I should say this outright: you’re basically the only journalist who covers this whole Epstein circus with anything resembling integrity. Everyone else is either chasing subscribers, building a personal mythology, or writing like they’re auditioning for the role of “guy who solved the global conspiracy.” Meanwhile you just… read the documents. It’s weirdly refreshing.
Honestly, it gets disorienting. Sometimes I catch myself wondering whether you’re the one sane person refusing to juice the story for clicks, or whether you’re the crazy one for not joining the subscriber-thirst Olympics the rest of the media seems to be running. Either way, your work feels like the only stable reference point in a conversation that’s mostly fog and theatrics
And I'm still wondering just what Epstein DID to acquire his wealth. Why, for just one example, would someone like Leon Black, running a massive capital management outfit, need a Jeffrey Epstein, when he (Black) had access to any of the sharpest accountants and lawyers on Wall Street? What did Epstein do for Wexner? Where did the houses, island, and airplane come from? Everyone (Michael included) is focused on the lurid tales, hardly anyone is following the money. Who paid Epstein, how much, for what, exactly?
These are all fair questions — but they’re exactly the kind that need hard evidence, not the kind of free-floating speculation people love to plug into a grand narrative. Epstein definitely had unusual financial relationships, but reconstructing what he actually did for Black or Wexner requires documents, contracts, emails, and sworn testimony — not leaps into the intelligence-thriller zone. Curiosity is good; certainty without evidence is where things go off the rails.
Right, as everyone knows, intelligence agencies and their assets leave copious records. Let's not make any obvious inferences until we find this atop one of the emails:
While I appreciate the sarcasm; acknowledge that the lack of evidence doesn't absolve Epstein just as it doesn't convict him; and find that the holes in the story make me at least want to believe the Mossad angle; I just can't help but wonder what really horrid actions are being camouflaged by the controversy.
Nothing is going to come of any stories about Epstein.
The Epstein conspiracy only works if you start with the conclusion and build backward. Once you take away the theatrics, the picture is straightforward: he wasn’t running a global sexual kompromat operation, just a wealthy social climber who bought proximity to powerful people and slid into criminal behavior with younger and younger women. Nothing in the record looks like real intelligence work — no intermediaries, no leverage channels, no political shifts tied to pressure.
The supposed motive makes it even less plausible. If Epstein was gathering sexual kompromat to coerce support for Israel, the idea fails immediately, because every major name linked to him — except Chomsky — was already publicly, consistently pro-Israel for decades. You don’t blackmail people into positions they already endorse.
Into that vacuum goes the familiar conspiracy vocabulary: Mossad, client list, blackmail ring, Dershowitz, dancing Israelis, USS Liberty, Victoria’s Secret. It’s not a theory so much as a set of recycled keywords.
What keeps it alive is a small coalition of Q-adjacent fantasists, cluster-B #MeToo opportunists, and the lawyers who specialize in monetizing them — surrounded by the predictable ecosystem of influencers, pseudo-journalists, podcasters, and niche publishers who thrive on the same buzzwords.
It’s not a hidden plot. It’s a self-perpetuating business model.
What stands out is how selectively the outrage machine assigns moral significance. Take Elvis. Two high-profile films — “Elvis” (2022) and “Priscilla” (2023) — revisited his life in detail, including a relationship that began when Priscilla was 14, and there was no meaningful backlash. Modern norms should have turned that into a cultural scandal. Instead, it barely registers.
Epstein, by contrast, is treated as an inexhaustible symbolic resource. He’s not just a person anymore — he’s a blank template onto which every contemporary anxiety can be projected: corruption, elites, decadence, surveillance, sex panic, Israel, intelligence agencies, whatever someone needs him to represent. His story has become a kind of ideological Rorschach test. That makes him infinitely usable.
Elvis can’t be used for anything. There’s no political or cultural gain in targeting him. He isn’t tied to any live debate, and attacking him wouldn’t force any institution to bend. He’s simply not functional as a contemporary symbol, so his transgressions are politely ignored.
Epstein is the opposite. He feeds entire ecosystems — media, influencers, amateur investigators, and people with grievances looking for a narrative frame. He’s endlessly “productive.” Elvis isn’t productive at all.
That’s why one is constantly resurrected for moral theater while the other gets two glossy biopics and a cultural shrug. This isn’t about standards — it’s about instrumental value.
There’s a lot we don’t know and probably never will. Dismissing the whole affair is just as bad as embellishing it. It is certainly possible he was involved with intelligence to some degree.
I don't accept your analysis, not that it is completely wrong but because it ignores Robert Maxwell and his daughter's involvement with Epstein.
Even the most ardent Israeli supporter might need some "additional convincing" at times. Maybe watch the Netflix short series "Zero Day". Roger was a climber who finally reached a red line and would not cross it only to be murdered. I'm not recommending the show as great entertainment. There are certain aspects that are tedious. The point is that it counters your dismissal of what kind of blackmail might be effective.
