Extraordinary podcasters, completely wrong on Jeffrey Epstein at MIT.

Earlier today I spent three and a half hours watching a podcast, following after 4.8 million viewers who have watched it over the past 3 weeks. The host was Chris Williamson, whom I've seen in short clips here and there, and Eric Weinstein, whom I've never heard of.

Stunningly brilliant. For me, game changing for me, though clearly I am late to a party that has been going on for years now. The thing that first held me was how brilliantly Eric Weinstein captured my own experience in his description of our current reality. After working at MIT for 27 years, I've spent the past six years investigating how Big Oil gained control of MIT over the past 20 years, and then 1) trying to convey what I've learned here on LinkedIn and 2) report my findings to the FBI and other agencies so that there are consequences.

But it's been such a bizarre learning curve of seeing how corruption and mistakes deepened into crime, then finally evil, combined with a clueless MIT and indifferent media, that, now that I have the whole tragedy clear in my mind, instead of popping up out of the rabbit hole, I'm being drawn deeper and deeper in a hellish Wonderland, failing to communicate what I've learned even as I'm learning yet more horrible things. Somehow, in so many things that he says, Weinstein describes this specific experience and the reasons for it, with stunning accuracy.

During the podcast, Williamson and Weinstein frequently reference a peer community of podcasters, only two of whom I've ever heard of: Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman. Rogan I watched for awhile and now don't, and Fridman, an MIT research scientist with a massive YouTube following, I've never watched but for some reason thought was a right-wing maga without the hat.

So, after I finished the first podcast, I watched "Jeffrey Epstein and the Nature of Evil | Eric Weinstein and Lex Fridman" (18:18, with 1 million views, posted 3 years ago.

Yikes, was I wrong about Fridman. He is immensely likable. I thought Weinstein was really rough and critical with him, altogether different than his interactions with Williamson, and Fridman takes it in stride while drawing out Weinstein on the subject of Epstein.

I'll post the transcript of their conversation below, but you should try to watch the video if you can.

Without diminishing my respect for either speaker, they're completely wrong in every regard regarding Epstein at MIT. I kept wanting to scream "Cold, cold, cooooold!" as if we were playing a children's game.

With Fridman's association with MIT and Weinstein's with Harvard, I decided to put together an imaginary symposium, complete with posters and papers. Despite their brilliance, good faith, and their grasp of so many other truths, Fridman grieves over MT's grieves over MIT's complicity with Epstein despite being a thousand miles from the corruption and crime and, in his own word, evil of what actually happened. And Weinstein, despite being right in so many of his fundamental insights, is satisfied with simply saying "yadda yadda yadda" when it comes to the specifics of Epstein at MIT.

As you can see from the banner above, I've created a rough layout for the main poster and have organized the 20 year history into 4 sections:

Kamala Harris and climate action

Weinstein in particular is incredibly critical of Kamala Harris and I think something that Harold Bloom called "the anxiety of influence" is preventing him from seeing her achievements and strengths. Also, this group of podcasters, sometimes given the title "intellectual dark web," is remarkably uninterested in climate change, beyond mentioning it every now and then. I can prove for a dead certainty what Epstein was doing at MIT, and my hope is that Fridman, Weinstein, and Williamson, with their extraordinary reach, revisit the Epstein story at MIT, then revisit their assumptions of Kamala Harris. Weinstein brilliantly says over and over that conspiracies happen all the time.

They do indeed. And now, in the very specific case of Jeffrey Epstein at MIT, we can move from from theory to truth.