MTracey podcast - Gloria Steinem and Satanic Panic w/Michael Tracey

Episode Date: September 9, 2026

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

Hello, folks. Michael Tracy is supposed to join us. He's not here yet. We're going to talk about, I haven't done a podcast with Tracy in a very long time, not very long time, like a few months, which is long for us. And I think it's basically because he's been doing, he's been obsessed with Lindsay, I don't even know her name, Lindsay Clancy, is that the woman's saying, Lindsay Clancy, Lindsay Clancy. I am not interested in this case. It's just very, very depressing. I don't think anything as far as men or women or relations between the sexes depends on it. I don't think it says anything about men. I don't think it says anything about women. The reaction is kind of interesting. And so I'm looking at the reaction to the case and seeing what's going.

on on Twitter, of course, and I'm picking up here and there facts about the law and the underlying case, but it's not something I've looked into. It's just depressing. Who wants to think about this, and who wants to think that this is representative of women? Like, how could you think that? Do women kill their kids often? No. Do women, I guess the story about women is that they stand by this woman, but people have picked up stupid ideas. or stupid, even if they were, even if they're wrong, taking up dumb causes all the time. So there's nothing about this case in particular that I think is interesting to look into for the underlying facts. I'm always of the opinion. I've always been of the opinion that

there's basically very, it should be very hard to prove insanity because otherwise, what are you going to do? I mean, you're going to basically, every, if you have to, the burden of proof is to prove that the person was saying, that's obviously very difficult. And then people would be able to get away with murder pretty easily. And from what I understand, again, I didn't look into the case that the burden of proof in Massachusetts requires them to prove that she was sane, I think. Usually or often it's a affirmative defense, which means you admit you did it, but then the burden has to go on you that you were actually crazy.

That's how affirmative defense is work. If I'm remembering my law school, if whatever I've learned in Crimpro, 10, or 15 years ago, is correct. So, whatever. I mean, maybe it's interesting as a legal case. It is not interesting as a case about humans or the human condition or men and women. But Michael's been writing about it a lot. So Michael and I have not been doing a lot of streams.

We haven't been doing any streams ever since he got on to Tracy. But I read Michael's Gloria Steinman. And by the way, let me just do the mechanized promotion before Michael gets. here and makes fun of it. So Mechanize is hiring. Basically makes it a lot easier to have a lot of things that are not paywall because I have a sponsor now. They're hiring people $300,000, $400,000 a year. If you're a software engineer, the link is going to be in the show notes. And there's also substantial bonuses and there's other jobs available too. So let me just get that in there and say,

Mechanizes, I believe, in the company, it's a great place to work. And yeah, the mission is good, too, trying to make sure AI alignment goes right. There's a lot of talk of that right now. Okay, Michael Tracy is here. How can I invite him? Okay, here, Michael, I'm sending you the invite. And now we're waiting, waiting for Michael. Sometimes this thing is, this thing is a little bit glitchy.

So, I guess before Michael gets here, I'll say, I really liked his article on Gloria Steinem. He was working up until this very moment publishing a second article, which I didn't read because it just got published right now. I think that's what he told me. Just finished and published an article he texted me. So he published the second part in his Gloria Steinem thing. And come on, Michael, where are you? You should be here for this conversation. You should probably leave and then come back.

Okay. Someone say something in the chat. I'll respond to it while we go back from Michael. Because anything that I want to start talking about now, it's going to be better when Michael is here. So let's see. Let's talk about a random thing. Let me just pull up Twitter and do the first thing on my timeline.

Twitter. AI, AI Doom has become a big part of my timeline ever since I started writing about it. It's amazing. I mean, is it really like, you never know if people are talking about something more or it's just getting out of your timeline?

It's probably some of both. But really, people do end up thinking that their timeline is everything. thing. So let's see here. Marco Rubio said he's not, oh my goodness, no, NBC News, this is the first thing public. Michael Rubio, Marco Rubio probably said he is not planning a 2020 presidential bid. According to a person familiar with the matter, Rubio said he would support Vance's nominee. So he said that before, that he's going to support Vance. But he is leaving the door open for the, yeah, of course he's leaving the door open for the future.

This is, I mean, you know, like maybe, I mean, maybe the best case scenario from my perspective is, I think Vance is the most dangerous person in politics, basically, because he is the pipeline through which the worst chuds have influence and status. Michael, I was just telling people that there's an NBC news report that Rubio is somebody with a person familiar with the matter tells NBC news that Rubio is not going to run in 28, which is interesting. Do you have any thoughts on that? I'm not sure who could be so intimately familiar with the matter in September of

2006. Rubio, Rubio's wife, Rubio's best friend, Rubio's drinking. I mean, a lot of people could be. Maybe it's true. I don't know. But I wouldn't put too much stock in that as like a hard and fast Sherman-esque pledge that he will never run. I think it's...

What if one thing leads to another advance decides not to run? You're telling me that Rubio, even in that circumstance, would refuse to run? I think it's a contingent statement. If Vance doesn't decide to run, I'll wire you $1,000 to this. It's a hypothetical. Right. But it's not going to happen. He could have a health issue or something.

But Vance obviously has shaped every aspect of his personality and life and memory in order to be Donald John Trump's successor. I know, but I almost think that the more, the most likely reason why, hypothetically he would not run. I'm not saying it's likely that he won't. I'm saying if he were not to for any reason, it would be because he can rationally surmise that the political conditions are worsening so much for any potential Republican nominee

that it would behoove him maybe to wait. Now, I think there will be counter argument there and that if you have a window of opportunity to become the party nominee, you take it regardless of what your prognostications might be. Yeah, he goes in as a presumptive nominee this time. He doesn't necessarily get to be the presumptum nominee in four years. But anyways, what I take from this is Rubio wants.

So you think he would just like total, like, it would just be 100% certain that he would like demolish DeSantis? I'm not so sure about that. Vance in this time, 2028? If it was Vance and DeSantis, among others, in 28, you think it's just a given that he would totally obliterate DeSantis? I think he would, I think Rubio is probably the only person who would pose this, because the vice president is almost the. was it. And, you know, it's been, I, I calculated this once. It was like the last six or seven times that the vice president ran after a second term president. He got the nominee for, he got the nomination for his party. So you have to start with that. And then who has the status to like challenge him? DeSantis flamed out. I think you'll see something happen where Vance is, I mean, it'll be cyclical, just like any presidential primary because they're so protracted, right? Everybody assumes that Vance is inevitable. Then you'll see maybe somebody,

else gained some momentum. He'll come down. And that's, I mean, even Al Gore, like, Al Gore was Bill Clinton's sitting vice president, right? When he ran 2000 for the nomination. And it was seen forever that he was the shoe in. And, you know, as people started tuning in, Bill Bradley, his

main challenger, actually gained a fair amount of momentum such that the Al Gore campaign for a while was almost in like a crisis. How close to Bill Bradley get to? I remember Leberman was. You know, I just don't know, I think it would be silly to just declare as though you can somehow say it with any certainty right now

that advances just 100% certain to win. I mean, he's not a particularly good, he's never running any real contested. I mean, aside from the 2024 election, I guess, when he was, you know, the understudy of Trump, he on his own terms has never really run a competitive race. He's never shown that he has the middle. Yeah, you're right.