I certainly dismiss your "Q" references as the kind of criticism used against "conspiracy nuts" no matter what facts they present. I now think of it as the Occam's Razor fallacy.
But how did he come to be in this position? How did he go from a teacher at a posh high school (and how did he land THAT position?) to somehow managing vast assets and swanning around with billionaires, major political figures, Israeli spooks, etc? Where is the paper trail for his trades, his supposed expertise?
The sex stuff is so much less interesting than the money and the connections. Epstein was clearly a valuable player of some sort. It seems more plausible that he was a financial fixer / money launderer than a pure blackmailer. Perhaps the blackmail material was just insurance in case a deal went bad or someone wanted to go public. It’s possible the sexual opportunities he offered were more or less a perk of being part of his network. I believe he must have been offering a service of some sort, but nothing uncovered so far shows that sex trafficking/prostitution was his primary activity.
He wasn't a valuable player because he did things for people he was a valuable player because people wanted to be connected to him.
Yes that came with other benefits, but he was the guy that people wanted to connect through, basically think of the person that's at a party that everyone enjoys being around. That was him
Once you start reading the files for yourself you start to realize it's a lot more ambiguous or in some ways totally made a myth and legend it's actually incredible how many people actually do not read the files. Almost 100%
Epstein sheep dipped himself by doing whatever he did in Florida where the age of consent is 18.
Why not fly to the islands, go into international waters, or go to a state where the age of consent is lower?
Because then we will not have a mythology that is now being used to pretend like a foreign country controls us.
This Chomsky connection helps me see more now. He's a CIA asshole who didn't want to question the official stories of the JFK assassination, 911, or COVID. (Neither have Snowden or Assange)
The truth is likely that Israel is being hyped up as the boogeyman to take the blame for what the US MIC did and does.
What better way for politicians to claim their corruption was due to threat of blackmail?
Trump and those blocking the release of the Epstein files are playing the role of making it seem true when it likely is full of holes as you have exposed.
With you up to a point. Have long thought Chomsky is an almost a too on-the-nose parody of controlled opposition. His stupid stans never see the disparity between his scathing critiques and status-quo fortifying recommendations. The fierce critic of Israel that opposes BDS and the right of return, and supported regime change ops in Syria. They think he's the radical fringe, and he's vehemently anti-Marxist, so they don't have any framework for scrutinizing him.
Differ with you on Israel as boogeyman. That's just ludicrously counter-factual. What is AIPAC? What is Larry Ellison buying up Paramount, Tik Tok, and Warner Discovery? What was Bill Ackman's expensive project to control The New York Mayoral election? A psy op to make us believe Jews are powerful when, in fact, they're just the hapless proxies for the MIC?
It's extremely hard to be civil with someone claiming a genocide is just a "distraction" from the REAL evil-doers in the world.
Putting aside the extent of zionist and IDF involvement in the corporate side of the military apparatus, the MIC will get paid regardless of where the conflicts are. Non-zionists have absolutely no stake in genocide or Greater Israel. Do you think the MIC ordered Israel to flatten Gaza, rape prisoners, do target practice on Palestinian children and engineer a famine to make the boogeyman more convincing? Are polls showing the utter depravity of rank and file Jewish Israelis part of the psy op?
Yes there are other bad actors, but only one of them seems to get its way all the time. The one that has a handler assigned to each member of Congress, has speech suppression laws written on its behalf and is busily buying up media to tighten its iron grip on the narrative. Last time I checked, criticizing Raytheon wouldn't get you kicked out of college, fired or deported. Nor does the MIC have it's own inspection-immune nuclear arsenal, ruthless spy agency or a Samson option.
FOH with your excuse-making for Jewish Supremacism.
Yeah, I'm a spook. Everyone's a spook but the Israeli spooks. They're just fall guys, like Epstein, whose arrest was a psy op that somehow fosters the certifiably baseless notion that Israel has outsize influence over American affairs.
I brought up the genocide because the apparatus of support for it is demonstrating beyond all doubt that wealthyJews acting on behalf of Israel really do control the government and media to a far greater degree than other elements of the ruling class and corporate elite. Not only in the US but in Europe as well.
At this point, anyone still seeing Israel and Mossad as hapless proxies of US Imperialism, the way conflicted Jewish Marxists are fond of stupidly doing, just looks ridiculous. It is indeed offloading blame for Zionist crimes against humanity onto others who seem far less directly implicated.
You got it Rob. Punch and Judy puppet show where the audience shouts at the puppets to warn them or point out the baddies while the puppeteers go unnoticed.
Exactly. I’m too old to ever rely on screens (pictures and videos) for “evidence”. Let alone texts ? Emails? Tweets???? I saw 👀 Bill Bixby literally turning into Lou Ferrigno Hulk on TV 📺.
Best thing is to watch how actual humans react or interact. Too many kids were giggling and laughing during the Charlie Kirk thing. So much pathetic acting during the Ashli Babbit sketch.
Excellent point on the Cold War long term money laundering psyop. Still working wonders for the MIC.
It was sad to see your exchange with Mike G. degenerate into pointless debate over how to define the evil that afflicts us.
