NOTE FROM MT: The following article was originally solicited by and written for Unherd, the British media outlet to which I occasionally contribute, late last week.
What a solid article. I think it's sad that Andrew's family has thrown him to the wolves. One's own family should, ideally, at least give one the benefit of the doubt.
I suspect the Royal Family, or at least the late Queen, genuinely *did* extend Andrew the "benefit of the doubt" -- and continue to do so today in large measure, given the manifest evidence of his non-culpability in any child sex crimes. But the hysteria-addled political pressure has simply become too overwhelming for them to know how to handle properly, exacerbated by King Charles lacking the reserve of decades-long goodwill that his mother enjoyed. Imagine if they issued a statement this week resolutely defending Andrew? Starmer, Farage, and Badenoch would probably demand the immediate abolition of the monarchy.
Andrew is really a nobody, he only became a prominent scapegoat because of the royal blood in his veins. Look at how many people who made contributions to the society we, the American people, threw under the bus. And not only threw under the bus but are competing in outrage and rushing to cancel, to completely erase. All we know they were communicating with Epstein, other than that there is nothing in the “files”.
Whatever gruesome criminals were ever convicted, I do not recall the society ostracizing their acquaintances to such degree for simple emails, calls, or meetings, if no law was broken. It is unprecedented.
Everyone focused on Andrew and him only. Nobody else has answered the way he was made to pay based on allegations and evidence presented by one side. There was no court proceedings with cross examinations and introduction of evidence. All we had was the court of public opinion. This is not justice IMO, as much as I am disgusted by abuse of underage girls. Accusations and public outrage should not substitute legal process and should not be enough to ruin people’s lives and careers. I think Me Too movement has proved it. While the tide may be turning on Me Too, Epstein’s saga is being processed on emotional level only so far.
So he was just arrested out of the blue? No investigation? Don’t court proceedings happen AFTER the arrest? Must be different in the UK. Also, I thought others were arrested and/or quit over this.
That article is solid bullshit. Wonder why Michael Tracy is so vehement in his denial of Epstein’s powers and reach, in the face of irrefutable evidence. 🤔
The correct aristocratic response would have been to force Andrew to sign a suicide note to the nation apologising for the disgrace he had brought on the House of Windsor and then have him blow his brains out at a hunting lodge somewhere
I think most people realise that he probably WASN'T part of a child sex murder ring or suchlike but still aren't defending him because (unlike USA) we still have shame at the fact a major royal turned out to be such a dirty old man, and not even in a wholesome Charles II or Henry VIII way but as part of a sleazy friendship with a dodgy American financier.
Worth noting that his majesty has some form here. When Britain last went this doolally it was over deceased popular entertainer, and alleged sometime confidante of then prince Charles, Sir Jimmy Savile. The whole nation almost overnight remembered (with the help of an assortment of grifters and fantasists promoted by unscrupulous lawyers and a gullible media) how it had known all along that Savile had been an insatiable - and omnivorous - predator. And, of course, he must have been procuring, blackmailing, protected by friends in high places, and all the rest of it. Needless to say, Charles kept his head down as numerous others were hounded for their supposed associations. But this is part of the British backdrop to the Epstein furore. People really will believe the most extreme nonsense, few have the courage to stand by their friends and those who do take one hell of a beating. And, to cap it all, as you have found, very many people are upset and offended at any suggestion that maybe some people were not harmed.
Smith M, Burnett R (2018), "The origins of the Jimmy Savile scandal". International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 38 No. 1-2 pp. 26–40, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/
From the abstract:
"The paper draws on an Economic and Social Research Council funded project to collate data on the Savile case. It is based, primarily, on interview material from former pupils and staff members from Duncroft School, from whence initial allegations against Savile emanate, contrasting these with media accounts.
Findings
The research provides a very different picture of Duncroft and the contemporary policy context to that presented in media accounts. A questioning account of the origins of the scandal emerges. The findings may lend themselves to a moral panics analysis but also point to the power of dominant stories in influencing public policy."
Hearing your perspective, this is some critical scholarship that may interest you. There is also a sociologist named Frank Furedi who has written critical accounts of the Savile scandal through a lens of "moral panic."
I can't claim to have deep knowledge on the Savile scandal myself... The only knowledge I have on what Savile was actually accused of doing, comes from a documentary I watched many years ago. It took ages to get through the spooky music and actually tell me what he was supposed to have done; but if true, the act in question was indefensible imo even if it wasn't violent or likely experienced as painful by the recipient...
And to be fair, even if that case of very bad and criminal behavior actually occured, that of course would not mean that every singe sexual experience he ever had with another person across his entire life was somehow unethical, illegal, wrong or experienced negatively by the other person.
Thanks, Aaron. I've seen Smith & Burnett's work before, and recommend it, but your link didn't come through for me. I hope this will work: 10.1108/IJSSP-03-2017-0029
The BBC's Newsnight programme tried to run something soon after Savile's death in late 2011 but decided they didn't have a story. Early the next year there was a (false) paternity claim, which held up the estate and then, late in 2012, after some build up ITV ran this https://youtu.be/GXOcRf2FyJA?si=22C1l3hidSH7pFE6 alleged documentary, which set the whole thing off. A minister mistakenly announced in parliament that there was a £30 million estate to compensate victims, (Savile had perhaps raised this much for charity in his lifetime, but his estate was a fraction of that) and the police declared him guilty without investigation, claiming that he'd spent 'every waking minute' thinking about...offending.' His alleged victims were both male and female and spanned from five to 75 years old. In the end, about 450 would register with police through a charity-staffed helpline before being able to claim compensation (and a nice flat fee for their lawyers) largely from the public purse.
