The core principles are straightforward:
Firstly, when a corporate news outlet that leans left disapproves of a statement, it often gets labeled as a “right-wing conspiracy theory” accompanied by “no evidence.” Now, there might actually be evidence; it just depends on what the media decides is significant to share.
The establishment seeks to restore your trust, but honestly, it never earned it in the first place.
Secondly, certain allegations are taken seriously regardless of their legitimacy. These suspicions morph swiftly into “facts.”
A recent instance from the Democratic Party illustrates this well. There were rumors that President Trump had spent Thanksgiving in 2017 with Jeffrey Epstein. The narrative crumbled quickly—it’s unlikely Trump would secretly meet with a well-known sex offender during a holiday—but the allegations still attracted considerable attention. Depending on how you direct the focus, the outcome can differ drastically.
Sharon Waxman has penned some enlightening columns on this topic. It seems that a former Washington Post reporter found revelations in Epstein’s emails that supposedly affirm “the conspiracy theorists were right.” Her tone suggests a rediscovery of a truth long overlooked.
However, this isn’t exactly groundbreaking.
Waxman’s article might read more like a confession than an unveiling. For years, those in charge of newsrooms have ignored the obvious. Donald Trump wasn’t the focal point; Epstein really was.
Epstein’s collection of emails exceeds 20,000 documents. To a sincere observer, there’s nothing shocking. These messages reveal politicians, financiers, academics, diplomats, think tankers, and media members seeking introductions, favors, or even dating advice from a convicted sex offender.
Some asked for his contact details, some wanted financial support, while others communicated with him while holding office. This isn’t mere gossip; it’s documented history.
Yes, Epstein was quite the socializer. No one’s astonished to learn about his connection to Trump. They roamed similar circles and were friends until they weren’t.
Waxman’s insights serve a pivotal purpose regarding her field. Reporters can be quite the curious bunch. They love to express skepticism; “If your mom says she loves you, verify it.” Yet, in reality, verification often ceases when a story threatens certain interests. The tough questions fall away, and the narrative fizzles.
Epstein exemplified this dynamic in real time. His 2008 sweetheart deal with federal authorities essentially shielded him from scrutiny. Rather than retreating into insignificance, he remained active in the very circles that preach about “norms.”
He had casual interactions with notable figures like Larry Summers, sharing flirtation tips on how to pursue a colleague who was, incidentally, the daughter of a high-ranking Chinese Communist Party official. He socialized with Bill Gates, Ehud Barak, and even Prince Andrew.
Americans recognized this and reached a reasonable conclusion: rules apply to the masses, but certain exemptions exist for the influential.
Yet, when Epstein vocalized these thoughts, journalists scoffed and dismissed him as a conspiracy theorist. The famous maxim about verifying claims didn’t seem to extend to powerful ministers and donors until their questionable actions became too conspicuous to ignore.
The media is acutely aware of its history. They know the government lies, they understand the protective nature of organizations, and they remember past scandals like the Tuskegee experiment and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. They witnessed the evolution of the Wuhan “lab leak” theory from laughable to plausible. Concepts like “you will own nothing” and “great reset” aren’t just fringe arguments; they’re legitimate publications.
However, when actual elite protection became apparent via Epstein, it suddenly felt unimaginable to question those dynamics among the unrivaled. Joining their ranks, including friends and affiliations, was off-limits.
Waxman’s column, interestingly, sheds light on this pattern. To put it simply, our institutions create ignorance and then leverage that ignorance as evidence that everything is acceptable.
Consider the 2017 Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The same experts who claimed there was “no widespread fraud” criticized the commission for probing “unsubstantiated claims,” all while essential data was withheld to ascertain the truth. A system that blocks audits and claims transparency doesn’t yield trust; it breeds fear.
This is why Epstein experienced such protection. It’s not about a shortage of evidence; it’s more about a lack of curiosity. The evidence remains there, yet those who noticed were often considered problematic.
Trust isn’t automatically given; it has to be earned, and those demanding it have been the very ones working to undermine it. The erosion of trust isn’t due to social media memes or bots. It began with watching Epstein continue to be embraced by influential individuals who profess that “democracy dies in darkness.” More troubling is the media’s tendency to spend more time regulating public doubts than investigating their powerful allies, treating questioning as an affront.
Now, Waxman claims that the “conspiracy theorists” were, indeed, correct.
Thanks, Sharon. Better late than never, I suppose.
The revelation wasn’t necessary. The American public has navigated through similar scenarios multiple times, with “conspiracy theorists” often being vindicated. The only ones who acted oblivious were those compensated to uncover the truth.
The establishment wants to win back your trust, though it’s questionable whether that trust is deserved in the first place.
