Eric Weinstein: Hello, this is Eric with a few notes on today's release.
This was recorded over half a year ago, and I've sat on it because I didn't want
to release it.
I had hoped that the story it discusses would have been followed up by others as I
never wanted to be entangled with it.
Instead, that story has barely moved.
For some reason, there is no one capable within the world of institutional media or
government of moving this enormous story forward.
Despite worldwide interest, I've elsewhere named that unseen force the disk or
distributed ideas suppression complex.
What I see when watching this video of the episode in question is a frightened 53
year old man in an unscripted and perhaps occasionally rambling hour of discussion
of Jeffrey Epstein.
He doesn't exactly know how to say what he has got to get across, but perhaps that is
because he isn't simply a middle aged man at all.
When I look closer, I see a terrified 10 or 11 year old boy who many years ago was
sent with therapist.
Why was that child so terrified of going to see a therapist?
You may ask.
Well because of inappropriate events set in motion by the therapist's behavior at
the first of their two meetings.
That however, was not what caused the lasting terror.
Despite the therapist being a trained and established authority figure and the boy
being a minor, it was possible for the boy to simply and firmly say, no, I do not
want that.
You must stop.
Thus, the boy is not a survivor.
He was not a victim and he did not want a random broken person to be integrated into
his life story.
Today, the man in that chair addressing the camera is simply the man that became
of an unlucky boy who was sent to see a professionally licensed therapist who
crossed his path.
What was terrifying instead was that when I explained that I did not ever wish to go
back to that curse it office, I was forced against my will and with a good amount of
screaming and terror.
I might add to go again for a second meeting.
At that second meeting, I was intimidated by the failed and inappropriate therapist
who was obviously himself terrified.
Being forced back into such a dark office alone as a boy to be berated, threatened,
and shamed by an out of control representative of the world of
institutional authority alerted me to just how badly outgunned the individual is when
confronted by the terrifying reality of institutional actors attempting to silence
a lone voice.
Why would no one listened to the boy when he told them what had happened?
Why wouldn't anyone adult powerful and credentialed speak up for that child and
his right to be free of the suppose that therapy and therapist could no one see the
terror in the child's eyes?
Why simply because two sessions had been booked.
Did he need to continue with this random therapist?
It was clearly a damaged soul and one who needed real therapy much more than the
boy.
This episode is ultimately about the world of institutions, the institutions of
journalism that will regularly destroy individuals by reputation, but who will
generally not ask comparable questions of other institutions.
The institutions of the intelligence world, which owe us information as to what
is known about Jeffrey Epstein, Galane Maxwell and their operation.
The institutions of government that will not hold hearings into out-of-control
intelligence activities as we did in the 1970s.
And the institutions of technology, which track our every move and know all our
secrets yet cannot locate a single individual like Jeffrey Epstein's
accomplice, who completely improbably seems to have vanished from the face of
the earth as of March, 2020 but just as this episode is about institutions, it is
also about individuals and the various ways that they're made vulnerable to
institutional objectives.
Because every individual may be destroyed.
It will buy the same complex of institutions that are themselves deciding
not to act with vigor and policing each other.
We are all at risk when we deviate from their scripts and expect structural
change.
Thus, the act of pointing out the absurdity of the story is in fact
terrifying, which gets to the questions raised by the young boy in our story.
Why will no one listened to me when I say I do not ever wish to encounter the
monster or the official class he represents ever again.
Why must I go back to the same institutions that harm me.
Why does a child evident terror mean nothing to any adult nor any institution
at all.
Why can we not talk openly about the risks to the individuals from the expert and
authority classes when we have a conflict between them.
As it happens.
Analogs of all of those personal questions are now being asked in hush tones about
Jeffrey Epstein and the bizarre institutional response to his story.
Why are we not expending resources to figure out what giant structure we
apparently just tripped over?
Are we really going to sit here and not ask whether this was a protected or state
sponsored pedophile running some kind of intelligence operation to control people
in positions of power, wealth.
And influence.
Are we okay with the idea that we aren't even asking on the record questions about
whether our intelligence communities, traffic and underage minors, some as young
as 12 years of age.
Well, I have an answer for that.
Boy.
One day you will become a man and you will fear loss in the battle between the flawed
and vulnerable individual that all adults eventually become.
And the amoral institutional world who continues to hold most of the best cards.
You will learn the story of Jean Seaberg, and that alone will change your life.
You will not know to whom you can turn.
You will come to believe that there is no news media nor justice system, nor social
movement, nor representative government that truly cares about protecting minors.
In real terms, when institutional power, money, secrecy, and sex are all woven
together, you will become part of the problem by remaining silent for awhile to
cope with your fears.
That is unless you are able to overcome them to clear your throat and finally say,
you know what?
I refuse to continue to be part of the charade in this way anymore.
I have always felt Jeffrey Epstein was a construct and I now feared that he was a
state sponsored pedophile, protected by governments, and I have kept quiet too
long, partially out of fear that the trail could lead to either or both of the two
nations I love most in this world.
I'm not really here for myself and I've been avoiding this.
And perhaps at least directly, I'm not even mostly here for the victims of
Jeffrey Epstein and his organization.
I am at last really here, selfishly, for a young boy, long gone.
Why abandoned to prove to him that was actually possible at personal risk to
stand up for children and against the system?
These young girls are no less deserving, of course, but I don't know any of them
personally, so I will stick to the issue that animates me.
The individual standing against the institutions who would crush him or her.
So to that long dead and previously abandoned former self.
Let me just say this.
Sorry, I'm a little late kid.
I, uh, became afraid that the imperfections of what I'm about to say
next could rearrange my adult life and make me vulnerable to those who will
destroy anything.
And anyone who threatens them using everything at their disposal.
I apologize for my cowardice.
It is one of many character flaws that I am working to correct, but you as a boy
did nothing wrong and it will be a pleasure to stand up for you.
Come with me.
You're a solid kid who didn't deserve this, and I think you deserve a better
champion, but Jesus wasn't available.
So you got me instead.
Let's do this thing.
I know this is crazy, but I think that there's even a remote chance we can take
these guys.
We can at least try and go down swinging.
Let's just release it.
Flaws and all and hope that the world is more kind than it's failing institution.
But that said, stay tuned.
Please be a little bit forgiving and enjoy the episode.
Hello.
You found the portal.
I think this is going to be a little bit of an unusual episode because it's going
to deal with a current event, and I try to make most of these episodes somewhat more
timeless so that they're not referenced to something in specific that is going to
age, but the event that I'm talking about is the very mysterious circumstances that
are currently animating so many people's speculations in the news.
That is the apparent death of Jeffrey Epstein by his own hand.