One day you need to write a book about this story. There's so much information and I haven't been following it since the start and so I don't really have the full picture. But as someone who originally thought that Epstein was running a child trafficking ring in order to blackmail politicians and American businessmen, I'd like to be able to sit down and read the full truth eventually.
I first saw your appearance on All in podcast and was so relieved to hear you voice what I consider to be the objective view of the Epstein story. I am just an elderly reader but have been amazed at the outrage of media and everyone I know about dubious associations revealed in the “files”. I looked back at the Virginia Guiffre story and thought that it lacked substance. It was certainly financially beneficial to be an “ Epstein survivor “.
I'd like to look on the hard drives of all the people falsely claiming that Epstein & his guests were paedophiles. Where else does a moral panic like this emerge from, if not projection?
No need to sink to the same depraved depths as the endless mobs of people who can't stop demanding that the FBI seize anyone's hard-drive who has a contrary perspective.
There's probably some projection going on. Or more, "it's safer to have the finger pointed at other's, than pointed at yourself." No one wants to be called a "pedo." (Probably not even actual pedos but who knows! 🤷)
I think the current pile on is more because it's popular and easy. You won't get any pushback and if you do, you can just say "okay pedo" and dismiss the critically minded folk. It's also not a big issue like climate change, where a solution would demand massive institutional changes and global co-operation between rival powers.
With sex scandals, the solutions are much easier and provide lots of entertainment and gossip as we all debate who said what, whether X or Y was lying, etc., and await with eager eyes the ensuing court trials and fallout. It's spectacle and on some level entertaining. Good for engagement. More money for content creators, more clicks for news articles - sex scandals bolster the attention economy...
There's also just not as many acceptable groups to hate on anymore. I believe it was the gay historian Scott de Orio, who argued in his 2017 PhD thesis that the earlier stigma around homosexuality broadly was displaced over time on to what he calls "intergenerational sex." That is to say, sex involving noticeable age gaps.
If Richard Hanania is correct that "The real target of pedo hysteria is age gap relationships," then it could certainly be argued that there is a lot of projection - and probably jealousy - when an older, wealthy man is seen to be having lots of sexual experiences with younger, happy women... Someone else is getting what you didn't get (say, when you were an older teenager yourself), or cannot get (because you lack the means, confidence, don't want to make the effort, whatever reason)...
So, people use what the historian Vern Bullough once called "The Pedophile Smear," and stir the pot for the fun of it, shitting all over other people's relationship because they can and society broadly doesn't care to call them on their bullshit. It's just sad for media figures in the public eye and who become such easy targets...
I know for a fact that "cancel culture" has had a massive impact on people's mental health, with many people terrified to express themselves online over the most nothingburger things - fears over being accused of "cultural appropriation" for example. I've seen this happen with a friend of mine, and it's sad how the internet has allowed for so much bullying and hatred instead of open minded, evidence based discussion...
(I will stop writing since this comment is long enough! Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk) 😛 ~
And Karma is such a ruthlessly moral force. People are so often taken down not for monstrous acts but for being wretched in the most ordinary ways and eventually there accumulates a tipping point of petty failures to have simply been nice when it would've been--well--nice to have been so.
I do still find that notorious photo to be heartbreaking in its way. Teenaged Virginia had such a charming smile. What are the terrible things that ruined her, since they don't seem to be what everyone keeps shrieking about?
w0e-MEN'S liberation is what ruined her. She was a crack smoker, 'escort' and FALSE accuser before she even met Epstein. I'd say w0e-MEN'S equality is what ruined her and a whole generation of w0e-MEN as well. I'm not a righty or a lefty I am RED PILL/GOLD PILL
Not women's liberation, prosectorial leadership & to some extent a brand of feminism about "caging bad men", which has now become a moral crusade. "BAD women" are thoughaly ensnared by carceral feminism.
So the Unherd opinion makers had a change of heart on publishing the work - curious…
I will admit to being quite surprised to see Tracey appear with the usually prim Sayers and even more surprised that the host seemed to be in agreement with much of Tracey’s views on this matter.
Micheal Tracy goes out of his way to dismiss pedophilia. He is clearly compromised. The latest Epstein files suggest something darker. The story at this point is how did three Attorney Generals and at least two FBI directors sit on 5? Million pages of incriminating evidence without one interview of Wexner? No search of the New Mexico property? Tracy and his supporters are vile morons. Likely they are both on a offenders list or have children on such a list
Good Lord!? It's clear to me you haven't the intelligence nor it appears sufficient control of your emotions to be telling ANYONE else who is or isn't "compromised," let alone who really is the "vile moron" here.
Yet with this level of invective (shadow projection perhaps?), I assume YOU must have a very interesting background, with many stories to tell...