The MIC is only an external representation of problem much more vast and entrenched than is generally understood. Jewish Billionaires are another part of the problem. Neither represent the complete picture. A complete list would be pages and pages long filled with nuance and seemingly inconsequential distractions that only on close inspection can the importance be understood.
The "tail does not wag the dog" but it can be made to appear so. It benefits certain members of the Oligarchy for whatever reasons.
I recommend you both check out Aaron Good's YouTube series "Empire and the Deep State". 24 parts, each an hour long and yet, even with as detailed as it is, only begins to scratch the surface of the cabal that runs the Anglo-American Political-Economy which in turn, runs the government of the USA.
I have defined for myself the "Occam razor myth" which only allows for one option or the other option when there isn't enough evidence to provide either option and where there may be a third or fourth option. (Gee, the plot of every "Bones" TV show)
So, I’m watching Netflix “Zero Day”. “They” created fake photos which take a bit to figure out the photos are fake. Since it’s a TV show, we know why the fakes were created — to delay the investigation. It worked.
You present one possibility about “why” the oppsies were left in. It is hardly conclusive though.
Maybe I haven’t made it clear that the “final story” on Epstein isn’t all that important when trying to gain an understanding of the big picture.
Did you realize you just said conspiracy begets conspiracy begats conspiracy. The reason you will never ever figure anything out is because it's not actually real
I don't know if Chomsky read the grand jury transcript but I have and you're 100% right on. Prostitution was the ONLY possible charge they could bring against Epstein. For all her claims in her memo. Maria Villifana would have never been able to prove her proposed charges that Epstein had used commercial transportation to fly to Palm Beach to have sex with minors.
By the way, that girl they used as the basis for the charge also told the grand jury she feared being charged for prostitution herself and that was the only reason she agreed to appear. Fortunately, they had compassion and did not charge her as the PBPD would have probably done if the prosecuting attorney had accepted their charges.
It's no surprise that Epstein and Chomsky associated with each other. He was known for his relationships with scientists and academics. No, the fact that Epstein pleaded guilty to charges of prostitution and served time is no reason for his friends and associates to turn their backs on them. Men have been consorting with prostitutes as far back as the beginnings of history,
As for why this saga is continuing, the explanation is very simple - the average IQ in America is 96. Unfortunately too many people are gullible and believe anything and everything without ever verifying media accounts with facts.
"All he did was procure a prostitute slightly under the age of 18" is doing a lot of work here Michael. The subpoened phone records in Florida show that girls as young as 13 went to Jeffrey's house for a massage.
I'm curious your thoughts on how Jeffrey actually made his money if the "conspiracy theory" on extortion is false.
Thank you. Tracey’s silence on these two points (what was in evidence but not prosecuted under the lenient deal, and where the money came from) is glaring.
There were news stories and public court docs from 2006-2009 and beyond showing that there were other younger victims. Handwaving those because of the suspiciously lenient deal Epstein got (and absolving anyone who met him) is such a weird deflection. Is Tracey saying eg Bill Gates did not do background checks that would have found this information? Or that it is fine to have been ignored because he wasn’t prosecuted on it?
Would anyone be thrilled to hear their friend or relative started hanging out with OJ Simpson? He was acquitted after all - so blank slate, right?
Despite what Michael Tracey says it's clear Epstein's business was not just financial management, but introducing these billionaires to hot women. Nothing wrong with that. But then when things went south, as they often did for Epstein, it still seems to me more likely than not he threatened or extorted them, and that's how he got these $150million settlements. When I changed accountants, by contrast, I didn't send the old one any money, much less a Manhattan penthouse. Epstein had a lot of young girls around. Michael Tracey, based on no evidence whatsoever, thinks it is preposterous that he would have introduced any of these billionaires to girls under the age of 18 even though it would have given him a lot of leverage.
Phone records do not show that any 13 year old girls went to his house. Further, the youngest girl who was part of the ring, a 14 year old, said she was told to lie about her age and said she was 18.
Michael has largely persuaded me that much of the Epstein mythology is just that- mythology. But even assuming that everything Epstein did was legal and that he only had a penchant for consensual relationships with 18-year-old girls, I still think some social sanction of Epstein is a reasonable response to that sort of behavior. FWIW, I'm not as sure that secondary social sections against those who associated with him are justified however, it probably depends on the nature of the association.
Michael has cherry-picked bad actors to trivialize the whole story. He's the mirror image of the opportunists who sensationalize everything, and just as unreliable.
Have you followed any of Michael Wolff’s work on his interviews with Epstein or his upcoming court case to get Trump and Melania to testify under oath about their relationship with him?
Epstein's intellectual soirees could certainly have been fulfilling and rich things to be a part of, irrespective of what may have been happening in back rooms (and whatever Epstein's motives in gathering the thinkers).
Regarding Epstein, I found him to be a kibitzer and a dilettante -- he would abruptly change the subject, ADD-style, dismiss an observation with an adolescent wisecrack and privilege his own intuitions over systematic data.