Now.
I want to say first of all, that I have absolutely no special inside knowledge of
the situation.
I know people who knew him and I met him once, but it is not like I have any
particular line on information from any particularly interesting source about the
situation.
Furthermore, I don't think that I'm going to be using any special kind of analysis
that is known only to me, but I did want to talk to people about responsible.
Conspiracy theorizing that is in the minds of many people believe that conspiracy
theorists or people like Alex Jones, people who are spouting all sorts of crazy
ideas, some of which might have some grain of truth in them, but in general, it feels
like an exercise.
In, uh, talking to the tin foil hat crowd.
Now, I don't know much about Alex Jones.
Perhaps he's better than I think he is.
But what I want to talk about is a different kind of conspiracy theorizing.
So without further ado, welcome to this episode of the portal on the subject of
Jeffrey Epstein.
So the first thing I want to do is I want to be relatively clear.
That I'm somebody who believes that there is a fair amount of organization behind
the scenes, usually have a relatively low level of organization that, uh, is unknown
to the, to the people who are watching TV or listening to, let's say, NPR on the
radio.
And at various times I've dug more deeply into various stories.
And so I want you to have some idea of my history in the space.
In the 1980s and 1990s, I became very active in believing that the so called
STEM shortage of scientists and engineers that was claimed by the policy research
and analysis division of the national science foundation, uh, was in fact a
conspiracy in order to make life easier for employers who would be facing, uh.
American scientists with an ability to bargain, uh, and make higher wage demands.
And that the national Academy of sciences and national science foundation
interceded, interceded on the behalf of employers, which was tampering in the
labor market and an absolutely vital sector resulting in the immigration act of
1990 or impact 90, as it was called.
At that point, I also became aware of what I.
Have termed the bore Haas rectangle theory.
That is that employers generally in free market economies when they're complaining
about labor shortages, are actually trying to transfer wealth from labor to capital,
uh, complaining instead, that there is a small inefficiency that needs to be
rectified, which we might call the Harberger triangle.
So that is employers claim that there's a small inefficiency, but in fact, you're
seeking large.
A transfer payments from the vulnerable to the well-healed.
I also believe that NAFTA and the free trade agreement from the 1990s was a kind
of conspiracy supported by the economics, uh, establishment of the United States
that they knew that in fact, economics was not a sorry, uh, trade free trade was not
a freebie.
It was not, in fact a rising tide that lifted all boats, but was in fact, again,
a transfer.
Um, which was claimed to be a.
Uh, pure good for everyone.
This is the difference between something called the Kaldor Hicks objective function
and the Pereda objective function.
I also believed that string theory was largely a desperation measure in physics
that was sold to the world to buy time when in fact the field of theoretical
physics was failing.
I also claimed that the Boskin commission formed by Packwood and Moynahan in the mid
1990s.
Was a kind of conspiracy to transfer, uh, actually $1 trillion.
Um, by using the fact that social security payments are indexed to inflation, as well
as tax brackets being indexed to inflation.
So that if you could show that the CPI was overstated and you could reduce the CPI,
you could transfer millions without having to touch the so called third rail of
American politics.
This brings us.
To the two trading fortunes in New York city that during the, uh, first decade of
the new millennium made no sense to me.
And those were Bernie Madoff then referred to as the Jewish T bill and Jeffrey
Epstein.
In the case of Madoff, I made them wrong guests.
I believe that Bernie Madoff was front running a traditional business that he
held using.
Uh, actual orders that he knew were being placed and in this hedge fund was
effectively cheating, uh, based on the insight information he had from a
legitimate business in an illegitimate business.
I goofed, and that was wrong.
In fact, he was, uh, operating a pyramid scheme.
It didn't occur to me in the case of Jeffrey Epstein.
Well, we'll get to that shortly, but it made no sense when I actually looked into
the story.
Let me keep going.
I also became aware of what I called the gated institutional narrative, in effect,
a storyline or narrative that many institutions claim to believe.
But would easily, uh, be disrupted if outsiders were allowed to comment on it in
a way of walling it off so that these narratives could in fact govern, uh, the
American mindset and get us talking about things that we would never normally choose
to talk about in terms that seem completely unnatural to me.
This is also the origin of the four quadrant theory, which I've pushed out.
Which is a way of intimidating people, uh, away from holding positions that are not
supposed to be habitable.
Like for example, if you're a Xena Fillic restrictionist on immigration, supposedly
this is the position, the most famous example of the theory is Kathy Newman
questioning Jordan Peterson saying, uh, so what you're really saying is, and this is
an implied threat, which is that if you try to express something subtle, you will
be mapped to expressing something that is beyond the pale.
In addition.
Uh, in the early two thousands, I came out, uh, talking against the great
moderation, uh, and mortgage backed securities.
I published, uh, in, I think I submitted in 2001 to risk magazine, my first article
and mortgage backed securities.
And I kept talking about the fact that we had not actually bought banished
volatility from the markets.
And this is a period of time where I was, uh.
Sort of the going around the hedge fund con conference circuit with Naseem to lab,
talking about the fact that even though volatility was decreasing, that this was
not a permanent state of affairs.
Furthermore, I objected to non-recourse loans, uh, in the wake of the great
financial crisis.
And I've talked openly about the, uh, false narratives of the inevitability of
Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Madoff, which was a giant mistake in my opinion,
of the New York times interceding in an election in a completely inappropriate
way.
And they doubled down and came up with the impossibility of Donald Trump, which I
tried to use preference, falsification, the theory of teamwork, Quran we just had
on the program in order to say that the likelihood of a Trump victory was far
higher than anyone had imagined.
I had also said various things about Brexit.
Um, where I thought that the likelihood that that would, um, actually pass was
high.
And afterwards, after the 2016 election, I talked about fake news as an invented
concept.
It had been discussed before that, but there was a slew of articles about fake
news, which I still think was a completely inauthentic attempt, uh, to put in a place
holder for some ability to control.
The internet in particular, the large platforms, so that a repeat of 2016 could
never happen in the year 2020 a in effect that there should be some way of restoring
the gated institutional narrative, which had clearly broken.
Uh, I've also been quite vocal on the data and society alternative.
Uh, influencer network theory, uh, on, particularly on the Dave Reuben program, I
think that this was a transparent attempt, uh, to attempt to control the internet and
the inability to, uh, of influencers to gain stature if they're outside the gated
institutional network.
And I also made several tweets, um.
Around Jeffrey Epstein, one of them, which says that if he is in fact, a construct of
the intelligence community, uh, either the U S intelligence community or a foreign
one, then clearly he could not be allowed to live.
Many people also made similar, uh, predictions.