Chuck, do you know what pedophilia is? Michael Tracey has not and does not dismiss it. He merely points out that it does not apply in the Epstein case. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to PREPUBUSCENT children, meaning persons usually under age 13. NONE of Epstein's alleged victims fall into that category. Look stuff up before you make comments. Wexner WAS interviewed by the FBI.
It’s more than attraction. Most men are sexually attracted to little girls, just not that much. Pedophiles have an actual sexual preference for little kids under 13.
Yes 51% of men are turned on by little girls but only at a fairly low rate of 32% of maximum. For 12-14 year olds girls 83% of men are turned on by them at 52% of maximum. Men are highly aroused by 15-17 year old girls.
Men are more aroused by 17 year old girls than by any other age group of females. It’s a continuum like most things in life. Or are you one of those Manichaeans.
I’ve been through all the data in the sexology journals over the years. Most were from the Journal of Sexology. Studies were done by people like Ray Blanchard and Michael Seto. They’re all lab studies.
This has been studied to death and all the finding replicate. In fact I saw a recent article by Seto postulating that the fairly small attraction to little girls was enough to drive a lot of the nonpedophilic child molesters.
Are you shocked that it’s a continuum like most things in life?
Tracy dismisses the stated reason for Andrew's arrest. "Sharing confidential trade information while serving as the UK's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment from 2001 to 2011. Specific accusations involve forwarding official documents to Epstein, including reports from trade visits and a confidential briefing on investment opportunities in Afghanistan."
He instead focuses on abuse charges that were not were not part of the arrest record. Lord Mandelson was arrested for allegedly leaking confidential UK government memos to Jeffrey Epstein. The media may refer to Andrew as an abuser. The charges do not.
Tracy's approach here is opposite of his view of Epstein where he dismisses the pedophile allegation and instead reminds the reader that Epstein's charges and conviction did not include underage victims.
He's not hyped up, he's frustrated. The same people who believe in chemtrails have been hyping the Epstein claims. There are many of us who have read the same documents he has and came to the same conclusions, but we live in a world where people want to believe tabloids.
Part of the problem is that Michael is under pressure to get his points across quickly (especially on something like Newsmax where it's a short segment). And that he'd never get a word in if he didn't steamroll his opposition. They have the weight of social consensus behind them; (or at least think they do until smart people stop being afraid of being canceled online for spitting facts)...
Piers Morgan even threatened to cut Tracey's mic at one point! They could have just sat there mocking him and taking the piss, so Tracey has to be bold and get as much info across within the precious time where he's allowed to speak!
And let's be real. Authenticity is sorely lacking online. So it's probably better that Michael just be himself and let the chips fall where they may.
But anyway, not a criticism of you. ✨️ I get that you were only trying to be helpful. ❤️✨️
Tracey would do well to approach the subject more soberly and lose the purple prose and breathless outrage. I'm guessing it's possible that UnHerd might have carried the piece if he could have reined himself in a bit. He comes across as unhinged and therefore unpersuasive on this topic, which is too bad, because he raises so many good points. One understands the exasperation, but precisely because so many people have bought into the received wisdom regarding Epstein, Tracey would be better served to lay out his case the way a defense lawyer might, when everyone just "knows" that his client is guilty. Leading with "mass hysteria" is not the way to go -- even if in the end he thinks it's the best description of what's going on -- at least if his goal is to persuade anyone. But I don't know, maybe it gets more clicks.
He's been doing this for years and it's like beating your head against a solid wall. People are convinced Epstein was convicted of pedophilia and aren't willing to look at facts.
He's an atrocious writer. Got his style from Greenwald—all adverbs, endless ad hominem. You're right that he would be more persuasive if he took the time to learn how to write, but their goal is not actually persuasion, it's engagement, and dopamine.
Once again, you guys have NOTHING to counter Tracey's facts and rationale, do you? It's just your short-circuiting brains, overheated anger and childish insults.
I don't have a problem with his writing and I've written about 25 books. Have you ever read James Jones? It's not style that matters, it's content. Only English professors give a flying flip about style.
“Ad hominem” is a logical fallacy, the use of personal antipathy to strengthen an argument beyond its merits. And I don’t see any of it in Michael’s articles.
Calling someone like Sarah Ransome a kook isn’t ad hominem, it’s his conclusion based on evidence.
I never understood Virginia’s claims of “sex slavery.” If she felt like she was being used and/or abused by Epstein and Maxwell, why didn’t she just leave, or go to the police?
Did they seize her passport? Threaten her family?
The other “survivors” who all met Epstein while they were in their 20’s have very little credibility, unless they can prove they were coerced in some way.
Excellent reporting. But I can see why even UnHerd could not quite bring themselves to publish it. You walk too fine a line between sounding like a loony and masking the truth. I'm just glad I got to read this article. Thanks for posting it.
Yes, I know UnHerd is a British site -- I have been a subscriber for years. They had a podcast with Freddie Sayers interviewing Michael Tracey and when they posted that they said an article would be coming. But they chickened out. Maybe British law and politics made it too risky even for them.
It's certainly possible they chickened out. Personally, I hope Tracey can get interviewed by a national news network like Channel 4. They have platformed so many people involved in the Epstein saga uncritically - it would be great to see a critical voice there for once...
I don't know who Jane Doe #3 is in the provided link, but a recent article in defense of Prince Andrew by Tracey, mentions that VRG recanted prior statements about Dershowitz and Brunel. He suggested Andrew may have waited and received the same.