"Nor is it conceivable that Chomsky would have consorted with Epstein if he felt it would make him complicit in some Israeli intelligence plot, given that Chomsky has been perhaps the world’s most visible and vociferous critic of Israel for literally decades."
Yes, people are always exactly who they say they are, especially self-avowed zionists like Chomsky who:
1. Vehemently opposes BDS
2. Supported various regime change ops against Syria
3. Opposes the right of return
4. Never once recommended that Israel should be constitutionally reconfigured as a democracy
5. Speaks of the Palestinians as if their perennial repression is as immutable as gravity.
Chomsky, the great anti-war radical, got his start doing defense research at the Raytheon Institute of Technology. His schtick is appropriating anti-imperialism and class analysis from Marxists, while heaping scorn on anyone doing Marxist practice, like the Soviet Union, for instance. Chomsky's answer to the question "What should one do?" is, vote for Democrats, resign oneself to a Jewish Supremacist Israel, and sneer at anyone for whom that's not enough.
It's a shame you're such vain conformist, Michael, with half-baked politics. You never get below the surface of anything, lest you look like a conspiracy theorist. It makes you look shallow and stupid.
Thanks for sticking with the story, Michael - you’re a beacon in a sea of spin. What has become of the critical/analytical faculties of other journalists?
The continued, and erroneous ( in my opinion) use of the words ‘pedophile’’ and ‘trafficker’ as descriptors of Epstein have ensured that the narrative is, and will continue to be, constrained within those boundaries. Hardly makes for genuine investigative reporting on Epstein.
Great piece . You have repeated Epstein here instead of Chomsky here : Nor is it conceivable that Epstein would have consorted with Epstein if he felt it would make him complicit in some Israeli intelligence plot, given that Chomsky has been perhaps the world’s most visible and vociferous critic of Israel for literally decades. Take from
Very fair take on this Michael. I also think we should all bear in mind that Epstein by all accounts was an incredibly charming and charismatic person whenever he wanted to be. And this kind of networking, fixing and schmoozing was pretty much his job. Not even his cover story but a key part of his actual job.
I even believe Dershowitz never partook, well, 85% believe. Even though the man is vile.
brother you need to give these posts an hour or two to cool off after the first draft, then re-read, make some changes, then another hour, then come back to it for a final edit. I know working without an editor is liberating, but your writing style has not evolved much in the last ~6 or 7 years past "college essayist who thinks snide = witty".
Just some examples: "(Jeffrey Epstein: the solution to the male loneliness crisis?)" is not a funny aside. How does "this guy has a close friend" work out to "this guy is the Solution To The Male Loneliness Crisis" even in a jokey sense? What exactly is the joke there? That you spend a lot of time on twitter so you've run into the phrase "male loneliness crisis" before?
Here's another: "Something else from this batch of documents I found very interesting and unexpected was the remarkably close friendship Epstein evidently had with none other than Noam Chomsky. " Any native English speaking editor would have told you to cut this down to "Another surprise in the documents was Epstein's close relationship with Noam Chomsky". You don't have to lilt around a bunch of weak adjectives and hack turns like "none other than".
You seem to have a decent following on here. Use some of that revenue to bring on an editor! This is not good writing.
I should say this outright: you’re basically the only journalist who covers this whole Epstein circus with anything resembling integrity. Everyone else is either chasing subscribers, building a personal mythology, or writing like they’re auditioning for the role of “guy who solved the global conspiracy.” Meanwhile you just… read the documents. It’s weirdly refreshing.
Honestly, it gets disorienting. Sometimes I catch myself wondering whether you’re the one sane person refusing to juice the story for clicks, or whether you’re the crazy one for not joining the subscriber-thirst Olympics the rest of the media seems to be running. Either way, your work feels like the only stable reference point in a conversation that’s mostly fog and theatrics
And I'm still wondering just what Epstein DID to acquire his wealth. Why, for just one example, would someone like Leon Black, running a massive capital management outfit, need a Jeffrey Epstein, when he (Black) had access to any of the sharpest accountants and lawyers on Wall Street? What did Epstein do for Wexner? Where did the houses, island, and airplane come from? Everyone (Michael included) is focused on the lurid tales, hardly anyone is following the money. Who paid Epstein, how much, for what, exactly?
These are all fair questions — but they’re exactly the kind that need hard evidence, not the kind of free-floating speculation people love to plug into a grand narrative. Epstein definitely had unusual financial relationships, but reconstructing what he actually did for Black or Wexner requires documents, contracts, emails, and sworn testimony — not leaps into the intelligence-thriller zone. Curiosity is good; certainty without evidence is where things go off the rails.
Right, as everyone knows, intelligence agencies and their assets leave copious records. Let's not make any obvious inferences until we find this atop one of the emails:
From: B. Netanyahu
To: J. Epstein
Subject: Your work for Mossad
While I appreciate the sarcasm; acknowledge that the lack of evidence doesn't absolve Epstein just as it doesn't convict him; and find that the holes in the story make me at least want to believe the Mossad angle; I just can't help but wonder what really horrid actions are being camouflaged by the controversy.