Um, but that gives you an idea of the kind of thing that I've been talking about.
I in general believe that where we are as a society is that we are expected to
believe in narratives that any person with a modicum of intelligence and a certain
awareness of history cannot possibly be expected to believe with a straight face.
All right.
That leads us to the doorstep of what I call responsible conspiracy theorizing.
Now, in order to do responsible conspiracy theorizing, it's important not to be
definite about things we don't know.
And I'm going to try to let you know that I actually don't know what has happened.
In fact, the official story is quite possible.
Um, from what I know, it's not impossible.
The Jeffrey Epstein was a perverted, very rich man who is dead by his own hand in
custody through an unlikely but not impossible set of circumstances.
However.
Unfortunately for me, I met Jeffrey Epstein in 2004 I think, or perhaps 2003
and I met him in his home in Manhattan on 71st street when, uh, I, he took an
interest in talking to me both as a scientist and as somebody who is
interested in foreign exchange trading.
I found that meeting so bizarre and so remarkable that it has stuck with me ever
since.
Recently when the news turned to Jeffrey Epstein, my wife said to me, you know,
Eric, you called this when you met him early on.
And I said, what do you remember?
And she said that you called me immediately afterwards and you said, I've
just met a construct.
And she asked what?
It was a construct, and I said, I've met somebody.
Who appears to be a hedge fund billionaire who I don't think is actually in fact
involved, particularly in hedge fund trading.
I felt like what I was meeting was an actor, an actor who had been hired or
constructed to play a part.
Ever since that meeting, I've used one word and one word alone when talking about
Jeffrey Epstein and particularly with people who knew him.
Who are friends or acquaintances or colleagues of mine, and by using the word
construct repeatedly, I attempted to make a, an indelible image that I was very
bothered and was in fact making a prediction that one day it was quite
probable, although not definite, and certainly not certain the Jeffrey Epstein
would be revealed to be something other than what he had apparently been.
Um, Chronicle does being and what he had portrayed himself as being.
As a result, I now have a different situation because I was making this
prediction early on and I had no idea what turn of events, uh, would bring us to the
present.
Uh, I was quite vocal about something, which perhaps today if I knew how things
were going to end up, I would have said nothing at all.
So I feel in fact a little bit more vulnerable having spoken out on this as if
I know something, rather than just a person who found himself in remarkable
circumstances and didn't believe what he was being told.
And this is why I'm doing this right now.
In part, I want to disgorge everything that I know or believe that I know about
Jeffrey Epstein, so that it will be very clear to anybody who would attempt to
intimidate me that there is nothing to be gained.
I know nothing proprietary.
I have no special insight information, and I want to get to how I came to believe
that Jeff Epstein was quite likely the construct of an intelligence community,
either ours in the U S or somewhere else.
Curiously, many humans have weirdly reversed the typical male and female norms
and traits from nature.
Peacocks are famously more adorn than the planar P hens, and this is frequently the
case with lizards or even spiders.
Yet oddly in my country and culture, there is perhaps only one piece of jewelry or
adornment that any male can wear with universal acceptance or wristwatch.
But here's the catch.
Do you really want to communicate the, you overpaid for a luxury watch?
If you can get truly luxurious styling and a fraction of the price in a stunning
wristwatch that tells time with a highly accurate movement.
Well, the folks at returning sponsored in Xero have solved this problem for you.
I got two watches from them that I would be proud to wear to any interview, but
there were so reasonably priced that I was actually able to give one of them to my 14
year old son as a stunning time piece of his own.
So if you're looking for a great time piece had been, Sarah was sponsoring this
podcast by offering 15% off your entire order when you use code portal, just head
to VIN Sarah watches.com and use code portal for 15% off and free shipping.
That's V I.
N.
C.
E.
R.
O.
Watches.
Dot com and use my exclusive discount code portal to get 15% off the entire catalog.
Last time I did a spot for wine access, I actually hijacked the commercial to tell a
personal story, which I will now finish.
You see, this is because great wine isn't a normal product.
It integrates with the most personal aspects of your life.
WineAccess sent me to a tasting for silver Oak vineyards without knowing that their
Cabernet Sauvignon was actually a bottle that my sister in law, Heather hidings
parents, Doug and Jesse highing had brought to my brother Brett's wedding for
us all to share.
Well, Doug died several years ago and, and Heather had to tell my nephews that he had
passed.
Everyone was very sad.
Until the doctors came back in and said, you know, we seem to have brought him
back.
So my nephew is actually got another year of their grandfather.
I got to think back on this bizarre miracle year, and just by going to this
tasting and letting such a distinct bottle take me back 20 years, I realized I
probably had no actual access to some of these memories without an olfactory
memory.
So may I make a recommendation?
Do you all.
Consider if you were in a position to do so.
Buying some great wine and putting it away for the next generation or two, and thank
you to wine access and silver Oak for giving me the opportunity to conjure a
very good man.
Now gone with wineaccess.com/portal you're going to get yourself one hell of a bottle
with wine access.com/portal so why not order them bottles tonight?
You'll get $100 off and support the show by going to wineaccess.com/portal you'll
be glad you did.
So in order to do responsible conspiracy theorizing, my first rule is, is that one
should not attempt to allege a type of conspiracy that has never been encountered
before.
Over the years, many conspiracies have been uncovered, and so we have a menu, if
you will, uh, of.
Proven conspiracies with which we can try to figure out whether something is in fact
possible.
And to give you an idea, I'm going to list a small number of conspiracies that have
been proven and give you the idea of why these things figure in my imagination.
And I think that what will happen over time is that you'll see that I'll refer to
the same conspiracies over and over again because they give us an idea of the
boundaries of the possible.
First of all.
One question.
Is it possible that mainstream media can be weaponized by the intelligence
community for the purpose of destroying a well known individual?
That is, as I am recording this, I am aware that the intelligence community
could decide to tarnish or destroy or in their words, cheapen my reputation.
By planting stories in mainstream media.
In this case, I would point people to one of the most important examples we have,
which is the destruction of gene Seaberg, the leading actress who was originally
found by audit, Otto Preminger to play Joan of arc, and also used by John Luke
Godard in the film, breathless as the heroine.
GNC Seaberg was, uh, accused, uh, due to her radical politics active in the black
Panther party of cuckolding, her husband, and bearing the child of a black Panther
and in a news item that was planted by, uh, the FBI with Joyce Haber of the Los
Angeles times later repeated by Newsweek.
The great thing about this is you don't have to believe me.
You can just look it up.
Does the U S have the ability to assassinate its own people who may be
trying to do good?
Well, in the case of the person who invented the term, the rainbow coalition,
this appears to be the case.
