The Problematic Handmaid's Tale
The author's connection to THAT Ghislaine Maxwell and the book's use to divide us
Trying to divide Americans through mass propaganda.
The Supreme Court leak mobilized thousands of activists on both sides of the debate. Over the last several years, the abortion debate became intertwined with gender politics, culminating in the left-wing activism since the Women's March. Homages and references to The Handmaid’s Tale have become features of modern politics since the show’s launch. Whether the events surrounding the Kavanaugh hearing or the recent Supreme Court leaks, many are dressing up to protest. While constant references to fictional television and movies in political debates are pained, it’s necessary to explore the author of The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood.
Margaret Atwood is an accomplished Canadian fiction writer. Her biography is substantial, and her accomplishments are even more so, so I suggest you look at her Wikipedia page. Atwood objectively is one of the most accomplished living writers I can think of, regardless of my thoughts on The Handmaid’s Tale. However, most interestingly is the specter of Ghislaine Maxwell.
Ghislaine Maxwell is a convicted sex offender and a British former socialite. She’s deceased Jeffrey Epstein’s cohort in the infamous child sex trafficking ring. Now to rip off the band-aid and speculate on the obvious: the Epstein-Maxwell sex trafficking ring was a blackmail ring and an intelligence-gathering activity. The exploitation of women and children had an end for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Ghislaine Maxwell herself is the daughter of British MP Robert Maxwell. Robert Maxwell was accused of being a foreign agent spying on Britain for Israeli Mossad and Soviet KGB. Ghislaine Maxwell probably recruited Jeffrey Epstein, realizing he’s an intelligent, narcissistic, sociopathic man.
As Robert Maxwell in his time surrounded himself with power players and influencers, so too did Ghislaine (as did Epstein). Ghislaine Maxwell and others founded the TerraMar organizations, shell organizations that funded Maxwell’s lifestyle. The mission of TerraMar was focused on the oceans, giving enormous latitude to maneuver for Maxwell. These shells also provided a reason for powerful or influential people to interact with her under normal-looking circumstances. I wasn’t surprised initially when I found the (hopefully loose) connection between Ghislaine Maxwell and Margaret Atwood. However, when I dug further, I became fascinated.
On May 30, 2014, Atwood tweeted out an article by Maxwell written like a plausible sci-fi in style somewhat similar to Atwood’s. Hocking TerraMar is very suspicious. The article was also featured in a series of articles on climate change that included an essay by Atwood. In the article, a passage I found interesting:
“A heating planet was leading to other problems that I had hitherto chosen to ignore. In 2015, when scientists estimated that more than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 virus particles existed in the world’s seas, they outnumbered all cellular life forms by roughly a factor of 10. While everyone looked to China or India, the most grossly overpopulated areas of the world, for the next deadly virus to emerge, no one thought it would come from the heating ocean. The World Health Organization announced the discovery of a new deadly virus in 2029, just two years ago.”
Jeffrey Epstein funded Harvard University’s Evolutionary Dynamics lab, at the time headed by Martin A. Nowak, who was forced aside because of the Epstein connection. It is illegal for a convicted felon to fund biomedical research in the United States. In a James Bond-like plot twist, one of the areas this lab studied was the evolution of viruses. A (healthy) skeptical mind would scoff at this as a mere coincidence. Remember that not only was Ghislaine involved in Epstein’s activities, but she was also undoubtedly well aware of his research spending. Ghislaine wrote this piece as a future fiction piece, designed for plausibility.
Subscribe for more in-your-face deep dives
There are a few other parallels with writings by Atwood and research by Epstein that are too esoteric to explore for the purpose of this essay. Strange things like Atwood’s characters debating the morality of sex robots for pedophiles and Jeffrey Epstein funding (sex?) robot research become too far in the weeds. Suffice to say, some of this may be coincidences between Atwood’s dystopian novels and Epstein’s evil.
While the connection is admittedly loose, a closer look at the Epstein/Maxwell financing yields interesting questions. Jeffrey Epstein funded several independent scientists and even YouTubers. Did Maxwell convince Atwood to assist her in inculcating herself into society? What would Atwood benefit from Maxwell’s friendship? Only Atwood and Maxwell could tell us. Atwood’s account was one of the few on Twitter to interact with Maxwell. Given Atwood's tendency to attack the United States, it doesn’t take much to be a pawn in Maxwell’s schemes either.