Nothing is going to come of any stories about Epstein.
The Epstein conspiracy only works if you start with the conclusion and build backward. Once you take away the theatrics, the picture is straightforward: he wasn’t running a global sexual kompromat operation, just a wealthy social climber who bought proximity to powerful people and slid into criminal behavior with younger and younger women. Nothing in the record looks like real intelligence work — no intermediaries, no leverage channels, no political shifts tied to pressure.
The supposed motive makes it even less plausible. If Epstein was gathering sexual kompromat to coerce support for Israel, the idea fails immediately, because every major name linked to him — except Chomsky — was already publicly, consistently pro-Israel for decades. You don’t blackmail people into positions they already endorse.
Into that vacuum goes the familiar conspiracy vocabulary: Mossad, client list, blackmail ring, Dershowitz, dancing Israelis, USS Liberty, Victoria’s Secret. It’s not a theory so much as a set of recycled keywords.
What keeps it alive is a small coalition of Q-adjacent fantasists, cluster-B #MeToo opportunists, and the lawyers who specialize in monetizing them — surrounded by the predictable ecosystem of influencers, pseudo-journalists, podcasters, and niche publishers who thrive on the same buzzwords.
It’s not a hidden plot. It’s a self-perpetuating business model.
What stands out is how selectively the outrage machine assigns moral significance. Take Elvis. Two high-profile films — “Elvis” (2022) and “Priscilla” (2023) — revisited his life in detail, including a relationship that began when Priscilla was 14, and there was no meaningful backlash. Modern norms should have turned that into a cultural scandal. Instead, it barely registers.
Epstein, by contrast, is treated as an inexhaustible symbolic resource. He’s not just a person anymore — he’s a blank template onto which every contemporary anxiety can be projected: corruption, elites, decadence, surveillance, sex panic, Israel, intelligence agencies, whatever someone needs him to represent. His story has become a kind of ideological Rorschach test. That makes him infinitely usable.
Elvis can’t be used for anything. There’s no political or cultural gain in targeting him. He isn’t tied to any live debate, and attacking him wouldn’t force any institution to bend. He’s simply not functional as a contemporary symbol, so his transgressions are politely ignored.
Epstein is the opposite. He feeds entire ecosystems — media, influencers, amateur investigators, and people with grievances looking for a narrative frame. He’s endlessly “productive.” Elvis isn’t productive at all.
That’s why one is constantly resurrected for moral theater while the other gets two glossy biopics and a cultural shrug. This isn’t about standards — it’s about instrumental value.
There’s a lot we don’t know and probably never will. Dismissing the whole affair is just as bad as embellishing it. It is certainly possible he was involved with intelligence to some degree.
I don't accept your analysis, not that it is completely wrong but because it ignores Robert Maxwell and his daughter's involvement with Epstein.
Even the most ardent Israeli supporter might need some "additional convincing" at times. Maybe watch the Netflix short series "Zero Day". Roger was a climber who finally reached a red line and would not cross it only to be murdered. I'm not recommending the show as great entertainment. There are certain aspects that are tedious. The point is that it counters your dismissal of what kind of blackmail might be effective.
I certainly dismiss your "Q" references as the kind of criticism used against "conspiracy nuts" no matter what facts they present. I now think of it as the Occam's Razor fallacy.
If you read what Maxwell said in the transcripts released back in July of 2025, she pretty much outlined exactly what he did.
But how did he come to be in this position? How did he go from a teacher at a posh high school (and how did he land THAT position?) to somehow managing vast assets and swanning around with billionaires, major political figures, Israeli spooks, etc? Where is the paper trail for his trades, his supposed expertise?
The sex stuff is so much less interesting than the money and the connections. Epstein was clearly a valuable player of some sort. It seems more plausible that he was a financial fixer / money launderer than a pure blackmailer. Perhaps the blackmail material was just insurance in case a deal went bad or someone wanted to go public. It’s possible the sexual opportunities he offered were more or less a perk of being part of his network. I believe he must have been offering a service of some sort, but nothing uncovered so far shows that sex trafficking/prostitution was his primary activity.
He wasn't a valuable player because he did things for people he was a valuable player because people wanted to be connected to him.
Yes that came with other benefits, but he was the guy that people wanted to connect through, basically think of the person that's at a party that everyone enjoys being around. That was him
Once you start reading the files for yourself you start to realize it's a lot more ambiguous or in some ways totally made a myth and legend it's actually incredible how many people actually do not read the files. Almost 100%
Epstein sheep dipped himself by doing whatever he did in Florida where the age of consent is 18.
Why not fly to the islands, go into international waters, or go to a state where the age of consent is lower?
Because then we will not have a mythology that is now being used to pretend like a foreign country controls us.
This Chomsky connection helps me see more now. He's a CIA asshole who didn't want to question the official stories of the JFK assassination, 911, or COVID. (Neither have Snowden or Assange)
The truth is likely that Israel is being hyped up as the boogeyman to take the blame for what the US MIC did and does.