Anyways, just interesting news. I think Rubio's, at least what this says is Rubio is signaling to people that he's not going to run, which like if he was wrong, I don't know why he would do that if he was not going to. Well, I mean, the cynical interpretation there is that he'll be seen as extra noble if he is being, he's recruited to run. He's beckoned to run. He's told by the people around him or whatever. There's like a public clamor that he has to do it for the sake of the nation rather than his own, you know, of interest. He's going to have to explain why Vance is. yeah he's going to have to explain why he shouldn't be vans he's going to have to have some like argument as to why they're different which they've never done like throughout the Trump era um it's kind of been it's been yeah they've been as fingers on a glove the entire administration you know if you know 2028 very likely to be a bad year for republicans regardless so rubio actually could be making the calculation that even if he were just doing a self-serving political calculation it would probably

probably behoove him to wait another cycle, even if, uh, maybe, even if nothing is, is assured. Because like what Hillary Clinton do, right? Hillary Clinton runs in 2008, it's Obama extremely hard fought campaign where, you know, she actually wins the more, uh, popular votes. Doesn't get the nomination, right? She serves as a secretary of state. Um, she has to wait another cycle because Obama's running for a reelection.

2016, she runs. She's been out of office for a while. And yet still, she spent the intervening years. from which he left office in 2013 up until the 2016 early primary phase, sort of consolidating the party infrastructure behind her. So you can see Rubio maybe anticipating his ability to do something similar to that. Well, I mean, she could have run in 2012 against Obama again. That would be unusual, right?

It was really not a natural option for her. It would have been weird. No, the natural option for Hillary at that time was to wait for 2016, where she could kind of be this presumptive nominee. But now it's open. I mean, now it's open. So someone's going to want that. Someone's going to think they have a shot.

Because you never know. Democrats might, you know, believe there's 20 genders again. Did you watch the Telarico? I've just seen clips. I want to watch the whole thing actually because it's interesting. Because they ask him, do you believe in, still believe in six genders? It was Fox News. And he goes, no, they're just talking about six genders because they don't want to talk about

$6 a gallon. Which is a pretty funny. He should give a rate, whoever consultant gave him that line. Which is pretty good. But they really have. I don't. I mean, I haven't seen that, but as you're relaying it, I don't find that particularly good. It sounds like a can't answer.

It sounds like an answer that he was trained to recite. I'm just saying in 2020, they would have said yes. No, actually, I think it's nine genders. I mean, that's what they would have been doing running in. No, they wouldn't have. Not if they're running in a general election in Texas. Like, Beto O'Rourke would not have said that. Yeah, he would not talk about.

Bitter O'Rourke, I don't know. I don't remember. I mean, they probably would have said some crazy stuff in the primaries. Yes. That they would then have to, quote, walk back. But if in a general election context, no. Anyways, I was just telling people, we didn't do a, we haven't done a stream in a while because the Lindsay, Kelsey, Lindsay's our first name, right? I got, I even forgot the woman's last name. I've been paying so little attention to it. Lindsay Clancy. It's just, I don't think this case has anything to tell us about men or women. Maybe the reaction does and you did the dive into the actual facts of the case in order to understand how reasonable people reacting are. But like, I just, I just thought this case was like, it doesn't say anything about what. So you would only comment. on it if you could

divine that it said something generally about women, that's not why I was interested. It's depressed. Why do I pay attention to a regular just some kind of crime without any national or civilization? It obviously took on a big national

import. Yeah, I know. It was just, it was too depressing. It was too depressing for me. I mean, I understand finding it depressing. And, you know, I was sort of interested a little earlier than a lot of people in that I watched like the first you know, I watched portions up to the first several days of the trial.

I had been aware of it previously as well. But even I at that point, like, almost this has had to myself, this is too depressing for me to, like, really follow with any regularity. Like, I know the basic details. I pretty much know enough of what I need to know without, like, following the gory ins and outs a doubt of everything. But then, I don't know, one day, it just exploded on, on these national radar. And then I think at that point, for like certain meta reasons, it was worth interrogating how it is

that it gained so much attention and was provoking so much consternation and like extrapolate stuff from there. But like I understand, not everybody gets the same intuition. Who got it to it first? The women or the rightoids on Twitter? Who was like paying attention to it?

Women were into it first for sure. Okay. So then the rightoids were reacting to like the TikTok women making statements. Like what the righttoids did that was so annoying was that they framed their entire version of the narrative in opposition.

to like the most outlandish handful of TikTok videos that flew across the feed, right? And so they were arguing against this like caricature of, quote, supporters of her as though like women far and wide were suddenly supporting like triple child murder, which of course, like was never the grounds on which 90 plus percent of women were quote unquote supporting her or supporting like the logic of her defense. Anyway, we don't have to get into that, but like I do think, you know, at a certain point, especially criminal trials that kind of like captivate the public imagination, they kind of call out for some, they reach, they cross a threshold where they call for some

consideration, even if on the merits or on the substance, you wouldn't have necessarily been into the trial. Like, would you have been into a double homicide in Los Angeles? in 1994 that happened to be committed by like a former football player probably not on its own terms but then obviously it reaches this

you know magnitude that you can't No the nature of the killing is more depressing to me than other kinds of killings Is she in a mental hospital now Where's Lindsay Clancy now? Yeah she's at a state psychiatric ward So does she get like

Since January of 2020 Okay so I think so like are they going to her out because you like you would think that she's probably not a threat to like people who aren't her children like is there is there a um what's the kind of the process number one she's paralyzed from the waist now so i don't even know how she could even if she like you want to argue that she is some kind of threat yeah how could she even have like the physical capability of acting upon so like who decides like the mental hospital some well there was a mistrial there was a mistrial no but who decides what she gets out of the mental hospital well the cases

not resolved. The, the, A's office has not even announced one way or another yet, whether they intend to re-prosecute. So there could be a second trial, right? So she's still in like, she's still their pending resolution of the criminal charges. So she's still an arrestee. Yeah, yeah. So she still has an, she still, she still indicted for first to remurder. Now, no bail? There's talk of how, I don't believe so. No. I don't believe so. No. I You don't get bail for first to remirder. Now, there's talk of how, given how the trial unfolded, there's an argument to be made that the cases should be,

the state should be barred from reprocessinging her on double jeopardy grounds. Why is that? For a few different reasons, not just double jeopardy, but also for prudential reasons because it was 11 to 1, right? Okay, that's prudential. But what's a double jeopardy? The double jeopardy reason is that the mistrial could be argued to have been necessary to declare because of the actions of the state were at the behest of the state, right? Because there was a time where in the trial, the state, which was desperate.

