View the entire conversation here.Richard and “Deep Left” challenge the simplified portrayal of Jeffrey Epstein as an evil supervillain, suggesting a complex socio-political backdrop. The discussion clarifies that Epstein’s circle involved elite liberal Zionists and that his multi-level marketing scheme for recruiting young women was more about manipulation and psychological coercion than direct abduction. The obsession surrounding Epstein is linked to broader debates on Israel and antisemitism, contrasting it with historical and religious norms around age and marriage. The video critically examines how Epstein’s case has been sensationalized, arguing that it serves certain political narratives.AI-generated summaryTimestamps00:00 Introduction and Summary of Epstein’s Case01:09 Epstein’s Social Network and Party Culture03:59 Epstein’s Recruitment Scheme07:16 Comparisons and Legal Perspectives10:05 Historical Context and Social Commentary13:35 Zionism and Antisemitism This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe
So I'll just offer a brief summary and then you can maybe pick up on some core ideas and sort of state your case.
And then we can talk about new things that have happened and so on.
And you can correct me if I'm wrong, if I'm misrepresenting your perspective on this matter.
First off, the notion that Epstein is this evil Freddy Krueger tier pedophile and that that is what this whole hubbub is about is clearly wrong.
Pam Bondi said that she at one point that she couldn't release the Epstein files because it's child porn in effect involving Jeffrey Epstein abusing people.
Now, there was no doubt some illegality took place over the decades, but to see it in that satanic QAnon child abuse way, I think is to misunderstand it.
So much of the party culture was about sex, obviously, but it was also about conviviality, building a team, getting elites on the same page.
And an interesting thing that you pointed out, with Trump as a sort of exception to the rule, although not exactly an exception, Jeffrey Epstein was gathering together liberal Anglo-American,
if we want to say Zionist, but liberal Zionists, Zionists who actually were far more likely than Lacoust to have sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, far more simply realistic, far less likely to call upon biblical concepts like Amalek in order to justify Israel, though Zionists nevertheless.
And so you have the Steven Pinker, the Hawking, even Donald Trump fits into that a little bit, at least pre-presidency.
You have this collection of liberal Zionists that are all getting on the same page by drinking and screwing hot models, et cetera.
And if you believe that that kind of thing doesn't happen in all sorts of different industries, you're being naive.
That kind of thing happens even with people who are a thousand heirs as opposed to millionaires or billionaires.
They'll do this too to some degree.
It is what it is.
It's not good or bad, just is.
And interestingly, the Epstein obsession seemed to derive from Likud.
And if there is any political casualty of note with regard to Israel, it is actually Ehud Barak who was in with Epstein, etc.
And so as opposed to just viewing it as these evil people and then these poor victims, some of them are, let's be fair here, some of them are genuine victims.
Some of them, they were sinning and being sent against in some ratio.
As opposed to just seeing it through that, looking at it through this lens of an intramural battle about how we think about Israel is much more productive and much more illuminating.
So anyway, that's my way of just summarizing your point.
You can correct me if I misstated something.
You can pick up on something and expand on it, as you will.
Yeah, I might be more radical than you and just saying that.
Okay, so in terms of the victims, the question I have is who's victimizing these victims.
So it's like Epstein had his own multi-level marketing scheme where he basically through not just Ghillain, but other kinds of secretaries and assistants, he said, hey, I, you know, I want a constant stream of young, beautiful women just coming into my house and giving me massages and getting to know them.
You know, he wasn't, you know, the funny thing about Epstein is if he just wanted to pay women for sex, he could have been like Dan Bilzerian and he could have just paid women for sex.
He actually didn't do that.
This is sort of a nuanced view into his psychology is what he wanted was for women to come in to give him massages and for him to kind of gauge the frequency to see, okay, is there some tension here?
Do I like this girl?
Does she like me?
Are we a good fit like that?
But he had this process in place.
He had this system in place where if you bring a new girl in, then I'll pay you a finder's fee.
And so as a result, it's like you can very quickly create a multi-level marketing scheme out of that.
And so the girls who came to his house, it wasn't Jeffrey Epstein cruising around in a white van and saying, hey, you want some candy?
You know, he wasn't doing any of that himself.
It was all of these women who eventually filtered down to the level of a local high school, who he had never personally, he never recruited any girls at all.
They were recruiting on his behalf.
They would go to his home and they, this is their sworn testimony as they said, he asked them because he's probably concerned.
He's like, oh, you look a little young.
How old are you?
And they said, I'm 18.
And they said 18 because the girls who were being paid by him, and I guess this is his fault ultimately, but the girls who are being paid by him knew that if they said, no, I'm 17, I'm 16, I'm 15, whatever.
They knew that Jeffrey Epstein would say, no, get out of my house and I'm not paying you.
Don't, you know, don't send underage girls to me.
But the high school recruiters that he had working for him were just trying to make money.
So they specifically told the victims, they said, don't tell him you're, in the youngest case, was 14.
Don't tell him you're 14, say you're 18, because I want to make money.
So in a sense, like, obviously he's at fault for even constructing this scheme.
I mean, it's kind of a crazy idea.
And I think it just kind of got away from, I mean, it's kind of like sounds like a sex addiction to me.
It's sort of got away.
It's literally an MLM scheme.
It's funny.
It's like, I sell you doTERRA.
You sell your neighbor Betsy doTERRA.
She sells Jill doTERRA.
Yeah, it's interesting.
Yeah, it's like his own little crypto currency with massages and sex and whatever.
So he had this going.
And again, I would really blame the girls who knowingly recruited young girls who really shouldn't have been in that situation.
But at the end of the day, the victimization in question is you had apparently someone stripped down to their underwear and give him a massage.
And I don't know what state of undress he was in.