What better way for politicians to claim their corruption was due to threat of blackmail?
Trump and those blocking the release of the Epstein files are playing the role of making it seem true when it likely is full of holes as you have exposed.
With you up to a point. Have long thought Chomsky is an almost a too on-the-nose parody of controlled opposition. His stupid stans never see the disparity between his scathing critiques and status-quo fortifying recommendations. The fierce critic of Israel that opposes BDS and the right of return, and supported regime change ops in Syria. They think he's the radical fringe, and he's vehemently anti-Marxist, so they don't have any framework for scrutinizing him.
Differ with you on Israel as boogeyman. That's just ludicrously counter-factual. What is AIPAC? What is Larry Ellison buying up Paramount, Tik Tok, and Warner Discovery? What was Bill Ackman's expensive project to control The New York Mayoral election? A psy op to make us believe Jews are powerful when, in fact, they're just the hapless proxies for the MIC?
Boogeyman because if Israel can do it, why aren't more powerful forces like corporations doing it?
Feels like a distraction where they focus on one bad guy to distract from the many bad guys.
Perhaps the truth is not that their intelligence is the one doing it but ours using theirs as a cover for their own activities?
It's extremely hard to be civil with someone claiming a genocide is just a "distraction" from the REAL evil-doers in the world.
Putting aside the extent of zionist and IDF involvement in the corporate side of the military apparatus, the MIC will get paid regardless of where the conflicts are. Non-zionists have absolutely no stake in genocide or Greater Israel. Do you think the MIC ordered Israel to flatten Gaza, rape prisoners, do target practice on Palestinian children and engineer a famine to make the boogeyman more convincing? Are polls showing the utter depravity of rank and file Jewish Israelis part of the psy op?
Yes there are other bad actors, but only one of them seems to get its way all the time. The one that has a handler assigned to each member of Congress, has speech suppression laws written on its behalf and is busily buying up media to tighten its iron grip on the narrative. Last time I checked, criticizing Raytheon wouldn't get you kicked out of college, fired or deported. Nor does the MIC have it's own inspection-immune nuclear arsenal, ruthless spy agency or a Samson option.
FOH with your excuse-making for Jewish Supremacism.
I never said the genocide is a distraction.
I've known about the horrors that Palestine and the West Bank has faced for decades.
I'm pissed the UN is always powerless to stop it... These days I realize the UN is a pretend justice system as designed with the single veto bullshit.
What I did say was that the Epstein story is full of fluff and inconsistencies.
I also questioned the narrative that hypes up the power of Mossad.
Where did I make any excuse for Jewish supremacism?
You put words in my mouth like the asshole intelligence agencies do.
Are you a tool to create chaos where we should be asking for truth?
Yeah, I'm a spook. Everyone's a spook but the Israeli spooks. They're just fall guys, like Epstein, whose arrest was a psy op that somehow fosters the certifiably baseless notion that Israel has outsize influence over American affairs.
I brought up the genocide because the apparatus of support for it is demonstrating beyond all doubt that wealthyJews acting on behalf of Israel really do control the government and media to a far greater degree than other elements of the ruling class and corporate elite. Not only in the US but in Europe as well.
At this point, anyone still seeing Israel and Mossad as hapless proxies of US Imperialism, the way conflicted Jewish Marxists are fond of stupidly doing, just looks ridiculous. It is indeed offloading blame for Zionist crimes against humanity onto others who seem far less directly implicated.
You didn't answer my question.
WHERE DID I SAY THE GENOCIDE WAS A DISTRACTION?
You put words in my mouth. Why? What's your intent?
Oh right, to push this annoying dragged out Epstein psy op.
I've known about Epstein since the saga started. I followed Whitney Webb and others who covered it way before it was popular.
But today, I see this whole thing as a distraction and it puts the focus on Israel while hiding the other deep state scumbag activity.
I'M AGAINST ALL OF THIS SPY CRAP.
I'VE BEEN AGAINST IT SINCE THE COLD WAR WHEN AMERICANS CHEERED IT ON CAUSE "COMMIES BAD".
That story was there to take the focus off the fact that Western intelligence was playing the same game that the USSR was.
You got it Rob. Punch and Judy puppet show where the audience shouts at the puppets to warn them or point out the baddies while the puppeteers go unnoticed.
Even the supposed Epstein murder in jail smells like huge bullshit.
We know that they manipulated the video because of the weird cuts, bad aspect ratio, and the mouse pointer in a part.
Why the heck would these geniuses in intelligence leave so many obvious manipulations? I have a regular PC and could have done a better job than them.
The whole think stinks like shit and they want us to think that there's some cover up.
Another annoying event is the Charlie Kirk murder where there's so much weird shit going on that feeds this circle jerk of speculation.
Anytime I see shit like this, my gut instinct is that this is a bullshit story there to promote a half truth.
It reminds me of the crap during the cold war with the boogeyman USSR taking the heat for what Western intelligence was doing too.