I mean, they were horrible. They were kind of just vile in their conduct where they couldn't keep a coherent theory of her guilt. And so they were just like throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. So toward the end of the trial, the two assistant DAs who were arguing it start, they bring up the concept of mortal sin in like Catholic dogma. With the idea being, I guess, that they could tailor that to any, a juror or to whom they infer could be like really hardcore believing Catholics. Wait, so they brought up mortal sin and what, a suicide? No, no, no, no. They brought it up in so.

So Lindsay Clancy's mother, former mother-in-law, her former husband's mother was testifying at the trial. And every witness testified favorably to Lindsay, almost as though her defense had called them, but they had been called by the government. And at one point in the exchange with the prosecutors, the prosecutors asked this woman, you're a believing Catholic, right? are you belong to your local parish, right, in Massachusetts. And she's like, yes.

And which is already kind of getting to the edge of what's permissible in terms of asking about religious affiliation. And then she, the prosecutor woman asks her, and you would agree, something to the effect of, you would agree, correct, that what Lindsay did was a mortal sin. And the judge immediately interjects, has that stricken from the record because that's not, you're not allowed to ask questions bearing on. What's the definition of a mortal sin? is that a thing? A moral sin in terms of Catholic doctrine? Yeah.

Mortals. It's called a mortal. M-O-R-T-A-L, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Moral sin as opposed to a venal sin. So venal sin is like, I see. A moral sin is what dams you to hellfire for eternity, essentially. Ah, not gay?

Being gay? Yeah, like being gay, you know, using substack. Okay. And so the, I mean, so the idea was that if a juror belief is, is, is, is, is imparted with the idea that Lindsay committed moral sin, even if there's reasonable doubt to ask her to her guilt legally, then maybe the idea was they could be convinced to refrain from voting for not guilty because they can't absolve her of her moral sin.

Anyway, you're not allowed to do that. I mean, that's not like permitted in any U.S. court system. And so it was stricken. And then they did it again. They did it again like the following week in that they, they they they they they they they lobbed up a um uh they they set up one of mean the prosecutor set up one of their witnesses to again opine on her culpability for moral mortal sin and so the then at that point the defense says okay wait a second i have to now motion for a mistrial

because they're trying to interject these like this like religious theology into the trial even after the judge had reprimanded them for doing some and then the judge did not grant the mistrial, right? So now, we know there's one holdout. If any information can be ascertained that this one holdout happens to be a man could have perhaps refused to, according to the other jurors, he refused to apply the legal standard of reasonable doubt, even though he stated that he believed it was true that there was reasonable doubt, but he nonetheless was not going to vote for not guilty because he just couldn't for reasons that haven't been testified. If it can be ascertained that the reason that he couldn't vote for

not guilty was because of some Catholic theological, conviction, then that could be grounds for dispisional the charges of them. Is that it? Is that it? He was trying to find someone who was Catholic. They were trying to find someone

Catholic. Is that the jury? Well, that's the only plausible explanation I could see as to why they kept maybe it's just like the way to say she's really Moral sin concept. Yeah. Because you know, there's their, you know,

North East Massachusetts, you're going to have like enclaves, especially of older people who are still kind of like ancestral Catholic. It's like, well, you call Putin a dictator. Like when you're trying to get someone, like, well, you call him a dictator or a killer. They're like, they have to say yes. That's like, you bias against Putin.

It's kind of sounds like that. No, but this is an express appeal to a particular religious doctrine. And also, it's weird. So they asked two different people of a mortal sin? The first time the prosecutor directly asked one of the witnesses that they had called to testify, Lindsay Clancy's former ex-mother, former mother-in-law, about her own religion, her own Catholicism,

which she affirmed, yes, I'm a Catholic, I'm an active Catholic. And then asked her, okay, well, you would agree

that what Lindsay did was moral sin, something of that effect. Then the next time, after they were approached for this by the judge, they, they have an expert witness testifying,

and they, like, a lot, they serve up a chance for that expert witness to also opine on moral sin. So the prosecutor didn't explicitly,

explicitly ask about it that second time, but they kind of, created the conditions where it came up again, which is why the judge then, you know, intervened immediately, shut everything down and sent all the jurors home. Was Lindsay Clancy religious?

Is there something where, like, she... Part of why they were bringing this up was because Lindsay Clancy was herself said to have been a practicing Catholic. Okay, so maybe that's relevant, like, if she, what her beliefs were about what she could do or not, like that's, like, that's not allowed to, but that's not allowed.

You can question a person's. No, you can, I mean, it's a little complicated, but you're not supposed, but, you know, there's a, there's a, hard line past which you're not supposed to go in terms of

interrogating the private religious opinions of the witness yeah of the defendant even of the defendant no you got to you don't know that

you're wrong no I mean look up if it's related to their if they're saying if they're saying they're crazy and you have to establish a motive you cannot get into what they believe

of course you can look up the federal rule of procedure I looked it up recently okay here Rule 610, religious beliefs or opinion. Uh-huh. The, while the rule forecloses inquiry into the religious beliefs or opinions of a witness for the purpose of showing that his character for truthfulness is affected by their nature.

Okay. An inquiry for the purpose of showing interest or bias because of them is not within the prohibition. Okay, so it's not. Yeah, so that's even the witness. So the idea was that they had, that they had crossed the line into an inquiry of the religious beliefs for the purposes of show. showing something to do with their nature or character, something to do with Lindsay's nature or character. No, you're talking about the witness.

It wasn't even talking. I'm not the one who had it stricken. This is the judge. This is what the judge is. I think you might be mistaken. I don't know. If I'm mistaken in the judges. Anyway, I said at the beginning, I didn't get into the facts.