It wasn't Jesse Jackson.
It was in fact, a man named Fred Hampton.
And my understanding is he was trying to get black street gangs to stop warring
with each other, to form a political coalition and was assassinated for his,
uh, attempt to do so.
Uh, in his bed in Chicago, Illinois.
So this shows that assassinations by our, our intelligence community and our
particular form of secret police.
The FBI is also possible.
Can you have a highly coordinated, silent hit with tremendous complexity going off
almost without a hitch.
I believe that the surveillance photos that we have seen in Dubai indicate that
this is in fact has occurred recently.
I'm not going to say who carried out the hit because that is not known, but it is
widely believed to be a particular country that is not hard to guess.
Is it possible to suicide someone?
Normally we think of committing suicide as an individual action.
But do we ever find the intelligence communities attempting to, in the sense of
a transitive verb, suicide, someone by letting them know that they will turn
their life into a living hell.
So that, uh, committing suicide is the only way out.
In fact, this is, uh, what the subject of the FBI's, um.
Let her by the hand of Sullivan to Martin Luther King jr was when the attempt was to
tell King that he was finished and that if he didn't commit suicide, that his legacy
and his name would be tarnished.
Would an intelligence community ever contemplate using organized crime such as
LA Cosa Nostra, uh, in order to carry out a, an act that it didn't want to do
itself?
This is what we found.
The comedian Dick Gregory was a considered being subjected to.
When we found out that the FBI was thinking about having LA Cosa Nostra, uh,
be informed that he had been talking about union activities and labor racketeering.
So yes, it is quite possible that the intelligence community would use organized
crime.
This is also a proven fact.
Would we ever have the use of orgies and honeypots together with an elaborately
constructed backstory in which an actor.
And the character they played were entirely different.
This is in fact, the story of Ellie Cohn.
Perhaps Israel's most famous spy discovered in Damascus, uh, as if he was,
uh, an Arab who had come from Argentina as a Playboy using alcohol.
Uh, and women in order to, uh, integrate himself into the highest echelons of
Syrian society, particularly the intelligence and defense communities.
So, yes, people are constructed, uh, to be something other than they are.
And honeypots are very much, uh, a possible use in the intelligence world is
their intelligence, uh, community interest in control of the media.
I would commend that.
You look at project Mockingbird.
Is there any attempt to gain control of innocent influencers that is, are there
any circumstances in which people simply have the crime of being influential used
against them?
In fact, you can look for section a of the reserve index people to be rounded up in
times of national emergency inside the United States.
This might include professors, labor organizers, professionals, authors.
The independently wealthy.
In other words, there is very much an interest in keeping track of people who've
done nothing wrong, but in times of national emergency, you might want to make
sure that none of these people are capable of influencing the population.
Lastly, one of the things that we hear most frequently is, is that there is no
ability to have conspiracies because any large group of people would not be able to
keep a secret.
It's a really silly idea because COINTELPRO, which was discovered by the
citizens committee to investigate the FBI in, uh, 1971, when the word showed up in
documents they stole from an office of the FBI in media, Pennsylvania.
And then they use the freedom of information act in order to find out what
COINTELPRO was.
And it turned out that it was a permanent, dirty tricks campaign living inside of the
FBI.
And that the deep throat.
Uh, construct inside of the Watergate story, um, of Woodward and Bernstein was
in fact, Mark felt, who I believe was the head of COINTELPRO after J Edgar Hoover.
So what we're going to be doing is simply exploring how the things that have been
proven to be true might enter into the story of the unfortunate Jeffrey Epstein.
In this circumstance, I want to say what it is that I'm asking for, and I'm going
to be talking about the church and pike commissions and having them redone in the
current era.
If you don't know what the church and pike committees were, I believe the church
committee was in the Senate and the pike committee was in the house.
They were an attempt to invest our own, uh, investigate our own intelligence
community in order to understand what the U S had become in an era that was rife
with dirty tricks, campaigns often against our own citizens and often against people
who had done nothing wrong other than exercising their constitutional rights to
descent from official narrative.
Uh, and in general, mainstream perspectives, it is extremely important to
me that the United States remain a place that is not only not hostile to heterodox
thinking, but leads the world in heterodox thinking.
This is our comparative advantage against places like China and Russia, which use
fear to intimidate their people.
If we cannot have heterodox thinkers operating with a feeling of safety in our
own country, I believe that we are lost.
Because I don't think we are going to be able to compete with powers that are able
to organize people and use violence to coerce people into doing things that our
people would find absolutely unpalatable.
Further, if you're running a kind of conspiracy, and I don't, I'm not against
conspiracies and I'm not against the intelligence community, but it's important
that the conspiracy is be ethical, that they be public minded and that they'd be
of a very high caliber.
You shouldn't be able to trip over a conspiracy doing nothing wrong and find
yourself in a world of pain.
What I'm going to say about Jeffrey Epstein is that if the official story
isn't true.
And then in fact, he was an intelligence community construct, either us or foreign.
Then he was a very poor intelligence construct.
It was easy to trip over Jeffrey Epstein.
He was not well constructed.
And I'll get into what I think may have been going on shortly.
But the key point is, um, I had someone potentially reach out to me and intimidate
me a bit.
I don't know if it was directed.
But they seem to know a great deal about me and they were trying to, I thought,
dissuade me from talking about this and investigating this.
My feeling about this is if I'm tripping over your construct, then you goofed.
It's not my problem.
You drew up this person, whoever you may be, if I'm correct about this and you made
a mistake.
And I'm going to say what that mistake is, but it shouldn't be, uh, my job to get out
of your way.
It should be your job to make sure that I never run across your problem.
So I believe that Jeffrey Epstein, if he wasn't intelligence, construct, was
extremely badly drawn.
All right,
here's what went into my meeting of Jeffrey . My recollection is, is that
Jeffrey Epstein had a staff of young adult women who I would guess were in their late
twenties, perhaps early thirties.
They seem very professional.
They seem very attractive and that they seemed to take, uh, his schedule and all
of the sort of incidental executive function, uh, duties off of his hands.
Uh, principally I dealt with them according to my recollection and not with
Jeffrey directly.
I believe I became aware of that.
Jeffrey wanted to see me, and since I was at that time involved in a small hedge
fund, I went to see him on 71st street across from the Frick museum.
When I got to the door, it was an extraordinary experience.
He in fact was living in what was for Manhattan, which is famous for relatively
small dwellings, even for the very rich and a very large townhouse.
I went through the door.
I was greeted, treated professionally, and I was led to a waiting room.
In that waiting room, which I believe was off to the left as you entered a, I sat in
the chair for a while and I noticed that there was a large mechanical piece of art,
and I believe that it had some electronics to it.