Exactly. I’m too old to ever rely on screens (pictures and videos) for “evidence”. Let alone texts ? Emails? Tweets???? I saw 👀 Bill Bixby literally turning into Lou Ferrigno Hulk on TV 📺.
Best thing is to watch how actual humans react or interact. Too many kids were giggling and laughing during the Charlie Kirk thing. So much pathetic acting during the Ashli Babbit sketch.
Excellent point on the Cold War long term money laundering psyop. Still working wonders for the MIC.
You just make up a lot of theories in your head and haven't read any files. Just go home
It was sad to see your exchange with Mike G. degenerate into pointless debate over how to define the evil that afflicts us.
The MIC is only an external representation of problem much more vast and entrenched than is generally understood. Jewish Billionaires are another part of the problem. Neither represent the complete picture. A complete list would be pages and pages long filled with nuance and seemingly inconsequential distractions that only on close inspection can the importance be understood.
The "tail does not wag the dog" but it can be made to appear so. It benefits certain members of the Oligarchy for whatever reasons.
I recommend you both check out Aaron Good's YouTube series "Empire and the Deep State". 24 parts, each an hour long and yet, even with as detailed as it is, only begins to scratch the surface of the cabal that runs the Anglo-American Political-Economy which in turn, runs the government of the USA.
The deep state promotes half true conspiracies to make us think it's only Israel or whoever.
Mike G put words in my mouth to keep pumping up this EPSTEIN hype story. Why? Is he an idiot or a shill?
I addressed that and look at his cookie cutter reply.
I think he's a shill. I'm done with bots or whatever the heck he is when they claim shit and then keep spouting the propaganda.
I have defined for myself the "Occam razor myth" which only allows for one option or the other option when there isn't enough evidence to provide either option and where there may be a third or fourth option. (Gee, the plot of every "Bones" TV show)
Occam's razor also applies to the events surrounding Epstein's death.
They released a badly manipulated video with numerous "oops".
-mouse cursor in one part
-aspect ratio change
-missing time
Occam's razor says that if they wanted to create a fake video, it could have easily been done without any of those oopsies.
So why do it half assed? To sell the story.
“They”?
So, I’m watching Netflix “Zero Day”. “They” created fake photos which take a bit to figure out the photos are fake. Since it’s a TV show, we know why the fakes were created — to delay the investigation. It worked.
You present one possibility about “why” the oppsies were left in. It is hardly conclusive though.
Maybe I haven’t made it clear that the “final story” on Epstein isn’t all that important when trying to gain an understanding of the big picture.
Did you realize you just said conspiracy begets conspiracy begats conspiracy. The reason you will never ever figure anything out is because it's not actually real
Bingo, it's not real. It's a big wrestling show and remember how good Trump played in WWE?
We're being sold narratives to distract us from reality.
I don't know if Chomsky read the grand jury transcript but I have and you're 100% right on. Prostitution was the ONLY possible charge they could bring against Epstein. For all her claims in her memo. Maria Villifana would have never been able to prove her proposed charges that Epstein had used commercial transportation to fly to Palm Beach to have sex with minors.
By the way, that girl they used as the basis for the charge also told the grand jury she feared being charged for prostitution herself and that was the only reason she agreed to appear. Fortunately, they had compassion and did not charge her as the PBPD would have probably done if the prosecuting attorney had accepted their charges.
It's no surprise that Epstein and Chomsky associated with each other. He was known for his relationships with scientists and academics. No, the fact that Epstein pleaded guilty to charges of prostitution and served time is no reason for his friends and associates to turn their backs on them. Men have been consorting with prostitutes as far back as the beginnings of history,
As for why this saga is continuing, the explanation is very simple - the average IQ in America is 96. Unfortunately too many people are gullible and believe anything and everything without ever verifying media accounts with facts.
"All he did was procure a prostitute slightly under the age of 18" is doing a lot of work here Michael. The subpoened phone records in Florida show that girls as young as 13 went to Jeffrey's house for a massage.
I'm curious your thoughts on how Jeffrey actually made his money if the "conspiracy theory" on extortion is false.
Thank you. Tracey’s silence on these two points (what was in evidence but not prosecuted under the lenient deal, and where the money came from) is glaring.
There were news stories and public court docs from 2006-2009 and beyond showing that there were other younger victims. Handwaving those because of the suspiciously lenient deal Epstein got (and absolving anyone who met him) is such a weird deflection. Is Tracey saying eg Bill Gates did not do background checks that would have found this information? Or that it is fine to have been ignored because he wasn’t prosecuted on it?
Would anyone be thrilled to hear their friend or relative started hanging out with OJ Simpson? He was acquitted after all - so blank slate, right?
Despite what Michael Tracey says it's clear Epstein's business was not just financial management, but introducing these billionaires to hot women. Nothing wrong with that. But then when things went south, as they often did for Epstein, it still seems to me more likely than not he threatened or extorted them, and that's how he got these $150million settlements. When I changed accountants, by contrast, I didn't send the old one any money, much less a Manhattan penthouse. Epstein had a lot of young girls around. Michael Tracey, based on no evidence whatsoever, thinks it is preposterous that he would have introduced any of these billionaires to girls under the age of 18 even though it would have given him a lot of leverage.