That's okay. We're getting, we're getting into the weeds here. Let's talk about Gloria Steinem, which I actually did read. And I didn't know how old, like, how did you get into Gloria Steinem and Satanic Fannick? Well, I've been reading a lot of material in the past year or so on the quote-unquote satanic panic. I had been familiar with the outlines of it prior, but the whole, you know, Epstein mania kind of has highlighted certain parallels from the quote-unquote satanic panic. of the 80s and early 90s, giving it a bit of new relevance

for me to to kind of more, even more familiarize myself with what those parallels could be. So I read a book last year called Satan's Silence, which I recommend everybody really should read. Even if you think that you're kind of like

pretty much acquainted with the contours of what happened with the quote unquote Satanic Panic. And Satanic Panic, you have to just think, because Satanic Panic is kind of more of an umbrella term that encompasses more of what I'm focused on, which is the ritual child sex abuse stuff, satanic ritual child sex abuse. The satanic panic more broadly could include you know, fears that were stoked around, you know, teenagers in the 80s listening to

heavy metal music with like supposedly demonic themes or playing oigi boards and that kind of thing. There was a whole other, you know, kind of more distinct component of this involved claims of, you know, satanic cult rape syndicates abusing children. And, you know, this had been covered up for ages and was finally only being, you know, surfaced thanks to these new techniques to extract recovered memories out of people and whatnot. So, you know, so Epstein mythology has, like, grown over time, but especially over the past year and especially since the beginning of

26, you see a new layer added on, you saw a new layer added on to it where people are a segment of people who are kind of inflamed by the story are now invoking this very, almost, almost similar tropes

as were invoked during the satanic panic stuff, meaning of ritualistic child sacrifice, eating of infants, burning of infants alive in like tubs of sulfuric acid, these kind of shady networks of satanic ritual abuse where they're like worshiping Satan and so forth. This is like what drove a lot of the online frenzy around Epstein, right? So that was the parallel there that kind of had triggered me into doing a little bit of a more robust investigation.

And in that book that I read Satan Silent last year, and there's another one called Believe the Children, I forget the author now, there was like these offhand references to Gloria, Gloria Steinem, having a role in a particular episode, and one of like the hallmark episodes of the entire satanic, so to say, and in the most notorious kind of prosecution associated with it, which is the McMartin preschool episode, which you may have,

most people, if they've heard of anything related from this era, will have heard of this, but they probably will not have heard that five years into it, right? Or five or more years into it, I think the charges were initially announced against the McMartin preschool staff and proprietors in 1984.

And, you know, it dragged on for years ended up being the longest and most expensive criminal proceeding in American history. And then by 1990, when like a lot of the more, like, fanatical believers in child ritual sex abuse

had kind of like figured out that maybe they had gotten a little over their skis in terms of just assuming the guilt of these like, these like little old ladies and people who supposedly had like subjected

these preschool age children to underground child sex torture, not Gloria Steinem, because what does she do? It turns out, and I learned this, you know, again, just kind of based on the superficial references that I had seen made in places, that she funded a kind of an ad hoc search, an archaeological dig of the grounds of the preschool led by rabid parents who were convinced against all evidence that had been accumulated over five years, that if they just finally did a proper search of the grounds.

They would discover these underground child sex torture chambers and tunnels and discover the truth of what their children had purportedly conveyed about all this abuse that they were suffered. So Steinem was very, was like

actively involved in not just like supporting it on some kind of weird feminist principle, but actually funding it. And she was also very much integral in pushing kind of like the theoretical underpinnings

of why it was being demanded everybody had to be so exercise about child ritual sex abuse right? Because the idea was that women could be empowered if they develop these sort of almost new agey techniques to probe the deepest recesses of their psyche and excavate these memory

long lost memories of their childhood where they could understand that they, you know, anything that might have gone wrong in their lives is ultimately attributable to them being subjected to like child sex torture as young children. And that was kind of, that was part and parcel of liberating women. And so in order to liberate women, according to the Steinem like ad hoc world do, that she was very much into right around the peak of this MacBartan satanic panic hysteria was that by, uh, in by believing women, uh, sorry, but by believing children, you're also like fortifying the grounds on which to believe women.

And together those uncritical beliefs in both women and children, when they make any kind of claim of some kind of sexual wrongdoing, that will then supplant like male domination. How did this start? Like how did the, what was the first accusation against some random preschool? How did it start? Like who said first, like who was the first person to make an accusation? Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, this is why people should, if they're interested, read the book, Satan's Silence by Debbie Nathan, because it's the most comprehensive. And she was very,

she contemporaneously covered as a journalist. And she was like one of the few who was very, who was, who was, um, skeptically documenting the emergence of this like national mania,

which again, even if you know like a little bit about it or if you like watch like maybe like a half of a documentary or something, like you haven't, you haven't appreciated the full insanity of it by any stretch of the imagination. Um, so I read this probably in October of last. year, I think I'm getting this right, but to my knowledge, the first time something like this was claimed was, it wasn't a daycare or a preschool.

It was in Bakersfield, California, maybe like 1981 or so. There was actually a mentally unwell woman who was a grandmother and I think maybe her daughter was having problems so she had to take care of the grandchildren. and then there was some kind of like custody-oriented dispute about who would be taken care of the grandchildren. And this woman ended up kind of just confabulating extreme child sex abuse that occurred to these children. And then, you know, and these are like literally little kids, right? So they're like the McMartin thing was spawned by a boy who was a boy's mother who was also a mentally ill who was, then the boy was two and a half. so if you have like these little kids surrounded by adults

who are basically using these like almost manipulative methods to extract this mother was like was she did she was she really obsessed with Satan what was the how did she get her son to start saying this stuff

the one who started these like claims of just widespread systematic abuse right there was a little bit before McMarton right but what was going on in Southern California at the time and that that person ended up just being like a schizophrenic woman who really just needed And the one happened to McMarton.

And the same, and the one who spawned McMarton was Jenny Johnson, I think. Her last name was Johnson. She also just happened to be turned out, not all the parents were like mentally insane, okay? But the one who started it was somebody who was so mentally insane that she legitimately needed to be hospitalized for her own safety. It was eventually discovered. And so you see, like the origins of it of the larger satanic panic in terms of the ritualized child sex abuse, it started with the genuine delusions of a legitimately,

you know, basically psychotic woman in Bakersfield, California. And then the big sort of blow up with McMartin also started with a legitimately mentally woman kind of ideating this abuse that her son had been subjected to because he was, he would lay awake at night and his like butt would, but would itch. And he would like, Michael, you went, you cut off. What happened? Your son went off. Oh, did I, uh...