After a while of sitting in my chair.
My recollection is that I went up to this art object and I started trying to inspect
it as I was looking at the art object, which I thought was quite innocent.
I suddenly thought that I saw something like a lipstick camera that is a very
small camera whose lens was staring straight at me.
My first thought was, Holy cow.
I've discovered that there's a hidden camera that is, uh, been trained on me
while I've been in this room.
I thought myself to be rather clever for having found it.
But my second thought was exactly the reverse of this.
I bet this isn't that difficult to find the object that it was buried in attracts
attention.
And it must be that people who look at this object in variably find the camera,
and then I started asking myself, am I supposed to find the camera?
Is this a test?
Is is this person trying to make sure I'm comfortable with being under surveillance?
The whole thing was now quite queer and I went back and I sat down, as I recall it.
Shortly thereafter, almost responsive to finding the camera.
My recollection is that I was called out of this room and I was led to the back
where I was to wait for Jeffrey Epstein and a very large room with an enormous
dining table.
Now, what was most memorable about this dining table was that it had a tablecloth
that I thought to be incredibly inappropriate.
What I recall was, is that it had the appearance of.
Uh, a draped coffin because the tablecloth was an extremely large American flag.
If I recall correctly, there was another gentleman, um, perhaps another hedge fund
person or a science person who sat to my left and I stared at this tablecloth and I
thought, Oh, you're going to serve me food on a tablecloth made out of the flag of my
country, or perhaps you're going to give me a beverage that might spill on the
American flag.
Is this a test of some kind of my loyalty to my country, or whether I have some sort
of morality that isn't burdened by some petty reverence to an inanimate object.
I couldn't tell what was going on, but I started getting extremely agitated and in
fact angry, and I think my.
My feelings involved in expletive, which is F the person who decided that this was
a good idea to put an American table, a flag as a tablecloth to test new people
coming to the house.
Returning sponsor bone branch makes the most luxurious and the most comfortable
sheets I've ever owned.
But if you think about it, there are likely three things keeping you from
luxury bedding.
First of all, you don't want to lay awake at night thinking about how much you spend
on bedsheets, right?
I mean, that would defeat the entire purpose.
Second.
You aren't heartless, and you know that cotton farmers and textile workers are
often being underpaid and treated unethically.
Lastly, you don't really love having a fancy department store between you and the
manufacturer dipping their beacon, adding very little value.
You'd rather support great passionate businesses than one that is inserted
itself between you and the maker without your consent.
Well, boll and branch has you covered with a three pronged attack.
They disintermediate the middlemen and split that saving three ways.
They stay in business and support the portal.
The farmers and factory workers are paid equitably and you save money and sleep on
the finest sheets.
Everyone wins.
Shipping is always free and you can try them for 30 nights risk-free, and right
now, get $50 off your first set of sheets at Boland, branch.com with promo code
portal, so get $50 off at Bolin, branch.com using promo code portal.
That's B O L L.
And branch B, R a N C h.com using code portal restrictions may apply SOC boll and
branch.com for details.
Okay.
I admitted.
As a typical male, my response to shopping for essentials in a department store is
usually something between anger and boredom.
And that's why I'm jealous of returning sponsor Mack Weldon, whose founders
instead had a Eureka moment when they found themselves surrounded by a mind
numbing assortment of underwear and socks.
They realized instead that consistent fit and quality had become a game of roulette
for everyone.
So they took matters into their own hand and founded a company that took it upon
itself to actually re-engineer the fabric.
Obsess over every stitch and seem to make sure that their underwear is better than
whatever you're wearing right now.
Mack Weldon is a premium men's essential brand that believes in smart design and
premium fabrics.
One thing I love about the sponsor is that they're so confident of their product that
they're actually willing to give you something better than a money back
guarantee.
At Maxwelton.
If you don't like your first pair, you can keep it and they will still refund you
with no questions asked.
That means not only are you in a no risk situation, you're effectively guaranteed
to come out ahead.
So for 20% off your first order, visit Mack weldon.com and enter promo code
portal.
That's Mac K w E L D O n.com entering promo code portal to get 20% off your
first order.
Mack weldon.com promo code portal.
My recollection is that Jeffrey.
Entered from the right with the young woman in my mind.
I remember her as being perhaps 2223 she was extremely attractive.
As I recall, Jeffrey sat down and began bouncing this woman on his knee, so he
motioned for her to sit down and she appeared to be quite happy, uh, in this
role.
As Jeffrey asked questions and discussed.
Uh, science theories I had about markets, how they related to gauge theory,
theoretical physics.
I don't remember the man, uh, saying much to me who was also in the room at the
time.
And so, all I have a recollection of is the four of us, Jeffrey, the woman on his
leg and the other gentleman and myself.
My recollection is also that in order to, um.
Test our willpower and concentration that Jeffrey would bounce this woman
occasionally, that she would giggle, uh, in order to test our resolve as to whether
we could stay focused in the conversation.
I found him to be quite intelligent.
He'd clearly was no slouch, but I also found that every single interaction with
him resulted in my being back footed conversationally.
He was constantly trying to throw me off guard and at some level I was also
irritated and angry, and I was trying to keep my cool during this entire
interaction.
And I thought to myself, I don't know anybody who behaves this way.
I knew several rich people at that point in my life, and I've known many more very
wealthy people, perhaps billionaires, billionaires of 10 and 11 figure fortunes.
To the best of my recollection, I've never met a single other person who behaved in
such a strange way.
He didn't appear to be really that focused on markets and trading.
And he appeared instead to be focused in creating a kind of cartoonish notion of
what a billionaire might be in a very poorly drawn James Bond or Marvel comic
movie.
And in so doing, I came to start to believe that I was not really talking to
somebody who was a hedge fund manager or a financier, but that I was instead talking
to a very intelligent and extremely charismatic man.
My recollection was that he was magnetically handsome, perhaps a little
off in certain ways.
Certainly he's been compared to Ralph Lauren, which was my thought, but he was a
prematurely gray, if I recall, uh, the image, and he had a kind of charisma that
could probably be quantified in an era of facial recognition.
There was something very, very unusual and compelling about him.
Despite the fact that he was more than a little bit lubricious.
The meeting ended abruptly at some point, and I walked out.
I remember feeling that there are very few times in your life when you feel the hair
on the back of your neck rise up.
I don't know whether that's literally what happened, but it was certainly the sense
that I had met something unholy.
And I remember calling my wife and I remember talking to her, and I've used the
word construct ever since.
Now in order to do responsible conspiracy theorizing.
Uh, there are a couple of techniques that I would like to share that I use.