You compared that to like the crimes of Roman Polanski, who's still in the good graces of many people in Hollywood.
And he's at large in Poland or something.
I mean, the idea that Jeffrey Epstein is worse than Roman Polanski is just ridiculous.
He didn't.
And by the way, I mean, that we could get into Polanski as a side thing, but I'll just state that out flat.
The crime that he was convicted of of actual sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 18 was like the day before she was turning 18.
And all of her testimony, she said, I really don't want to be here.
I really have nothing against Jeffrey.
I really don't, you know, and they're like, well, it is statutory rape in the state of Florida.
And she was like, she was afraid of being prosecuted for prostitution.
That's how they got her to testify.
They said, if you don't testify against Epstein, we'll put you in jail for prostitution, which is quite a different narrative from what we're doing now, where anytime any woman has sex, she's always a victim.
I mean, this was like a totally different paradigm 20 years ago.
You know, that was the conviction.
I don't see evidence that he was really intentionally, you know, to the extent that he was victimizing women, it was emotional.
It was there, there were a lot of women who thought Jeffrey Epstein is a god.
A lot of them talked about him having like a cult.
And I don't think that was a cult in the sense of sacrificing children to Moloch.
I think it was like, listen to what Ghillane says about seasteading and sustainable oceans.
It sounds like Scientology.
All right.
So we've got the multi-level marketing scheme.
We've got the obsession with submarines.
Like there's something kind of Scientological going on here.
You look at all the people he's got around him.
Like he was really interested in genetic engineering and like, how do we make black people smarter?
And like he had these kooky mystical ideas that some of them are pretty smart.
Some of them are off the wall.
But he probably would talk to these girls and they would be so impressed and they'd be like, wow, you're this amazing guy.
And they think, oh, some of them would tell the cops in these interviews, like, yeah, Jeffrey and I are going to get married.
We love each other.
And of course, then he wouldn't.
He would dump them.
He would move on.
And I think Ghillane was unique and some of the other girlfriends he had as well in the sense that these were women who had the kind of emotional fortitude to tolerate this kind of behavior of just serial philandering, serial, you know, all these implicit promises that we're going to be something and we're romantic together.
And then he finds someone new.
So in that sense, sure, he emotionally victimized women, but in terms of like he was forcibly raping and stealing the innocence and intentionally maliciously doing that sort of thing, I don't think he actually physically was really victimizing people knowingly.
Besides that aspect, I think this has gotten a boost recently on Twitter.
I mean, the Epstein thing has like so many cycles at this point.
It's like, I can't even count all the cycles where it just continues to come up in the news, continues to come up.
But the recent one that I saw was, you know, Nick Fuentes had this take where he said, look, in Catholic canon law, the age of marriage for women is like 14.
You know, Mary was like 15 when she had Jesus.
And so that's completely fine.
There's nothing wrong in a biological sense of a 14-year-old consenting, or what does consent even mean?
We're Catholics.
We don't even believe in consent.
We believe in marriage.
And so he was saying that that's not a problem.
The problem is the blackmail.
And I have the total opposite perspective.
I say, I don't really care what Catholic law says.
Like, I actually don't think 14-year-olds should be getting married.
Sorry, call me a woke liberal for that.
But yeah, I think actually the historical age of marriage in the Roman Empire was the median was probably above 18.
I mean, there were some edge cases for political reasons, but I think it's actually kind of historically degenerate.
And there was a study on Substack.
I forget the author, but he just looked through here's all the historical data we have from registers of how old people would be when they got married.
And 14 is not the average.
It's much closer to 18.
And then for like the Puritans, I mean, they were getting married at 20, 26 or something.
And they would still have eight kids.
You know, they would just in rapid succession pump them out.
But, you know, that's the side on kind of ephemophilia and whether that's natural or whether we should sort of normalize that.
But the other side of it is the blackmail is it's, you know, as you said, whether it's like Jack the construction worker gets together with a few of his buddies and they're having a bachelor party and they hire some strippers.
You know, that it happens at the lowest level of society.
It happens at the highest level of society.
This is just what men do when they want to get together and have a good time.
So does that necessitate that there was blackmail going on?
I don't think so.
I think if you've seen enough, I mean, most people, I guess at this point, because Zoomers are such shut-ins, maybe Nick Fuentes can't imagine.
Now that he's gone to this club in Miami, now maybe he has some insight into it.
Yeah, men actually do like to go to clubs and they do like to be around beautiful women.
And that doesn't mean that any of those men are being blackmailed.
It means that they're having a good time.
And so I think there's like a deep anti-male, anti-sexual, sterile resentment that comes that Jeffrey Epstein has now, I mean, I think he has lower approval ratings than Adolf Hitler at this point.
Zionism's Ultimate Enemy00:01:25
I think that if you say, it used to be that if you said, you know, Hitler did nothing wrong, that was the third rate.
You could never say that.
Now it's like, if you say Epstein did nothing wrong, it's like, you know, you are the worst person ever.
Oh, but Hitler, you know, that's a historical detail.
We can discuss that.
So in a sense, it's very, it's very interesting that like, yeah, this Jewish international globalist finance here has kind of become the ultimate enemy of America.
And yet, and so what?
And so, and, and, but we're still doing the bidding of Likud at the same time.
And isn't there some kind of logic to that?
Is that Zionism needs anti-Semitism?
Zionism needs the globalist cosmopolitan Jew to be the ultimate evil so that it can breed antagonism so that more Jews say, oh, well, you know, if we don't get out of here, if we don't go to Israel, we could, we could be another Holocaust.
And so they need this.
And it uses that, the cosmopolitan Jewish stereotype as a foil to the new Jew who's like bound to the land, blood and soil, who kicks the ass of every Muslim in sight.
Like the Likud fantasy is, let's not be Jeffrey Epstein.