"[REDACTED] wrote a partially fictionalized account of her experienced with Epstein and Maxwell. In the memoir, [REDACTED] described a number of incidents that she has since admitted did not in fact take place. These include descriptions of a sexual encounter with a Nobel Prize winning scientist and a scene in which [REDACTED] is caught with cocaine in her room and fired. The memoir also mentions Alan Dershowitz, but does not claim that [REDACTED] engaged in sex acts with him. She did not raise those claims until 2014 (https://ia902807.us.archive.org/5/items/efta-02731082_202602/EFTA02731082.pdf#page=60)."
"Also in [REDACTED] when [REDACTED] was still writing her memoir, she exchanged emails with Sharon Churcher, a reporter for the Mail on Sunday. In one email, [REDACTED] asked Churcher to help her put together a list of Epstein’s well-known associates so that [REDACTED] could include them in her memoir. In response, Churcher wrote, “Don’t forget Alan Dershowitz. JE’s buddy and lawyer. Good name for your pitch… We all suspect Alan is a pedo and tho no proof of that, you probably met him when he was hanging with JE (https://ia902807.us.archive.org/5/items/efta-02731082_202602/EFTA02731082.pdf#page=60).”
You just proved his point. The FBI interviewed Roberts and determined she was not believable. They were unable to corroborate her claims. One of Epstein's employed masseuses told the FBI that she massaged two of Epstein's clients and they wanted sex. She said she complained to Epstein and he laughed at her and replied that what she did with clients was up to her. She was an adult.
So Tracey just spent many characters letting all know VRG is less than honest in what she has said. She reportedly spent 8-years vilifying Dershowitz, only to recant her claims. Same with Brunel. But you choose to overlook those facts and rely on her past statements. Whatever.
Read the FBI report MT linked in his article. They interviewed witnesses and determined there had been no such activity, it all came from Virginia Roberts.
What a solid article. I think it's sad that Andrew's family has thrown him to the wolves. One's own family should, ideally, at least give one the benefit of the doubt.
I suspect the Royal Family, or at least the late Queen, genuinely *did* extend Andrew the "benefit of the doubt" -- and continue to do so today in large measure, given the manifest evidence of his non-culpability in any child sex crimes. But the hysteria-addled political pressure has simply become too overwhelming for them to know how to handle properly, exacerbated by King Charles lacking the reserve of decades-long goodwill that his mother enjoyed. Imagine if they issued a statement this week resolutely defending Andrew? Starmer, Farage, and Badenoch would probably demand the immediate abolition of the monarchy.
I see a lot of internal politics in it - otherwise I doubt they'd let any royal be fed to the mob of peasants because of 'justice'.
Andrew is really a nobody, he only became a prominent scapegoat because of the royal blood in his veins. Look at how many people who made contributions to the society we, the American people, threw under the bus. And not only threw under the bus but are competing in outrage and rushing to cancel, to completely erase. All we know they were communicating with Epstein, other than that there is nothing in the “files”.
Whatever gruesome criminals were ever convicted, I do not recall the society ostracizing their acquaintances to such degree for simple emails, calls, or meetings, if no law was broken. It is unprecedented.
How is someone who had sex with a minor a “scapegoat “?
Everyone focused on Andrew and him only. Nobody else has answered the way he was made to pay based on allegations and evidence presented by one side. There was no court proceedings with cross examinations and introduction of evidence. All we had was the court of public opinion. This is not justice IMO, as much as I am disgusted by abuse of underage girls. Accusations and public outrage should not substitute legal process and should not be enough to ruin people’s lives and careers. I think Me Too movement has proved it. While the tide may be turning on Me Too, Epstein’s saga is being processed on emotional level only so far.
So he was just arrested out of the blue? No investigation? Don’t court proceedings happen AFTER the arrest? Must be different in the UK. Also, I thought others were arrested and/or quit over this.
Arrested for “misconduct in public office” because he allegedly leaked sensitive documents to Epstein
Good. Wouldn’t you want him arrested for that?
Trump stole boxes and boxes of documents and got away with it. Probably sold info. Probably got people killed.
The UK is doing a way better job than the US.
The monarchy is a business rather than a family. The mafia probably had more filial solidarity than those royal vultures do
That article is solid bullshit. Wonder why Michael Tracy is so vehement in his denial of Epstein’s powers and reach, in the face of irrefutable evidence. 🤔
The correct aristocratic response would have been to force Andrew to sign a suicide note to the nation apologising for the disgrace he had brought on the House of Windsor and then have him blow his brains out at a hunting lodge somewhere
Doubt?!?!?
I think most people realise that he probably WASN'T part of a child sex murder ring or suchlike but still aren't defending him because (unlike USA) we still have shame at the fact a major royal turned out to be such a dirty old man, and not even in a wholesome Charles II or Henry VIII way but as part of a sleazy friendship with a dodgy American financier.
