.
P.S. Edgar Bronfman was four years old when Prohibition ended.
Do you suppose that at the age of three or 4, he was running a “criminal enterprise”? The same author implied that the Bronfmans and another wealthy Jewish family, the Rothchilds, founded a secret group, the “Illuminati” that engaged in “human sacrifice.”
Mr. Bronfman can not defend himself from these wild and false accusations from the grave. Again, shame on you.
What is your motivation in publishing this kind of material? Is it just for more ”clicks”? Or, do you agree with the authors? What are your own feelings towards people of the Jewish faith? Are you a “hater”? Are you an anti-Semite? If not, why flame the fans of hate? One must wonder. What say you, Mr. Parlato??
Here is my response to Jane Rose:
An opinion editorial, Were Wexner and Epstein Working Together to Blackmail for a Good Cause?, suggests that Wexner “might” be a member of the “mega-group – a group of wealthy Jewish-American businessmen who strongly supported Israeli causes and lobbied American politicians to do the same.”
The author admits this a “conspiracy theory” – dating back to the 1990s.
The author posits that, in light of the Epstein scandal and Wexner’s strange involvement with the noted perv, that the 90s conspiracy theory might have some basis in truth. The author points out – and I will reiterate – it was stated in an opinion piece – that the peculiar relationship between Wexner and Epstein might be explained by something other than the current and widely assumed conspiracy theory that Epstein was blackmailing Wexner because he had evidence of statutory rape, etc., possibly set up by Epstein.
The author suggests it is possible that instead of Epstein blackmailing Wexner, the two men might be working in tandem, blackmailing others, possibly in support of some deep-state organized Israeli-based causes.
Keep in mind that it has been widely suggested on other websites that Epstein might be an Israeli intelligence agent who used statutory rape blackmail as part of his bag of tricks, which was handy since he himself seems to favor statutory rape [or sexual contact] with girls under the age of consent for his personal entertainment.
The author also says Wexner isn’t senile, as some have suggested, as the reason for his seemingly extraordinary financial relationship with Epstein.
The author asks for a continuing investigating into Wexner’s involvement with Epstein. And concluded “Let’s see if those “conspiracy theory” folks were right back in the 1990’s”.
The reason I published the opinion piece is that he does not say the “conspiracy theory” is true, he merely says let’s investigate.
Compared to the potential “calumny” already heaped on Wexner by the NY Times and other media, I cannot agree that “giving this kind of calumny a public airing” is necessarily wrong.
I also do not see where the author mentions anything about, “the classic anti-Semitic trope of a Jewish cabal a la the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, the fictional anti-Semitic publication of the 1920s which falsely purported that wealthy Jews were engaging in a secret, evil conspiracy or plot to manipulate world events.”
I think that is a bit of a reach on your part, Jane Rose, although that is a well-known conspiracy theory. I have never supported this conspiracy, but I have noted that Raniere has used this theory to deflect from his swindling of the Bronfman sisters and other dupes he was cheating.
I do agree in large part with your statement that, “The reason that the United States of America supports Israel is that Israel is the ONLY democracy in the Mideast and a staunch and strategic ally of the United States.”
I do not believe the author ever said the “relationship between the two countries is based on ‘blackmail'” Nor do I believe that myself.
I fully, 100 percent endorse the USA’s support and strong alliance with Israel because it is the one bastion of freedom in a largely tyrannical region. While I appreciate the beauties of Islam, it’s lack of separation of religion and government, wherever it seems to thrive, and hold a majority of the people in a given country, makes it problematic for lovers of human freedom.
It is a shame that the Koran has been so widely misused. But this has been the case with fanatics of other religions too. What makes Islam unique is that in every nation where it holds the majority, the leaders wish to impose their view of the religion and their desired rules on the populace without regard to human freedom by the use of force. Not unlike the worst of communist countries.
In my opinion, Israel has the complete right to exist and thrive and must exist as a strong and independent nation amid the numerous anti-freedom Muslim nations and despite the fact that its all of it enemies – surrounding it – some of whom we have made rich through our dependence on their oil – would gladly seek to destroy it and eliminate Israel in as ruthless a manner as Hitler did to all the Jews in his path 90 years ago.
The desire to destroy Israel is a threat to humanity.
I also feel that if we lost the contributions made to the world by Jews, the world would be immeasurably poorer. If I had to guess which race or tribe or religion on earth has enriched the world all out of proportion to their numbers, I would name the Jews.
However, that does not mean that there never can be a Jew that ever did anything wrong.
I disagree completely with you that because I criticize the Bronfmans or their family’s original source of money, that I am an anti-Semite. You also falsely write that I have “repeatedly maligned the deceased Edgar Bronfman.” I would like you to show me an instance of that.
I have not, as I recall, ever maligned Edgar Bronfman Sr. In fact, I am very sorry that he went to his grave feeling the pain and suffering and perhaps the prescience of their peril – that his evil, stupid daughters caused him.
However, I stand by my earlier statements, that the original Bronfman family fortune – created by Sam Bronfman [not Edgar] – was based on bootlegging and criminal activities, not excluding murder and most likely the sale and/or importation of drugs. [I do not think bootlegging in and of itself is criminal. What was a crime – against human dignity and freedom – was the making of alcohol, a beverage enjoyed by humanity for untold thousands of years, a crime in this so-called land of the free. It thankfully had to be repealed by the jury in this country – as a thousand juries nullified the law by refusing to convict people who sold or used alcohol.]
However, I don’t think calling old Sam Bronfman a bootlegger or even a criminal is anti-Semitic.
I believe it is fair to say the Kennedy family fortune was based on Joseph Kennedy’s similar activities – bootlegging and true crimes – though I don’t blame Jack Kennedy and I don’t think it is anti-Catholic to say it.
Finally, you ask, “What are your own feelings towards people of the Jewish faith? Are you a ‘hater’? Are you an anti-Semite?”
No, Jane Rose, I am not. Merely allowing an author to suggest an alternative theory of alliance between the odious Jeffrey Epstein and the uber-wealthy Leslie Wexner – or suggesting that the origins of the Bronfman fortune were rooted in crime – does not mean I am anti -Semitic.
Is it possible that you are overly sensitive or are you trying to make an issue where there is none?*