Have I back? Yeah. Oh, yeah, and so she took him to, like, get treatment, medical treatment, right? And I think somebody at the hospital suggested that it was pot. Like, I think she suggested to somebody at the hospital that she was theorizing that it could have been the result of some kind of sexual abuse. And then once she theorizes that, she thinks to herself, okay, who's the only opportunity, we have to be male sexual abused, right?

Where's the only opportunity that a male adult could have abused the child, and it would have to have been the daycare. And then, so she reports it to the police. The police start investigating. And then they do like the most insane thing that you'll ever see, which is that they wrote a mass letter to every McMartin preschool parent, saying, okay, everybody, such and such,

like the first guy that was accused, it was like a male teacher in his 20s, who was the son of the proprietors, who could accuse of something to do with sexual abuse, which might involve, you know, like oral copulation and blah, blah, blah, blah. So please, you know, ask your children if they too have been subjected to this,

but also keep this on the down low. Don't really tell anyone about it. Of course, like within a matter of like an hour, the entire town knew about it. Yeah. And was in an uproar. And then to like, you know, one thing leads to another.

And then you have these state subsidized therapists who come in who are delegated with interviewing the children. If you use these like, you have to read this book to understand the absurdity of the techniques that are used. They bring out puppets and dolls and, right? And start saying, One of them is named Mr. Alligator. And this woman who has like, you know, really no real forensic psychiatry training is like has these like three and four, you know, four and five year old sitting with her and saying, hey, we're going to play a game with Mr. Alligator.

And we heard from your friend that Mr. Alligator had something mean done to them. And that might have also happened to you. So can you point out where on the alligator something was done to you or like they did stuff like that almost like they were playing a game with the kids. And the kids were kind of just like playing along. and like but over and over again when the kids would be asked to like to make an accusation about some kind of sex abuse sometimes the kids were more rational than the adults

by and large they would just say no like not really and I'm not sure what you're saying but like of course like if you're stuff like if you're interrogating a four four year old for long enough you can get them to say anything and so that's basically how it it it bloomed but the crazy thing about Steinem right

is that she was she was still like a, she was like a dead ender in terms of how fervently she was promoting this stuff in terms of like the necessity to just believe anything a child says or anything a woman says. And also to use these manipulative quasi-therapeutic techniques, which she also, you know, promoted in her best-selling book called Revolution from Within. And, you know, why it was necessary, why she was such a pivotal figure in this is because any moral panic, my theory is, in order to really be potent. and to have sort of like an endurance to it,

it has to be cross ideological, right? So if the liberal intelligentsia only viewed this stuff as the province of these like, you know, country preachers who were screaming about Satan, they would never have given it any credence. But if Gloria Steinem is out here saying, look, no, we have to believe in this stuff because it will advance the women's movement

that she led in the 1960s, then you're going to have like, you know, the New York Times and like, you know, falling over itself to give it the maximum possible deference.

And the craziest thing is to everything I've been able to glean she was underpent about it for the duration of her entire life. She never expressed one hint of remorse.

Yeah. I found a quote of her for 2017 where she's like at the peak of Me Too where like I missed magazine which she found it. The younger staffers

are asking her to comment on like the meaning of the Me Too movement. And she's like, Like what this tells me is something I've always been adamant about, which is that we have to believe the children and believe the women, like in tandem. Yeah. As this sort of like multi-pronged strategy to just lodge male supremacy.

And so like when I'm, so I'm reading the New York, this glorious Niam obituary in the New York Times, right? Which is going to be like her big authoritative obituary that they were probably like, you know, assiduously preparing for years for this moment because like she's such an iconic figure to them. And it like makes no mention of this anywhere. I don't see it mentioned. I don't see this aspect of her quote-unquote legacy,

her trailblazing history. history-making legacy mentioned literally anywhere in these popular homages to her. And it's insane with this stuff that. Just before we started, I published the thing about a man who got swept up in this and, you know,

I'm not going to give it away, but like if people want to read it, read it and like you'll be shocked at the I'm continuously shocked at the extent of the collateral damage here. And like if any, if you were to blame any one figure for for being integral in promulgating it,

It could arguably be her. And to not see this mention anywhere in any of these obituary, like the year times it's like 25 articles on her since she died September 2nd, like New Yorker or Vanity Fair, like everywhere she has like a million net. Even in the past couple years, she has a million Netflix, Apple Plus, BBC, whatever, you know, phony documentaries. It just doesn't ever come up, which is just crazy to me. Did anyone ever could people have sued her for like libel?

Like did anything like that ever happen? Well, her thing was, I don't think I've seen her specifically go out and accuse any specific individual of committing ritual child sex abuse. Yeah. She was just like promoting the theory that underlied it and funding like the most crazed manifestations of it, like this rogue, archaeological dig for underground sex torture chambers. is um i didn't so i didn't know anything about gloria steinum um until now basically really i knew she was a feminist and but her heyday was like before my time like what was she famous for i'm surprised you hadn't i'm surprised you had to a little knowledge of her um not that you

would be like somebody who would you know be reading you know multi-volume biographies or anything of her but like she seems like she would intersect enough with your interest especially around gender relations that you would have more awareness It was before my time. She was before my time too. I mean, what does that mean? Yeah, well, maybe you're a better historian. Abraham Lincoln was before our times as well. I mean, she was known for, I mean, she was

basically anointed by the media, by the male dump. She was a journalist, right? In the 1960s. She was doing this like, you know, I'm going to be a girl about town, go to New York, I think she was from Michigan or something. And I'm going to try to make it as a journalist. and she intersected with like the CIA youth organization for a while, which she became pretty well known for.

But like by and large, she was a journalist. And then she ends up, you know, she ends up being basically christened as this leader of women, you know, with the energy of the 1960s when she found Ms. Magazine.

I think it was in 1971. Okay. Ms. Magazine. Ms. Magazine. Because that's the point. Yeah, Ms. Magazine. Not Ms.

MS. Yeah. The point being that she wanted, she didn't want women to be, referred to with a good what you call them with MRS versus MS

based on what they were married to a man exactly but Ms. Ms. Magazine did really it was a it did really well it was like an overnight success

and it was hugely popular and so she almost became like this instant pop cultural icon I think she was in her she was somewhere in her 30s when she ended up founding it and so

she just became like this high society figure who would like be constantly like anytime something happened that anytime there was some like big topical thing that happened with quote women's rights or women's issues she would be one of the one giving the quote

oh I remember what she was she was did she defend Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky stuff and then people were like you know how could she do that? Did she ever repent for the Clinton? She'd uh some not really I mean so yeah that came up that resurfaced again during me too

people like oh hey everybody this is real problematic. The hero of the women's movement actually came out and was defending Bill Clinton in 1998. I actually went back and re-read that New York Times opinion piece. And it's like not that crazy of an argument actually.