I didn’t realize they also murdered children. Not surprised tho. Andrew was a client, though, which is bad enough
Worth noting that his majesty has some form here. When Britain last went this doolally it was over deceased popular entertainer, and alleged sometime confidante of then prince Charles, Sir Jimmy Savile. The whole nation almost overnight remembered (with the help of an assortment of grifters and fantasists promoted by unscrupulous lawyers and a gullible media) how it had known all along that Savile had been an insatiable - and omnivorous - predator. And, of course, he must have been procuring, blackmailing, protected by friends in high places, and all the rest of it. Needless to say, Charles kept his head down as numerous others were hounded for their supposed associations. But this is part of the British backdrop to the Epstein furore. People really will believe the most extreme nonsense, few have the courage to stand by their friends and those who do take one hell of a beating. And, to cap it all, as you have found, very many people are upset and offended at any suggestion that maybe some people were not harmed.
@Misa -
Smith M, Burnett R (2018), "The origins of the Jimmy Savile scandal". International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 38 No. 1-2 pp. 26–40, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/
From the abstract:
"The paper draws on an Economic and Social Research Council funded project to collate data on the Savile case. It is based, primarily, on interview material from former pupils and staff members from Duncroft School, from whence initial allegations against Savile emanate, contrasting these with media accounts.
Findings
The research provides a very different picture of Duncroft and the contemporary policy context to that presented in media accounts. A questioning account of the origins of the scandal emerges. The findings may lend themselves to a moral panics analysis but also point to the power of dominant stories in influencing public policy."
Hearing your perspective, this is some critical scholarship that may interest you. There is also a sociologist named Frank Furedi who has written critical accounts of the Savile scandal through a lens of "moral panic."
I can't claim to have deep knowledge on the Savile scandal myself... The only knowledge I have on what Savile was actually accused of doing, comes from a documentary I watched many years ago. It took ages to get through the spooky music and actually tell me what he was supposed to have done; but if true, the act in question was indefensible imo even if it wasn't violent or likely experienced as painful by the recipient...
And to be fair, even if that case of very bad and criminal behavior actually occured, that of course would not mean that every singe sexual experience he ever had with another person across his entire life was somehow unethical, illegal, wrong or experienced negatively by the other person.
Thanks, Aaron. I've seen Smith & Burnett's work before, and recommend it, but your link didn't come through for me. I hope this will work: 10.1108/IJSSP-03-2017-0029
The BBC's Newsnight programme tried to run something soon after Savile's death in late 2011 but decided they didn't have a story. Early the next year there was a (false) paternity claim, which held up the estate and then, late in 2012, after some build up ITV ran this https://youtu.be/GXOcRf2FyJA?si=22C1l3hidSH7pFE6 alleged documentary, which set the whole thing off. A minister mistakenly announced in parliament that there was a £30 million estate to compensate victims, (Savile had perhaps raised this much for charity in his lifetime, but his estate was a fraction of that) and the police declared him guilty without investigation, claiming that he'd spent 'every waking minute' thinking about...offending.' His alleged victims were both male and female and spanned from five to 75 years old. In the end, about 450 would register with police through a charity-staffed helpline before being able to claim compensation (and a nice flat fee for their lawyers) largely from the public purse.
One more try with the link to Smith & Burnett: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-03-2017-0029
Ah, sorry about that! Looks like the link I pasted cut off at the end. Yours works fine! 👍🎊
One day you need to write a book about this story. There's so much information and I haven't been following it since the start and so I don't really have the full picture. But as someone who originally thought that Epstein was running a child trafficking ring in order to blackmail politicians and American businessmen, I'd like to be able to sit down and read the full truth eventually.
I agree! Working on it...
You need to hammer more on the size of the pot of money that is fueling this story. Most readers are quite unaware.
I try to emphasize it in every podcast/show/stream I'm invited on. See my "All In" podcast appearance last week.
I first saw your appearance on All in podcast and was so relieved to hear you voice what I consider to be the objective view of the Epstein story. I am just an elderly reader but have been amazed at the outrage of media and everyone I know about dubious associations revealed in the “files”. I looked back at the Virginia Guiffre story and thought that it lacked substance. It was certainly financially beneficial to be an “ Epstein survivor “.
Still not enough. Lead with it if necessary.
Good to see at least one real journalist writing sense about this tedious saga.
I'd like to look on the hard drives of all the people falsely claiming that Epstein & his guests were paedophiles. Where else does a moral panic like this emerge from, if not projection?
No need to sink to the same depraved depths as the endless mobs of people who can't stop demanding that the FBI seize anyone's hard-drive who has a contrary perspective.
There's probably some projection going on. Or more, "it's safer to have the finger pointed at other's, than pointed at yourself." No one wants to be called a "pedo." (Probably not even actual pedos but who knows! 🤷)
I think the current pile on is more because it's popular and easy. You won't get any pushback and if you do, you can just say "okay pedo" and dismiss the critically minded folk. It's also not a big issue like climate change, where a solution would demand massive institutional changes and global co-operation between rival powers.
With sex scandals, the solutions are much easier and provide lots of entertainment and gossip as we all debate who said what, whether X or Y was lying, etc., and await with eager eyes the ensuing court trials and fallout. It's spectacle and on some level entertaining. Good for engagement. More money for content creators, more clicks for news articles - sex scandals bolster the attention economy...
There's also just not as many acceptable groups to hate on anymore. I believe it was the gay historian Scott de Orio, who argued in his 2017 PhD thesis that the earlier stigma around homosexuality broadly was displaced over time on to what he calls "intergenerational sex." That is to say, sex involving noticeable age gaps.