One is that I would like to distinguish two separate elements that may in fact be
the same thing.
Let's imagine that the character that I met is in fact the forward facing
construct, and that there was an underlying human being playing that
character.
Now, if he was genuine.
Then as we say in mathematics without loss of generality, we can, uh, adapt ourselves
to the circumstance that the actor and the character were one in the same.
So if the actor and the character are one in the same and that he was in no way a
construct of anyone, then no harm, no foul, the S the theory will accommodate
that.
But it allows us to have a different possibility that the character and the
actor are two different people.
Another technique that I like to use is I like to think about a decision tree and a
decision tree.
I don't want to have to say which branch of the decision tree is true and which
branch is false.
Very often when you share a conspiracy theory, what you find is that people want
to know exactly what do you believe?
Well, what do you think happened?
What do you think was really going on?
Well, the answer is I don't know.
But what if you can come up with a theory that is true no matter which branch of the
decision tree you're on, that you have confidence in.
This is where I've been headed.
Lastly, I want to use a technique which is extremely important to me, that I've
talked about before at the best of Navarro Ravi icon on Twitter.
Uh, so you can find a Twitter thread that will, will go under something like the
title.
The invisible world is first discovered in the visible worlds.
Failure to close.
Now, what do I mean by that?
What I mean is, is that sometimes you discover that something is not right only
because the explanation for everything that can be seen doesn't add up.
My favorite example of this, uh, is beta decay and something like cobalt 60.
If you measure the momenta of all of the visible particles, you'll notice that it
doesn't add up to a concert, a conserved momentum equation.
And this is what allowed Wolfgang Pauli to hypothesize that there must be something
carrying away some momentum that is electrically neutral and cannot be seen.
And he named it the neutrino, the little neutral one.
Well.
Something didn't make sense about Jeffrey Epstein.
How could somebody have that much money claim to be a hedge fund manager be so
clearly focused on his persona and not look or sound like anybody I'd ever met in
trading at that point?
I believe that this person, in some sense represented a failure of the visible
worlds failure to close, and so I decided that it was with some probability, not
100% certainly, that this person was in fact a construct.
Now around, I forget when it was 2005.
Some point through 2007, Jeffrey Epstein becomes entangled with Florida, uh, law
enforcement for requesting, uh, or arranging massages from underage women.
That was almost certainly a massage, was a euphemism for some form of child
prostitution.
This was an extremely disturbing episode in which he was vigorously defended by a
high profile team, which is his right in an adversarial system, but it was with a
particular vigor that I found absolutely disturbing and unsettling, and that the
sentence given to Jeffrey Epstein seemed to be so reduced compared to what he was
being accused of, that I felt like I had to just check.
Check all of my intuitions.
Why was such a light sentence being imposed further?
People I knew went and visited him in prison and talked about him being a
friend, talked about him being a massage enthusiast.
It made no sense to me that this person who was being accused of some form of
pedophilia was being treated, uh, very differently than I would have imagined by
people that I very much respected at the time.
I didn't understand what was going on, but I started to formulate a second theory,
and I haven't heard it discussed much in the media, so I'll share it with you now.
The idea is that if you buy the idea that Jeffrey Epstein was in fact a construct of
the intelligence community, my belief is, is that he was constructed to be a
sapiosexual Hugh Hefner.
In some sense.
He was the Dan Bilzerian of his day.
That is somebody who is not interested in a little girls, but is instead interested
in young women, women over the age of consent, uh, who by law have every right
to associate with whoever they wish to and, uh, can engage in consensual
relations.
Now, you may frown upon it.
You may look down upon it.
You may say that it's an abusive power, uh, for a man in his forties, 50s, what
have you to be cavorting with some person above the age of consent.
However, I don't take the same exact view of it that I take, uh, the view of
somebody going below the age of consent.
So in the era of me too, we have a different situation in which people are
very uncomfortable.
Even talking about, uh, the legal situation in which, uh, women in their
early twenties.
Who may be trying to wield sexual power or contending with men who may be trying to
wield political or economic power.
And that's an issue that I don't have a particular interest in settling, but
whatever it is, it's very different than somebody sending people to a high school
to find 15 year old girls or 14 year old girls.
For erotic massages or prostitution or what have you.
So my belief was in effect, that the intelligence community that may have
constructed Jeffrey Epstein was constructing him to be a sapiosexual Hugh
Hefner, but that they had stupidly, stupidly, and mistakenly hired somebody
who was actually closer, uh, to Humbert Humbert as an actor.
That is the underlying actor playing the role of Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein,
hedge fund genius.
Was in fact, someone with a pedophilia problem that was probably not known to the
intelligence community when it constructed the project, which I believe would have
had to have dated from the eighties or nineties when Jeffrey Epstein first
started, uh, amassing his network of, uh, high profile contacts under this
mysterious reputation as a one of a kind financial genius.
As a result, that would explain a great deal of why people's intuition was wildly
off about Jeff people who did not have a problem with an older, rich man.
Uh, going after young women above the age of consent were suddenly forced to contend
with the question of, was this person secretly interested in women below the age
of consent and perhaps considerably below the age of consent.
So this went to some of the way towards explaining that, but I've had another
issue that I've tried to talk to people about, which I also think figures into
this story.
Why was Jeffrey Epstein so focused on science?
And in particular, why was he focused on heterodox science?
Keep in mind, I'm just, I'm reading, I'm reading nothing.
This is a completely ad lib, so just allow me to catch my breath
in my theory.
What I fear and what I believe is, is that the American scientific project.
Has not understood that it has been abandoning its scientific assets.
And if you look at my work, you can notice that this is a through line having nothing
to do with Jeffrey Epstein.
In effect, we have made it impossible for American scientists to profit using the
market from their discoveries because we exclude fundamental discoveries from
intellectual property protection.
Therefore, you have a problem that when you make a discovery, it is both an IG, an
excludable.
If you share it in the scientific literature and inexhaustible, that is that
anyone who discovers it can use it without precluding anyone else from discovery,
from using it.
Okay.
When you have something that fits those twin criterion, then even free market
economists will agree that it constitutes a public good, a failure of the market to
keep value and price in lockstep.
In essence, we pay for scientific research out of taxpayer dollars because the market
cannot price it correctly.
So you have something which I believe to be a fantastic value, including military
value and potentially industrial value as it is translated from pure science into
technology.
However, for some reason the United States has been losing its appetite for funding,
high level scientific research and protecting it with academic freedom as the
university system goes into free fall.
That is our university system is structured as a Ponzi scheme and after
Vannevar Bush and the endless frontier doctrine.
Forced us to do our blue sky research inside of universities rather than inside
of research institutions dedicated to the purpose.