Margaret Atwood is unusual in that some could describe her as a feminist Canadian ultranationalist. She was a leading skeptic of relations with the United States from the 1960s to some time into the 1990s, though never publicly changing her stance. She opposed the free-trade discussion with the United States in the late 1980s. While I am a skeptic, it’s crucial for context in the broader picture. Canada is a large country but fundamentally based on resource extraction. Where would they export goods if it wasn’t exporting to the United States? Combining with her environmentalism, she is a useful tool for the likes of Ghislaine Maxwell.
Atwood is useful for someone like Ghislaine. Remember, TerraMar provides cover and justification for access to some of the world’s most influential people. Wrapping herself with causes such as environmentalism and associating with famous feminists like Margaret Atwood gives Ghislaine protection. Ghislaine operated in plain sight of other socialites, appealing to vanity, causes, and social customs of high society and using those as cover. In addition to being a powerful influencer and providing social credibility for Maxwell, Atwood’s own activism provides cover for Ghislaine.
While critical of the 2022 Trucker Protest in Canada, Margaret Atwood backed a Quebec separatist party in 2008. It’s okay to be against the Ottawa government as long as it adheres to her mores. The activism and incoherence of stances, combined with the militant feminism of her dystopian novels, is a perfect tool for information warfare against the United States and sowing disunity with Canada.
To understand this point, you need to understand the nature of information warfare. While Atwood is likely innocent, and I may find her novel’s themes distasteful, activists intent on undermining national unity will use such themes to their advantage.
Disgusting behavior by protestors hypnotized by mass media
While the mass media shows a degree of favoritism to feminism and tolerance with the militant heckling and storming of government buildings seen in judicial hearings in the last few years, this is designed to divide us as a nation. Normal, healthy people don’t storm church services to protest. Notice, that it is a Christian Church, not a synagogue or mosque in the video. This is specifically targeting a demographic demonized by the media.
Social media, according to LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, exploits one or more of the seven deadly sins. As expected, you see the radical boosterism in the open on places like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Driving people to ever more radical and hostile behavior toward their neighbors. The phenomenon was first explained to me by an older friend of mine, who noticed that some young, aspiring activists speak in almost gibberish and experience bouts of wild emotional swings.
Mass and social media is radicalizing Americans. In politics, there is an equal and opposite reaction for every action. On the right, people become less trusting of those on the left, whose activists’ behavior is increasingly disgusting. While I am not a booster of Jordan Peterson, placing “sort yourself out, bucko” in context makes sense. There’s an exploitation of irrational behavior and an arms race to further irrationality in activism.
Political information warfare is as old as time and now is accelerating because everything is becoming the image in the mirror, darkly. Treating each political event as the first on the string toward a dystopian environment dissuades people from engaging in typical political activity. It creates people with angry political positions. The point is to discourage people from traditional forms of politics, to cause harm to the legitimacy of government, and damage the trust in the system of laws. Sowing anarchy is a threat to the functioning of society.
Look at the activists who dress up in the garb from the film. I suspect most protesters have some grip on reality but is that universal? No, a sizeable number lost grasp of what is objective, judging from some of these protests' more wild and crazed videos. These are signs of cult-like behavior. They need professional intervention.
Now, Margaret Atwood is not in total control of how her novels are used. However, we can observe and call a spade a spade: that people seeking division in the United States are taking active measures to subvert Americans ideologically. These people are then turned radical and angered. During the BLM riots, two Brooklyn lawyers attempted to throw a firebomb at a police car. While this is only one example from the riots, we need to critically look at what makes people excessively angry and disassociate from society. Foreign powers, agents of foreign powers, and social and mass media exploit division to harm and steal from you.
Here's Yuri Bezmenov on political subversion – salt to taste since we’re a bit past the cold war. The ideologies have different names now.
However, ideology itself is a destructive force. It was a term coined by French Revolutionaries to describe an abstracted notion of politics and society. Ideology is a place where young persons can hole themselves up and endlessly abstract themselves from doing real things in the real world, thanks to unlimited content. In fact, the term doesn’t arrive in the English language until the 1920s.