If Richard Hanania is correct that "The real target of pedo hysteria is age gap relationships," then it could certainly be argued that there is a lot of projection - and probably jealousy - when an older, wealthy man is seen to be having lots of sexual experiences with younger, happy women... Someone else is getting what you didn't get (say, when you were an older teenager yourself), or cannot get (because you lack the means, confidence, don't want to make the effort, whatever reason)...
So, people use what the historian Vern Bullough once called "The Pedophile Smear," and stir the pot for the fun of it, shitting all over other people's relationship because they can and society broadly doesn't care to call them on their bullshit. It's just sad for media figures in the public eye and who become such easy targets...
I know for a fact that "cancel culture" has had a massive impact on people's mental health, with many people terrified to express themselves online over the most nothingburger things - fears over being accused of "cultural appropriation" for example. I've seen this happen with a friend of mine, and it's sad how the internet has allowed for so much bullying and hatred instead of open minded, evidence based discussion...
(I will stop writing since this comment is long enough! Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk) 😛 ~
I enjoyed it & appreciated your reasoning, which is plausible.
Parental and fraternal guilt I think.
This is a great piece.
And Karma is such a ruthlessly moral force. People are so often taken down not for monstrous acts but for being wretched in the most ordinary ways and eventually there accumulates a tipping point of petty failures to have simply been nice when it would've been--well--nice to have been so.
I do still find that notorious photo to be heartbreaking in its way. Teenaged Virginia had such a charming smile. What are the terrible things that ruined her, since they don't seem to be what everyone keeps shrieking about?
Virginia was a con artist.
I'd frame it somewhat differently.
She claimed sexual abuse at a young age. Have no idea whether it's true or not, of course.
That's also mentioned in the FBI report as a possible fabrication.
Yes, I'd read that too.
w0e-MEN'S liberation is what ruined her. She was a crack smoker, 'escort' and FALSE accuser before she even met Epstein. I'd say w0e-MEN'S equality is what ruined her and a whole generation of w0e-MEN as well. I'm not a righty or a lefty I am RED PILL/GOLD PILL
Not women's liberation, prosectorial leadership & to some extent a brand of feminism about "caging bad men", which has now become a moral crusade. "BAD women" are thoughaly ensnared by carceral feminism.
***thoroughly simple words always stump me
"What are the terrible things that ruined her?"
https://substack.com/@thebestbadfairyyouknow/reads
Must have been vaccines ... 😂
So the Unherd opinion makers had a change of heart on publishing the work - curious…
I will admit to being quite surprised to see Tracey appear with the usually prim Sayers and even more surprised that the host seemed to be in agreement with much of Tracey’s views on this matter.
Great work MT - keep at it!
Micheal Tracy goes out of his way to dismiss pedophilia. He is clearly compromised. The latest Epstein files suggest something darker. The story at this point is how did three Attorney Generals and at least two FBI directors sit on 5? Million pages of incriminating evidence without one interview of Wexner? No search of the New Mexico property? Tracy and his supporters are vile morons. Likely they are both on a offenders list or have children on such a list
Good Lord!? It's clear to me you haven't the intelligence nor it appears sufficient control of your emotions to be telling ANYONE else who is or isn't "compromised," let alone who really is the "vile moron" here.
Yet with this level of invective (shadow projection perhaps?), I assume YOU must have a very interesting background, with many stories to tell...
Chuck, do you know what pedophilia is? Michael Tracey has not and does not dismiss it. He merely points out that it does not apply in the Epstein case. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to PREPUBUSCENT children, meaning persons usually under age 13. NONE of Epstein's alleged victims fall into that category. Look stuff up before you make comments. Wexner WAS interviewed by the FBI.
It’s more than attraction. Most men are sexually attracted to little girls, just not that much. Pedophiles have an actual sexual preference for little kids under 13.
Stop spreading this nonsense about “most men are sexually attracted to little girls.”
Most men have been shaped by evolution to be attracted to secondary sexual characteristics that signal fertility, such as wide hips and breasts.
Yes 51% of men are turned on by little girls but only at a fairly low rate of 32% of maximum. For 12-14 year olds girls 83% of men are turned on by them at 52% of maximum. Men are highly aroused by 15-17 year old girls.
Men are more aroused by 17 year old girls than by any other age group of females. It’s a continuum like most things in life. Or are you one of those Manichaeans.
Source?
I’ve been through all the data in the sexology journals over the years. Most were from the Journal of Sexology. Studies were done by people like Ray Blanchard and Michael Seto. They’re all lab studies.
This has been studied to death and all the finding replicate. In fact I saw a recent article by Seto postulating that the fairly small attraction to little girls was enough to drive a lot of the nonpedophilic child molesters.
Are you shocked that it’s a continuum like most things in life?
When all else fails, let loose with the insults and unsubstantiated claims…
Tracy dismisses the stated reason for Andrew's arrest. "Sharing confidential trade information while serving as the UK's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment from 2001 to 2011. Specific accusations involve forwarding official documents to Epstein, including reports from trade visits and a confidential briefing on investment opportunities in Afghanistan."
He instead focuses on abuse charges that were not were not part of the arrest record. Lord Mandelson was arrested for allegedly leaking confidential UK government memos to Jeffrey Epstein. The media may refer to Andrew as an abuser. The charges do not.