We developed a weird problem.
We would no longer be able to pay our scientists and use the fact that people
could contribute the labor of their youth into a system where they would then become
professors to train other professors.
If each professor trained perhaps 20.
Um, graduate students to become professors.
You can tell that after a very short period of time, uh, you've got a pyramid
scheme that can't keep expanding as we did in the postwar system where we educated
sub 10% of our population at a postsecondary level to around 1970 or so
when we were educating at around 50% of our population at a postsecondary level.
So when the music stopped, the system started to decay.
You had an extremely valuable system.
I've said before that theoretical physics largely constructed our modern economy
invented the world wide web.
It invented the semiconductor.
It gave us nuclear power, nuclear weapons, uh, our communications technology in the
electromagnetic spectrum.
So many of the things that we take for granted, including molecular biology, came
out of theoretical physics.
And so what I have liken this to is that the United States had something like a, a
Ferrari convertible, and it left the top down so that it started getting filled up
with rain.
And it started scrawling steel me, uh, in Mandarin, Farsi, Russian on its front, uh,
bonnet.
We are not protecting our scientific assets.
In fact, when Jeffrey Epstein came back out of prison, uh, I think, if I recall
correctly, I tweeted that Jeffrey Epstein was somebody who was.
Uh, funding what the American government refused to fund.
And I recall if, if I'm not, uh, you're being too self kind that I said, welcome
back with a period rather than an exclamation point because I was extremely
dismayed that we are fundamentally leaving this open.
We left a niche for such a person to start exploiting us.
If Jeffrey Epstein was able to find this niche, then I believe that other nations
will be able to find it as well.
So what happened inside of the scientific enterprise is that many scientists had
some memory from inside of the system when professors would in fact have potentially
second homes or even third homes, where they would be paid at a level that was
commensurate with finance, Sears, or high priced lawyers.
That in essence, the children of academic families were growing up, uh, with the
children of very well to do families because there wasn't such income and asset
inequality in the United States.
I believe that the need to pay the scientific community, particularly the top
members of the scientific community at a far higher level, is not a question of
taxpayer dollars.
It's a question of, first of all, being fair to the community that created our
economy.
Those are not taxpayer dollars.
They're scientific dollars, in my opinion.
Uh, we can argue that at some other point, but it's also a question of national
interest.
That is, that is completely irresponsible for us to pretend that the market, uh, for
scientific research talent should be determined by your ability to teach
undergraduates.
We should probably decouple the teaching and research enterprises.
We should probably get rid of the majority of our research enterprise and we should
take care of the people who are being power laws at a very high level for the
national interest.
It's not a question about a PA overpaying them.
It's a question of we are leaving a valuable asset on guarded, and I believe
that Jeffrey Epstein was attempting, uh, in part to gain control of that ass asset.
That's why people like George Church.
Or Robert Trevor's or Stephen Hawking, uh, or any one of a number of people like Lisa
Randall were found on Jeffrey Epstein's Island.
By the way, I think it's very important to stop using the fun phrases, pedophile
Island and Lolita express when you have people who almost certainly are not part
of any kind of orgiastic culture like Lisa Randall or Betsy divine, it's ridiculous.
Uh, in part what we're doing is we're turning a salacious story into a very
dangerous national emergency.
If in fact, Jeffrey Epstein was up to something very different than the
mainstream story would have you believe.
So why is it that I am so disturbed by this and coming forward in this way?
Well, there are a number of reasons, but one of the reasons is, is that I came to
think about the following issue, uh, which I, I find potentially dispositive.
I've started asking people who knew Jeffrey Epstein did the character you met,
whoever that person was, impress you as being capable character logically of
taking his own life out of desperation when he's still clearly had many cards to
play.
Yeah.
Almost certainly had many secrets involving very powerful people.
The man I met was so confident and so contemptuous of normal morality that I
don't believe he was even bothered, particularly by the reputation of being a
pedophile from his previous, uh, stay as a guest of, um, uh, of the state of Florida.
I believe the Jeffrey Epstein in fact, was contemptuous.
He thought it was ridiculous that he would be jailed for such a thing, and he thought
that while it's a matter of petty morality for you and me, uh, to mull over, he
simply had to make sure that he didn't run a foul of the system again.
All right.
Assume that I'm correct, that he was such a person who would laugh at the shame that
others would bestow upon him.
Then something very interesting happens.
As you go down the various branches of the decision tree, you find that there has to
be another unseen force.
If this is true,
is he dead or not dead?
Well, I can put a small weight on the idea that he isn't even dead.
Uh, people's deaths have been faked before.
I don't think that that's what happened, but it's possible, uh, or he could be
dead.
Then he could be dead either by his own hand or the hand of another.
Um, if he is dead.
By his own hand.
It could be an induced suicide as we saw a Sullivan was trying to induce in Martin
Luther King, or it could be, uh, it has, uh, of his own hand.
If, if his own hand, could it be out of fear, out of shame or out of a sense of
duty to something more if he was in fact murdered, a whole would've had to been
punched in the timeline so that somebody could have gotten to him or there would
have to be a tremendous coincidence.
That somehow he was left alone in a jail, which had not had a history of suicides in
over a decade.
If I recall correctly, in any of these branches of the decision tree, something
is at play and something is at work unless you believe that somehow I have it wrong,
and that people who knew Jeffrey Epstein would support the idea that he would take
his own life out of fear or shame.
Which I find essentially impossible given the character that he chose to project, or
that the actor playing the financier and Wiz kid Jeffrey Epstein chose to protect
project.
To me, I've checked this with several people, and in general, everyone had the
same impression that he was completely contemptuous of normal human beings with
their petty morality.
It is by the ability to work over all branches of the decision tree that I've
gained confidence first that I started talking about this ages ago, and anybody
who I've discussed Jeffrey Epstein with will remember me using the word construct
even before.
Um, he was arrested and jailed, uh, for solicitation, prostitution of minors.
Uh, so I've been, I've been at this for 15 years, not knowing it was going to end
like this.
Um, I think many of us have tweeted out that if he was in fact, TA attached to the
intelligence community.
That he was going to have to die because otherwise these secrets would get out.
And am I scared that I'm thinking about releasing this to the general public?
Yes, but I'm also scared about not releasing this to the general public.
My belief is that this was a poorly constructed operation, and that when it
comes to light, which intelligence community it was, we are in danger of
countries that I care a great deal about being thought to have constructed a
pedophilic honeytrap.
Using kompromat to use the Russian word for that, which would be used to control
people in order to gain some sort of a geopolitical strategic advantage.
Now, I am not of the opinion that, uh, Jeffrey Epstein, um, was a savory
character.