It's like, hey, we shouldn't like lump this. We shouldn't lump the stuff that Bill Clinton's accused of at that point with like actual sexual harassment which we're trying to like get legally enshrined in anti-discrimination law. Because whenever Bill Clinton was rebuffed or told no, he just took no for an answer. And then Monica Lewinsky was consensual.

Yeah, it was a different time where you could consent or not consent. Now it's like, no matter what you say or what you do, just the fact that you're the boss means that it can never be, it can never be consensual. It was so weird because like every once in a while she would have a gaffe that she would have to then walk back as though she were a politician. So the Clinton op-ed resurfacing and meet two was one. And she was eventually asked about it and she was like, I don't know if I would have written exactly the same way as I

today. However, like she also was defending the like the substance of it. So it was like a hat was like an a non-apology, non-apology, apologetic non-apology. And then another big instance of that was in the 2016 presidential primaries where she was on

the Bill Marshow and she chided the young women who were supporting Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton because even among women under 30 or something, it was like, you know, 80 plus percent were supporting Bernie over Hillary. And she thought that was appalling.

And she said, you know, you know what? That's all about it's about the girls just wanting to do what the boys are doing because they're boy crazy. So in order to like just like getting good with the boys, they're going to support who the boys are supporting. And that costs like a big uproar. And then she quote unquote apologize for it. But she clearly, she never said like what she actually regretted saying. It was just like it was just about like, it was just a fake.

apology that like Emmett Romney would give or something about like the tone maybe not being on right on pitch. So it was weird. Like she was this quasi, she became this figure where it was almost if she was like a lifelong sort of political figure where like every now and then a gaff would come up that she would have to account for as if she was like, I don't know, Barack Obama or something. But she was just this woman who was like considered the leader of the women's movement. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, was she crazy other than the satanic panic stuff? Like did she have other weird things she believed? Multiple personality disorders. Yes, you talked about that a lot. She was a big believer in multiple personality. That goes hand in hand with the satanic panic and ritual sex abuse stuff because the idea is that across the land,

people were suddenly resurfacing these memories of their cultish, systematic rape in their early childhood because the idea is that if any child is afflicted with that, they inevitably has like an immune reaction to have to develop a new personality so they can forget it. Yeah. And she believed that, like, you would have a new personality, and then you'd have the personality when you were abused. And then the marks of when you were abused would only appear on your body when you adopted the personality of the person who was abused. It's the craziest mumbo jumbo. This book is amazing.

I mean, I had never actually looked at this book of hers, Revolution from Within 1992. Uh-huh. But it was panned at the time. Like, every major American publication. That multiple personality thing was it was in that 1992 book? Yeah, it was in that. Yeah. And then she was like, she would like go around, tour around the country giving speeches on it to,

like women's groups. I happen to find a recording that was somehow, you know, thankfully preserved of her in 1990. So shortly before, as she was writing the book, where, um, where she's talking to this like women's development, uh, banquet or something or other in Minneapolis. And she's like, yeah, we can like, um,

which yeah, she makes these statements about how, you know, once you realize that you're afflict, you have this syndrome of multiple personalities. and then you can like kind of toggle between the personality somehow. When you toggle to one personality, then like a hand slap that you got when you were a child will somehow reemerge on your body physically. But then when you toggle back to your like, quote, unquote,

regular personality, you'll go away. I mean, it's like the craziest woo-woo, like. Does it automatically disappear or does it fade away? I don't know. I mean, I guess she must have observed it or something. But like, but the popularization of the stuff, which she was integral, in because it became like a big pop cultural trope right it was like supermarket tabloids were covering

the stuff daytime television heraldo opra whatever um this this convinced tons of women some men but like mostly women at for example you know there's this one case of a woman who was treated by the the the dot supposed to psychologist who was like basically steinem's source for for this multiple personality syndrome and she kind of just repaidant's packaged his theories in her book and her speeches and so forth. Within the decade or so, this guy, Bennett Braun, ends up getting sued by one of his patients because he had convinced her that she had something like, I think over a hundred different personalities and was also the high priestess of a secret satanic cult that like committed

mass cannibalism and stuff. And also like, you know, roped in her own two children. It was just insane stuff. She was promoting maybe the most damaging thing you can promote to mentally unwell women under the guise of supporting women's empowerment. Yeah, it's interesting. It's interesting that in 1992 she was panned. So she was kind of like grandfathered in.

Is that she was just maybe why they didn't point out how crazy was because she was a Democrat, she was in the, she was part of liberal coalition. And then kind of is that maybe why her influence declined over the last like 20, 30 years? well she was panned in 1992 like every every major American publication had a woman reviewer review that book

and ridicule it pretty viciously was that was that was that was that was that was that did she decline at that point I mean was that her influence was never the same after that book was a massive bestseller it was on the New York it was in New York time number one year for 14 weeks but with like elite discourse

like did she become a little bit some extent yeah I'm sure it up and float a bit I'm sure it was probably a little bit of a down period in the 90s. But then, you know, once she's like, you know, hooking up with Lena Dunham and Emma Watson and like a younger generation of female celebs and so forth who just look at her as this like 1960s icon, because all you have to, she could just, she could have just eaten out on her 1960s nostalgia for her entire career.

It doesn't matter what she did. And so like that was the main thing. A younger generation knew about her. into, you know, into the 2000s, 2010s, et cetera. So, but yeah, I mean, she would, she would, she would, uh, wane an influence somewhat, but like,

not enough where, I mean, look, look at who commemorated her after she died. It was like every, every Democratic party power broke or ever. She was also like a real, just a hardcore, you know, brash, Democratic partisan. She's mostly like, like, this radical, right? Radical feminist or something who was like going to like upend all these

oppressive power structures. but she was just like supporting every mainstream, she would just support every conventional Democratic candidate ever. And I didn't expect to get in such a signum rabbit hole, but like the next one, I'm actually having a little third part of the series, because I couldn't help them find all these, like from like 1996 to 2020,

she said every election was the most important election of her lifetime, and therefore everybody had to support the Democratic. So she was like dispatched by the Al Gore campaign in 2000 against Georgia. Bush to like tell everybody like women were going to be extirpated if you don't vote for Al Gore. So and then but but she doesn't like this pretension of some kind of radicalism. I mean, it's just it's just kind of amazing. Yeah.