Completely agreed.
Phone records do not show that any 13 year old girls went to his house. Further, the youngest girl who was part of the ring, a 14 year old, said she was told to lie about her age and said she was 18.
Michael has largely persuaded me that much of the Epstein mythology is just that- mythology. But even assuming that everything Epstein did was legal and that he only had a penchant for consensual relationships with 18-year-old girls, I still think some social sanction of Epstein is a reasonable response to that sort of behavior. FWIW, I'm not as sure that secondary social sections against those who associated with him are justified however, it probably depends on the nature of the association.
Michael has cherry-picked bad actors to trivialize the whole story. He's the mirror image of the opportunists who sensationalize everything, and just as unreliable.
Ok. I can be persuaded in the other direction. What is important evidence that he is ignoring?
Have you followed any of Michael Wolff’s work on his interviews with Epstein or his upcoming court case to get Trump and Melania to testify under oath about their relationship with him?
There's no such thing as a child prostitute. There are only children who are being sexually abused.
You need to correct “Epstein would have consorted with Epstein” in the final paragraph.
I feel if he hadn't died he'd be invited on all these dopey podcasts and shows who conspiracy monger about him now lol.
Epstein's intellectual soirees could certainly have been fulfilling and rich things to be a part of, irrespective of what may have been happening in back rooms (and whatever Epstein's motives in gathering the thinkers).
Regarding Epstein, I found him to be a kibitzer and a dilettante -- he would abruptly change the subject, ADD-style, dismiss an observation with an adolescent wisecrack and privilege his own intuitions over systematic data.
"Nor is it conceivable that Chomsky would have consorted with Epstein if he felt it would make him complicit in some Israeli intelligence plot, given that Chomsky has been perhaps the world’s most visible and vociferous critic of Israel for literally decades."
Yes, people are always exactly who they say they are, especially self-avowed zionists like Chomsky who:
1. Vehemently opposes BDS
2. Supported various regime change ops against Syria
3. Opposes the right of return
4. Never once recommended that Israel should be constitutionally reconfigured as a democracy
5. Speaks of the Palestinians as if their perennial repression is as immutable as gravity.
Chomsky, the great anti-war radical, got his start doing defense research at the Raytheon Institute of Technology. His schtick is appropriating anti-imperialism and class analysis from Marxists, while heaping scorn on anyone doing Marxist practice, like the Soviet Union, for instance. Chomsky's answer to the question "What should one do?" is, vote for Democrats, resign oneself to a Jewish Supremacist Israel, and sneer at anyone for whom that's not enough.
It's a shame you're such vain conformist, Michael, with half-baked politics. You never get below the surface of anything, lest you look like a conspiracy theorist. It makes you look shallow and stupid.
Thanks for sticking with the story, Michael - you’re a beacon in a sea of spin. What has become of the critical/analytical faculties of other journalists?
The continued, and erroneous ( in my opinion) use of the words ‘pedophile’’ and ‘trafficker’ as descriptors of Epstein have ensured that the narrative is, and will continue to be, constrained within those boundaries. Hardly makes for genuine investigative reporting on Epstein.
Great piece . You have repeated Epstein here instead of Chomsky here : Nor is it conceivable that Epstein would have consorted with Epstein if he felt it would make him complicit in some Israeli intelligence plot, given that Chomsky has been perhaps the world’s most visible and vociferous critic of Israel for literally decades. Take from
Very fair take on this Michael. I also think we should all bear in mind that Epstein by all accounts was an incredibly charming and charismatic person whenever he wanted to be. And this kind of networking, fixing and schmoozing was pretty much his job. Not even his cover story but a key part of his actual job.
I even believe Dershowitz never partook, well, 85% believe. Even though the man is vile.
What was his job? And who did he answer to?
The key questions yes.
brother you need to give these posts an hour or two to cool off after the first draft, then re-read, make some changes, then another hour, then come back to it for a final edit. I know working without an editor is liberating, but your writing style has not evolved much in the last ~6 or 7 years past "college essayist who thinks snide = witty".
Just some examples: "(Jeffrey Epstein: the solution to the male loneliness crisis?)" is not a funny aside. How does "this guy has a close friend" work out to "this guy is the Solution To The Male Loneliness Crisis" even in a jokey sense? What exactly is the joke there? That you spend a lot of time on twitter so you've run into the phrase "male loneliness crisis" before?
Here's another: "Something else from this batch of documents I found very interesting and unexpected was the remarkably close friendship Epstein evidently had with none other than Noam Chomsky. " Any native English speaking editor would have told you to cut this down to "Another surprise in the documents was Epstein's close relationship with Noam Chomsky". You don't have to lilt around a bunch of weak adjectives and hack turns like "none other than".
You seem to have a decent following on here. Use some of that revenue to bring on an editor! This is not good writing.