And I'm not saying that he didn't hire prostitutes or coerce women into orgies or
what have you, but my guess is that at the moment.
Um, he was not using that, uh, particular kink of his four children in order to
enmesh, uh, scientists or other politicians as the news media sometimes
hints that when it is not suggesting that he's simply dead by his own hand.
In fact, I think it's extremely dangerous to think about this as being the decision
of a country.
Now, I'm not going to lie.
I've thought that the country might be Israel, and as an American Jew who's lived
in Israel, I don't think Israel came to this decision.
If in fact he is a product of the, uh, Israeli intelligence network.
In fact, this would be something that would be top secret.
It would have been decided by a tiny number of individuals.
And it is not right to take down in nation based upon the idea that you can't even do
intelligence work because you can try of such a ridiculous idea as Jeffrey Epstein
in order to gain kompromat and therefore control over influential people inside of
another country.
What I would believe is instead that this is a tiny program and that these people
should come forward or that we should find them by reinitiating the church and pike
commissions.
There is now so much bizarre stuff of this kind that it is time to revisit the church
and pike commissions of the mid 1970s to find out what our intelligence and other
intelligence agencies may have been up to.
We need something to restore our confidence and when, and if we find out
that a foreign power has been operating in the U S perhaps with our consent or
perhaps, uh, we are in fact gaining some benefit from an operation that we could
not ourselves do post church and pike.
I think what we would be do well to realize is, is that this situation.
Is not the responsibility of any country, but the responsibility of people in the
intelligence community who would have gone out of control.
Now, do I know this to be true?
Absolutely not.
Am I infallible far from it?
I wouldn't have shared with you that I was wrong about Bernie Madoff.
Uh, in fact, if all of these conspiracy theories turned out to be exactly true,
some of them.
Still remained to be proven.
But what I've tried to do is to try to talk to you about the idea that I don't
think that the story is being fully explored.
I'm extremely dismayed that over a very brief period of time, we went from
suggesting that, uh, Jeffrey Epstein was allegedly dead by his own hand, to
believing the medical examiners report as if this was a conclusive, in fact, the
charge that he might've been murdered with.
Uh, an understanding of the powers that be, that controlled the correctional
facility in which he was housed, includes the charge that the medical examiners
report would likely have been doctored.
That's not an additional charge.
You wouldn't murder somebody if the report would conclusively show murder, uh, unless
you actually knew that you had enough control over the system to control it all.
Furthermore, there has to be a facility that keeps local.
Law enforcement, local medical officer from stumbling over something of high
value.
You couldn't responsibly run the intelligence community, which has to be
able to carry out covert operations operations that are disturbing operations,
that are effective, uh, without constantly fearing that low level law enforcement and
low-level medical examiners.
Could blow the whole thing sky high.
Now, whatever the facility is that keeps our high level intelligence work safe from
low level enforcement could easily have been operative.
I don't mean to suggest that it was only that.
It is not reasonable to suggest that it is crazy.
To assume that the medical examiner could be induced to file a report to sub
support, a, uh, an official narrative.
It is time to return to investigative journalism.
We can trust.
It is time to return to committees of the house and Senate that have the power to
investigate these things.
And it is long past due that the intelligence services be revisited.
If they in fact, have very little to hide, then this shouldn't really be a big
problem.
But at the moment, the American people have lost full confidence, uh, in our
ability to get to the bottom of truths as to whether foreign countries are meddling
in our.
A national elections as to whether foreign countries are using their ability to send
graduate students into the STEM pipeline to spy on us as to whether foreign
countries are using our tech platforms, uh, in order to help them with their
military advantage over the United States.
Now I really don't want to come back to the Jeffrey Epstein story.
So what I'm saying to you is.
It's quite possible that Jeffrey Epstein is simply dead by his own hand, that he
was a pervy billionaire or near billionaire who had an interest in
science.
And also, uh, an interest in young women that ranged from women of prepped of, uh,
age 23 down either to 18, 15, 12, what have you, maybe the official story is
true.
All I'm trying to suggest is, is that for some reason I picked this one person to
tell a 15 year story about that.
I believed he was an intelligence construct of probably another country
operating in the center of the United States elite.
And I believe that that is an additional piece of information because there's no
one else that I've been telling the story about.
I've never met another person like this.
This is a completely Sui, generous exception to my general, uh, understanding
of the world.
And I think if I am correct that there was something very much a miss, that it was
obviously a miss obvious to anybody who wished to see it just as a, the world
clearly closed their eyes to Jeffrey Epstein's problems.
Uh, when it was found that he was asking for massages from underage girls in
Florida, somebody was turning a blind eye.
Towards the story almost certainly because it was too salacious not to be
interesting.
It's the kind of a story that would move, uh, newspapers.
It would, uh, sell advertising spots.
It's far too juicy for people to take this little of an interest in.
And I want to say one last thing about this.
Um.
Jeffrey Epstein was in meshed with a guy named John Brockman, who was a guy who in
some sense gave me my first break on a larger stage.
It is commonly believed at the moment by certain members of the media that John
Brockman was complicit.
In the underage, uh, behavior, uh, underage interest that, uh, Jeff Epstein
showed in young girls.
The one thing I can add is, is that I met John Brockman and his wife Katinka Mattson
at Stuart brand's interval bar sometime in the last, I don't know, one to three
years.
And when John and I sat down, I can tell you with certainty that John warned me.
That he'd had an interaction with Jeffrey that he had found very disturbing, and
that John had been forced to walk out of his house, realizing that Jeffrey Epstein
had had a problem and John has not come forward.
And I don't know that there's anybody else in a position to tell this story, but I
can say with some certainty that John was not happy about this and that if John was
in fact, a tolerant of a Hugh Hefner style person, the person I met.
For no re had no reason to say this to me was certainly not okay with Jeffrey
Epstein was in fact warning me away from him, and I had no interest in, in seeing
Jeffrey at that point.
So I do wish to say that I think that the, uh, conspiracy theorizing that I'm seeing
is of a lower quality and a lower level.
Of course, if you want, I could find out that the entire edge network is somehow.
Uh, at risk and implicated.
But I can say as somebody on the very periphery, I wrote no books for John.
I didn't go to the billionaires dinners.
I never went to this Island and never flew in the plane.
I met him once and I had a phone call with him afterwards.
I can tell you that, um, I don't personally believe that John Brockman was,
uh, caught up in this at the level that is now being alleged by certain members of
the press who I feel, uh, are perhaps not as responsible as they might anyway.
Um, that's more or less what I have to say on the subject.
And with this, I intend to, to the extent possible exit the Jeffrey Epstein
conspiracy business.
You've been through the portal.
Thanks for joining us.