I like that this has gotten you on the glorious item trail. I have a I have a piece on the one year anniversary. Are you going to celebrate or mourn the one year anniversary of Charlie Co. Oh, you're going to be celebrating it. What are you going to be doing? I misspoke. Are you going to be born? You're going to have an article coming out.

unheard. They wanted me to do a one year reflection on it. So I think that people are going to I think people are going to... I don't have any Kirk-based plans, yeah, but maybe I'll think of something. What should I do? I thought it was just... I figured out if it should maybe say a quiet prayer. Maybe you should stream my article. Maybe we should talk about that. I don't know if I...

Yeah, but what is your thesis? Well, that he basically created the conspiratorial nonsense that took over after he died and made his death like this big subject of controversy. He was instrumental in stop the steel. He was telling people that the election was stolen. He was promoting Tucker, who went on to say that the Israelis had killed him. He was promoting RFK. He was promoting all kinds of crags. And then he died, and then all these people, the TPSA orbit is like, oh, my God, the memory of Charlie Kirk. Like,

he would have been, he would have been shocked by all these conspiracy theorists everywhere. It's like, yeah, that was kind of the world he created. I don't really quite agree with that. I don't think that the most central feature of what he was, if you had to narrow it down to something, he promoted conspiracyism. I think he was just like this kind of like coalition manager. Yeah. But part of that kind of keep the coalition happy, would sort of absorb whatever was popular.

And part of that was conspiracy theorists. And he was a big promoter of conspiracy theorists. Like he went out of his way. He's a big promoter of Donald Trump. And Donald Trump was the one promoting the election stuff. Fine. I mean, I know that's why. I know he didn't think up, he didn't think it up on his own.

Like, I understand that. But he was like a person who stepped into the role and was Trump's greatest, greatest kind of propagandist leading up to January 6th and basically, yeah, he was open to every kind of consistency. But the Israel stuff in particular kind of cuts against that, right? Because what happened when he died? You had this explosion of crazed

theories that people somehow immediately knew must be true, like within a matter, like within 10 minutes. That somehow Israel was behind the assassination? Yeah. I mean, it was Charlie. Charlie Kirk never peddled in that kind of

stuff. No, but he. In fact, In fact, he was like, when that letter came out of him writing Condit in Yahoo talking about how he wanted to be of service to advise how they could better connect with like the right wing youth. Yeah, not the exact conspiracy. But you know, it was at the memorial service where Tucker basically says, implies that the Jews kill Charlie Kirk. And he was the one who Charlie Kirk was guest hosting the Charlie Kirk show after he died. And then all these people started complaining about Tucker later, who was always crazy from the start. Vance was guest hosting it. well so was Tucker they had different they went rotating they went I watched them when

that Vance did I think Vance was the first guest host once it came back yeah yeah um I mean I I mean the thing that I would I don't know that I would if I were asked to write that I don't I don't think I'll will worry to remembrance but if I were asked to write on like what the meaning of the one year anniversary of Charlie Kirk is that wouldn't be my focus it would be more on you know think think back to that episode of the Charlie Kirk show that JD Vance triumphantly hosted the day after when it kind of returned to a broadcast. I think it was on that very show that J.D. Vance was

like, yeah, look everybody out there. If you heard a coworker say something nasty about Charlie, make sure to snitch on them to your boss. Well, it's funny because get them fired. One of the, yeah, one of the points I make is. So like, let's reflect on that because like everybody who was fired, mostly in Republican states with like left wing enclaves where you'd have like a gubernatorial candidate demanding that the,

you know, this like university in, I don't know, like Augusta, Georgia or something, or it was big in Tennessee and since this happened. Everyone that I followed at the time or knew of at the time, I think, was eventually overturned by the courts and the public institutions or state institutions responsible for firing people on the grounds of their speech pertaining to Charlie Kirk had to pay like giant settlements. I don't know they paid settlements.

Yeah, there was a bunch of them. Did you, by the way, so worlds colliding, did you see the Andrew Colvin? You know, this guy like Charlie Kirk's, like, kind of successor or the main spokesman now, he's so, he's such a dope. Did you see that tweet he had about Lindsay Clancy, the jurors? I haven't. I haven't looked much at X today. Well, they all do the same thing. That video of the jury.

Can imagine what they said. Yeah, they all admit that there was this one holdout who would not be bowed by these, you know, harping women. They all admit it. they're the ones who delivered a jury note informing the judge of this he couldn't get over the fact that she killed three of her children and they loved that quote because it's like all these other jurors don't care that she killed her children but this one brave man

and like they ignore the fact that in their own video they basically say that the guy wouldn't listen to evidence and he would he even said he had reasonable doubt so it's like they don't watch their own video I'm saying Again, I don't have any official media on Lizzie Clancy. I watched that. I thought those women are pretty sensible. Well, yeah.

I mean, I said, like, upload quotes where it's like, I think there was another one where one of the women, like, they're older women, right? Who became kind of friendly. And, like, you know, that's not crazy if they're, like, locked in a room together for six weeks. Where one of the women is like, she's asked to comment on the performance of the defense lawyer, Kevin Redington. She's like, yeah, he was entertaining. But he was also arrogant, but he was also compassionate towards Lindsay. but I remember I saw people like isolating him,

and him, her saying that she was entertaining as though she was like just entertained by the, you know, and enjoyed the whole proceeding. Yeah, they made it like, yeah, women,

they pay attention to the personalities. They can't deal with facts. Well, at the same time, I don't know that I would join them and, or I wouldn't denounce that one holdout juror without knowing more about what his thought process was. Yes.

Because I do think, you know, that the good part of the jury system is that even if there is one holdout, you know, that's, that's what it takes. and like they're not, he's not obliged to follow just the quote, instruction from the judge as to what the proper interpretation of reasonable doubt is.

Yeah. It's like the jury is almost a sovereign in this context. The judge can instruct whatever he wants, but they're not bound to those. There is jury nullification, so you can always, you could always do that. Okay. So I don't understand why you were so resistant to talking about this.

If even the word of plan to talk about it, a couple of tidbits that have come up, just in the past, you know, a few minutes that you seem like interested enough in to, like, want to discuss. I don't want to know the key cells about how she killed her kids. Just because the homicides themselves were too gruesome to...

Yeah, that's part of it. Yeah, I don't want to know the details of how she killed her kids. I, yeah, it's just too bad. And you have to know that in order to, uh, have an opinion on what... She strangled them with exercise bans. I know that. I know that much.