Tracy's approach here is opposite of his view of Epstein where he dismisses the pedophile allegation and instead reminds the reader that Epstein's charges and conviction did not include underage victims.
Michael, on your interviews try a better strategy.
Being calm instead of hyped up will give your points more sway.
I know it's ridiculous but this is how we calm down people who fall for the hype soup.
I'm not interested in advice on my personality, temperament, appearance, etc. Any feedback you'd like to offer on the substance, I'm all ears.
I honestly don't care about that but I was trying to say this is the biggest complaint that the narrative believing zombies have.
Why give them this? Why not let them have to face the facts?
The substance is good and it's ok if you don't wanna change the temperament, just do your thing. It got you this far.
Thanks for the honest reporting. It helped scratch an itch I had from when I first heard about Epstein.
Something smelled funny and you unearthed it!
He's not hyped up, he's frustrated. The same people who believe in chemtrails have been hyping the Epstein claims. There are many of us who have read the same documents he has and came to the same conclusions, but we live in a world where people want to believe tabloids.
This makes it more important to be cold and disaffected, not less
Part of the problem is that Michael is under pressure to get his points across quickly (especially on something like Newsmax where it's a short segment). And that he'd never get a word in if he didn't steamroll his opposition. They have the weight of social consensus behind them; (or at least think they do until smart people stop being afraid of being canceled online for spitting facts)...
Piers Morgan even threatened to cut Tracey's mic at one point! They could have just sat there mocking him and taking the piss, so Tracey has to be bold and get as much info across within the precious time where he's allowed to speak!
And let's be real. Authenticity is sorely lacking online. So it's probably better that Michael just be himself and let the chips fall where they may.
But anyway, not a criticism of you. ✨️ I get that you were only trying to be helpful. ❤️✨️
All the best! ~
Tracey would do well to approach the subject more soberly and lose the purple prose and breathless outrage. I'm guessing it's possible that UnHerd might have carried the piece if he could have reined himself in a bit. He comes across as unhinged and therefore unpersuasive on this topic, which is too bad, because he raises so many good points. One understands the exasperation, but precisely because so many people have bought into the received wisdom regarding Epstein, Tracey would be better served to lay out his case the way a defense lawyer might, when everyone just "knows" that his client is guilty. Leading with "mass hysteria" is not the way to go -- even if in the end he thinks it's the best description of what's going on -- at least if his goal is to persuade anyone. But I don't know, maybe it gets more clicks.
He's been doing this for years and it's like beating your head against a solid wall. People are convinced Epstein was convicted of pedophilia and aren't willing to look at facts.
Pedophilia is not against the law. It’s not even a behavior.
I think it's good writing, but I'm not surprised even UnHerd wouldn't publish this. It's not the writing that's objectionable, it's the content.
He's an atrocious writer. Got his style from Greenwald—all adverbs, endless ad hominem. You're right that he would be more persuasive if he took the time to learn how to write, but their goal is not actually persuasion, it's engagement, and dopamine.
Once again, you guys have NOTHING to counter Tracey's facts and rationale, do you? It's just your short-circuiting brains, overheated anger and childish insults.
The comments were about his writing and communication style.
I don't have a problem with his writing and I've written about 25 books. Have you ever read James Jones? It's not style that matters, it's content. Only English professors give a flying flip about style.
“Ad hominem” is a logical fallacy, the use of personal antipathy to strengthen an argument beyond its merits. And I don’t see any of it in Michael’s articles.
Calling someone like Sarah Ransome a kook isn’t ad hominem, it’s his conclusion based on evidence.
That'll teach 'em to never text words like "pizza" or "hotdog" out of proper context!
They aren’t even out of context, they‘re referring to actual pizzerias
I never understood Virginia’s claims of “sex slavery.” If she felt like she was being used and/or abused by Epstein and Maxwell, why didn’t she just leave, or go to the police?
Did they seize her passport? Threaten her family?
The other “survivors” who all met Epstein while they were in their 20’s have very little credibility, unless they can prove they were coerced in some way.
The sex slavery is such bullshit.
Excellent reporting. But I can see why even UnHerd could not quite bring themselves to publish it. You walk too fine a line between sounding like a loony and masking the truth. I'm just glad I got to read this article. Thanks for posting it.
UNHERD didn't want to publish it because they are a British site.
Yes, I know UnHerd is a British site -- I have been a subscriber for years. They had a podcast with Freddie Sayers interviewing Michael Tracey and when they posted that they said an article would be coming. But they chickened out. Maybe British law and politics made it too risky even for them.
It's certainly possible they chickened out. Personally, I hope Tracey can get interviewed by a national news network like Channel 4. They have platformed so many people involved in the Epstein saga uncritically - it would be great to see a critical voice there for once...
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00174356.pdf
"No other victim described being directed by either Epstein or Maxwell to engage in sexual activity with any other men."
I don't know who Jane Doe #3 is in the provided link, but a recent article in defense of Prince Andrew by Tracey, mentions that VRG recanted prior statements about Dershowitz and Brunel. He suggested Andrew may have waited and received the same.