All right. There you go. Yeah. Now you can move on and like to discuss. They've actually get over it. If there's another trial, maybe, maybe I'll, I'll actually look into it this stuff. Well, Trump's,

been called on to issue a pardon. Here's the here's the wrinkle. Of course, everybody will immediately say it was a state crime. The president cannot pardon for state crimes. First of all, I don't know that that's been ever really conclusively litigated. What are you talking about. Hold on. Regardless.

Regardless. Regardless. Or there's not like ways to challenge whether the president does, may in fact have that power. Even so, Trump literally issued a formal pardon certificate published by the Department of Justice in December of last year. announcing a full and unconditional pardon to Tina Peters, the woman in Colorado.

By the way, do you know what the, we know about the Tina Peter. Oh, maybe people don't know that Trump issued a pardon for her, purported to issue a pardon for her for violating a Colorado state law. Yeah. Well, like he says New Mexico is New America. So do you know what the pardon power actually says in Article 2, Section 2? I can't give you the exact wording, but. Okay. The president, here, quote, shall have the power, shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offensive.

against the United States. Right. That's the whole thing. But this has been argued before, actually. By who? Whether the United States can encompass individual states, or is it just the federal government? No, the United States is the United States. You don't believe me that this has actually been a litigated issue with like, you know,

reasonable arguments on both directions? Maybe some John Easterman type who maybe some MAGA lawyer has maybe said this at some way. Did people say this before Trump or are they just mega lawyers trying to try to find precedents of it coming before Trump? I'm not 100% sure. In other words, like it's not. If they just. You don't think like a bunch of. lawyers could come up with like a theory for how

the United States could mean like the constituent states of the federal? I think that they might have done that because Trump like Mike Pence can overturn the election. Like it's like because Trump wants it at the moment, somebody will tell him. I say I think there has there's has been an extant argument around this independently of Trump. That Trump people then

embraced for their own reasons of course. But I don't think it's exclusively a Trump direct. Is there an argument that the president can pardon state crimes. Because, like, Trump did issue the pardon. I know he did. And then, and then he pretty much got what he wanted

because then it created this political... Yeah, Paulus... Brindsay and Jared Polis commuted her. Yeah, there is an argument, but it is a very weak one. The conventional answer is no. But you can construct your vision is constantly true, Margaret.

But your offense is implicated the United States or federal authorities. I don't know. You think, like, every little, deuce of, like, constitutional laws like, ever conclusively settled? Even this one. Suppose a federal officer is prosecuted by a state for conduct undertaken pursuant to federal duties. One could argue because of blah, blah, blah.

It's what looks like just kind of making this up. Okay, whatever. Anyways. Okay, Michael, this was very interesting. I'll go back and I will read your other. Yeah, read the new one. Read the new one. The new one that's just.

And look to them. And let's make the first. The new one is very sad, disturbing. and yet I think are pretty important to read. I usually think we've gotten dumber over the years, but this satanic panic thing

makes me think we've gotten smarter. Like nothing is this bad, right? But there's a bit of research of it. But it's not that extreme. We're not arresting. No, it's not as extreme as it was when like there were literal, it was like literally sweeping the nation

and like there are people thrown in prison who just did nothing. Yeah. You got to go back and I just watched some of this last night. There are these interviews with these. So there's a family basically who, ran the McMarton preschool.

And initially they charged, I think, like, five of the family members, made two teachers. And there was this woman who was maybe in her late 20s, who was a teacher. And I think for like a brief period, a few years before had, like, a work substitute teacher at this McMartan school. And they charged her.

And it's like, just like take one look at her and the idea that she could have committed these revolting acts. What does she look like? Can we look at what I think it's Peggy. There are two Peggy Buckys. One is the older one. and then this is the younger one.

There's two Peggy Buckys. There's just happened to be named Peggy Bucky. Yeah. I'm pretty sure. She's like she's kind of, she's kind of like adorable Burdette. Blonde brunette. Yeah.

Oh, does she have short hair? She kind of looks like a, sort of blondeish. I see one on IMDMD. Can I pull it up on the feed right now? You can, hold on. Yeah, let me pull this up. See what I'm talking about.

Okay. Yeah, that's so sad. But, like, so there's not stuff quite as extreme as this going on right now, but, like, I think, I don't know that the appetite for wanting to believe this sort of thing has really diminished at all. It's just that the evidence was so overwhelming. You're still watching George Carlin? What is this, 1999? I don't, yeah, I don't know.

It just popped up for me, so I watched it. Let's see. Now people are going to see all my YouTube history. Let's see. Here we go. Peggy and Buckley Okay Policy and politics

What is this Looks like an old TV show I have no idea Yeah you can actually Short audio Just find us Peggy Ann Buckley Is the audio playing?

No it's not I've looked into the Substack It does not allow that For now Does it allow audio? It doesn't allow it They just don't have

The capabilities yet Hold on, hold on Yeah That's kind of stupid Hold on I just had to click something Is it work now? I mean

no the audio is not going to work. You could share screen, but you can't share audio from a screen. I know that. So that's Peggy, the one with the book. This is her, this is her. So people want to look at it up. I mean, it's like, it's like the last person on earth is like the minute of like, you know, teacher.

And she was accused of the most vile stuff imaginable and embroiled like her entire life for five years until they finally dismissed the charge against her. But then even then they, um, they insisted on, um, uh, still, continuing to charge the original guy, Ray, and then the proprietor, the old woman. And they both end up, you know, basically had it all of the charges dismissed. But so we're not having that stuff

in quite the same way anymore. But I do think there are parallels. Like I think that this, I think the sex trafficking theorizing, it has a parallel almost in a way, and that has a big prosecutorial, like hardcore tangible prosecutorial element. And then I think the vehemence

with which people wanted to believe these most maximalist Epsine theories and still do to a large extent, drawing on these kind of syndicate networks of depraved satanic child sex ritual rings, not just like child sex as such, but like the satanic

ritualistic element. I think, you know, that's still very much around. And then the recovered memory stuff, like, it's parallel. A lot of the most, a lot of Epstein quote unquote victims who have been trod out to the public. Yeah, there are

Parallels. Claim that the basis of their victimhood is effectively recovered memory that could have come right out of that period in the early 90s. So it's not, it's not as maybe extreme in every single manifestation. Yeah. But it's still there to the point that I think it's, it be who's people to be cognizant of it. Yeah. Anyways, uh, let's make the first, I don't know, 15, 20 minutes free and let's. Weren't you just on here for your, by yourself for a while?

I mean, like two minutes, like five minutes, maybe. whatever. You can cut me out or you could I'm cutting you right. I'm cutting your right out. Okay, 15 minutes. That's fine.

All right, Michael. We'll see you later. Bye.