Jane Doe #3 is VRG.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre) writes in "Nobody's Girl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobody%27s_Girl_(memoir))"
"Another theory—which is supported by the fact that Epstein’s houses were all outfitted with video cameras in every room—is that he wanted to record men in compromising positions in order to blackmail them later. I don’t know if that is true, but I do know that Epstein kept a huge library of videotapes that had been recorded inside his houses. (https://ia600104.us.archive.org/27/items/nobodys-girl-a-memoir-of-surviving-abuse-and-fighting-for-justice/Nobodys_Girl_A_Memoir_of_Surviving_Abuse_and_Fighting_for_Justice.pdf#page=120)
This theory is contradicted by EFTA00038617 (https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00038617.pdf) “Epstein Investigation (https://ia600400.us.archive.org/14/items/efta-00038617_20260222/EFTA00038617.pdf)” dated July 17, 2024.
"Searches were executed at both locations and it bears noting that, contrary to some news reports, these searches did not reveal any cameras in any of the bedrooms or massage rooms at Epstein’s residences. (https://ia902801.us.archive.org/22/items/efta-00038617/EFTA00038617.pdf)
Giuffre also writes
"On one occasion, Epstein told me, Brunel sent him three French twelve-year-olds—I think they were triplets—for his birthday. Epstein had sex with them, then put them on a plane back to France (https://ia600104.us.archive.org/27/items/nobodys-girl-a-memoir-of-surviving-abuse-and-fighting-for-justice/Nobodys_Girl_A_Memoir_of_Surviving_Abuse_and_Fighting_for_Justice.pdf#page=120)."
"Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. (https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2015_0102_epsteindershowitz.pdf)"
In "Investigation into Potential Co-Conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein (https://ia600404.us.archive.org/0/items/efta-00038617_202602/EFTA00038617.pdf)" dated December 19, 2019 EFTA02731082 (https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2012/EFTA02731082.pdf), we read
"As described in more detail below, we have been unable to corroborate accounts of [REDACTED] being "slow our' to other men for sex.. (https://ia902807.us.archive.org/5/items/efta-02731082_202602/EFTA02731082.pdf#page=55)"
"[REDACTED] wrote a partially fictionalized account of her experienced with Epstein and Maxwell. In the memoir, [REDACTED] described a number of incidents that she has since admitted did not in fact take place. These include descriptions of a sexual encounter with a Nobel Prize winning scientist and a scene in which [REDACTED] is caught with cocaine in her room and fired. The memoir also mentions Alan Dershowitz, but does not claim that [REDACTED] engaged in sex acts with him. She did not raise those claims until 2014 (https://ia902807.us.archive.org/5/items/efta-02731082_202602/EFTA02731082.pdf#page=60)."
"Also in [REDACTED] when [REDACTED] was still writing her memoir, she exchanged emails with Sharon Churcher, a reporter for the Mail on Sunday. In one email, [REDACTED] asked Churcher to help her put together a list of Epstein’s well-known associates so that [REDACTED] could include them in her memoir. In response, Churcher wrote, “Don’t forget Alan Dershowitz. JE’s buddy and lawyer. Good name for your pitch… We all suspect Alan is a pedo and tho no proof of that, you probably met him when he was hanging with JE (https://ia902807.us.archive.org/5/items/efta-02731082_202602/EFTA02731082.pdf#page=60).”
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/1218/12/giuffre-v-maxwell/), Giuffre had accused Alan Dershowitz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz) of having sexually abused her.
"He ejaculated. He was happy. (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1218.12_1.pdf#page=92)"
https://archive.ph/VnxLq#selection-483.0-483.74
"I now recognize I may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz. (https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/11/Agreed-Statement.pdf)"
EFTA02781410 (https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Court%20Records/Giuffre%20v.%20Maxwell,%20No.%20115-cv-07433%20(S.D.N.Y.%202015)/EFTA02781410.pdf) - Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 115-cv-07433 (https://ia902807.us.archive.org/27/items/efta-02781410/EFTA02781410.pdf)
EFTA00172473 (https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00172473.pdf) "Total victim list = 1,114 names. The list included victims and victim families, per SDNY/SDFL (https://ia600104.us.archive.org/11/items/efta-00172473/EFTA00172473.pdf#page=4).”
EFTA00174356 (https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00174356.pdf) "No other victim described being directed by either Epstein or Maxwell to engage in sexual activity with any other men. (https://ia903200.us.archive.org/25/items/efta-00174356/EFTA00174356.pdf)
"Epstein Files with lawyer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL_pJwpDQX
You just proved his point. The FBI interviewed Roberts and determined she was not believable. They were unable to corroborate her claims. One of Epstein's employed masseuses told the FBI that she massaged two of Epstein's clients and they wanted sex. She said she complained to Epstein and he laughed at her and replied that what she did with clients was up to her. She was an adult.
So Tracey just spent many characters letting all know VRG is less than honest in what she has said. She reportedly spent 8-years vilifying Dershowitz, only to recant her claims. Same with Brunel. But you choose to overlook those facts and rely on her past statements. Whatever.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/08/us/alan-dershowitz-virginia-giuffre-allegations-dropped
I'm pretty sure Jane Doe #3 was Roberts. I know she tried to join the case but the judge ruled she had no standing.
Read the FBI report MT linked in his article. They interviewed witnesses and determined there had been no such activity, it all came from Virginia Roberts.
I tried but received a "Too Many Requests" response.