America
Marginalia on the Epstein emails
The new tranche of Jeffrey Epstein files released by the US Department of Justice appears to have made a far greater impact than previous batches.
In these documents—which the Trump administration initially turned a blind eye to, only to later release piecemeal—truth, gossip, conspiracy, lies, and brutality are inextricably intertwined.
Judaism, esotericism, child sacrifice, and occult pursuits coalesce with financial capitalism and imperialist occupation. Epstein and his cabal were in contact with so many individuals that this labyrinthine heap of information and documentation mesmerizes, bewilders, and enervates the observer. One cannot help but think that the release of these documents in this specific manner was designed to achieve precisely this effect.
Therefore, I will attempt to expose certain trends by partially simplifying the narrative and partially venturing to seek answers by posing specific questions.
- The Social Media Trap: Cui bono?
While certain emails shared piecemeal on social media offer insight into Epstein’s relationships, they serve no purpose other than to obfuscate the political consequences.(1)
How could they do otherwise? Epstein and his gang walked hand-in-hand with the Democratic establishment while simultaneously linking arms with “MAGA” Republicans and American nationalists. The man engaged in intricate dealings with Steve Bannon and Peter Thiel on one side, while dispensing counsel to Ehud Barak and Lord Mandelson on the other. He provided consultancy to “traditional” Wall Street giants like JPMorgan, as well as to upstart asset management firms like Apollo. He embraced trans ideology yet funded anti-woke X accounts and the 4Chan crew. The “globalists” are there, and so are the “nationalists.”(2)
At this juncture, it seems more plausible to define Epstein as a “broker” or “fixer”—one of the most lucrative professions in the era of hyper-financialized capitalism. We must assume, until proven otherwise, that anyone seeking access to hard currency, liquidity, financing, the commanding heights of American global finance, the City of London, or Israel, came into contact with Epstein or someone in his orbit at some point. The fact that this profession of brokerage and deal-making became intertwined with all branches of “fictitious” capital (real estate, cryptocurrency, speculation, credit institutions, asset management, etc.) and engaged in intermediation between individuals, institutions, and states, is consistent with the capitalist world’s response to the crisis of 50 years ago.
I hope to address this point more thoroughly later, but in passing, I must recall the following: The relationship between Robert Maxwell (father of Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell) and Adnan Khashoggi; and the critical role played by Khashoggi and the BCCI in organizing the Afghan jihad are well known today. Tax havens and offshore financial centers were the response to the crisis of the 1970s. The Khashoggi-Maxwell-Epstein lineage represented the parasites operating within these fissures and dark crevices. Once they set to work, they became both cause and effect.
- Passed Over in Silence
Anyone who has even cursorily glanced at the documents will have noticed that, despite the distinct Jewish character of Epstein and his circle, and their view of themselves as superior to non-Jews (“goyim”)—even while breaking bread with everyone—one figure and his circle are conspicuously absent: Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud.
Is this possible? I highly doubt it. This point alone offers yet another reason to approach the documents and the manner of their release with skepticism. Furthermore, it offers clues regarding the question, “Who benefits?” The founding political line of Israel—the Labor Party and its predecessors—is further delegitimized by having the relationship between Ehud Barak, one of that line’s leaders, and Epstein shoved in our faces. It bears repeating, but the idea that “everyone is guilty” when truth and falsehood, exaggeration and reality are conflated, brings to mind the maxim: “For everything to remain the same, everything must change.”
Indeed, it has previously been claimed that Epstein played a role in reintroducing the disgraced Barak as a challenger to Netanyahu; moreover, Netanyahu had shared a Jacobin article asserting that Epstein was a Mossad agent.
- The Universalization of Zionism as an Oxymoron
Connected to the point above, the issue of the thorough Zionization of Judaism gains importance.
In an audio recording between Ehud Barak and Jeffrey Epstein, Barak’s suggestion is noteworthy: that the definition of Jewishness be loosened and the bloodline requirement eliminated, so that the state might have the chance to “select” the convert population—thereby potentially counting no one from Africa or the Arab world as Jewish, unlike what Israel’s founders were forced to do. For this to happen, the monopoly of the Orthodox rabbinate over areas such as marriage and burial must be broken.
Here, the oxymoron manifests in two ways: Zionism, as a colonial/particularist project, blurring the boundaries of Judaism; and Judaism, to the extent that it is universalized, becoming nativist, turning inward, and being elevated to its highest level as a racist ideology.
The raison d’être for Epstein’s defense of Brexit in an email to Thiel—heralding it as a return to “tribalism” and the beginning of anti-globalization—should be sought here.
At this point, the questioning of Israel’s founding and the shaking of Zionism’s foundations should surprise no one. I would go even further and suggest that the universalization of Zionism and the obsolescence of Israel might be different moments of the same process.
In the fantasy of a digitally interconnected global network state, the fact that nativist tendencies find a place for themselves, and are even supported, is not as strange as it first appears. In a universe where the economic subject is ostensibly anonymized/digitalized, it is more likely to see ethno-nationalist currents becoming a universal model rather than the cultural homogenization invoked by modernity.
In this context, it is inevitable that Evangelicalism, Hindutva, and Zionism generate excitement. Since Zionized Judaism is one of the most “successful” examples in history—perhaps the most successful—it naturally plays a “unifying” role. Meanwhile, the panic over “the collapse of the West/Western values” serves to incorporate new and occasionally “Eastern” forms of slavery into the repertoires of the ruling classes.
- Ideology: The Normalization of Destruction and Power
I have written previously about Peter Thiel and his circle’s American “frontier mentality” (see here and see here). However, I must point out the significance of Zionism finding a habitat on the frontier in the context of these American New Right movements affiliating themselves with it.
The frontier mentality corresponds to a state of ecstasy where there are no rules, no laws, no stasis; where the law of the jungle, living as a fugitive, destruction, annihilation, and innovation are embraced. This is where brutal stories of how the American Indians were exterminated merge with the dark rituals conducted on Epstein’s island. Common to both is the capitalist’s desire to be rid of flesh-and-blood labor and the colonizer’s appetite to eliminate the native, mirroring ancient and dark teachings that reflect a tendency to transcend the material existence of the flesh-and-blood human. Borders, in both the metaphorical and literal sense, vanish.
Here, Epstein appears as the embodiment of themes such as “reactionary modernism,” Counter-Enlightenment, and Nietzschean aristocratic rebellion. Example: Bill Gates wants to include Epstein in his “philanthropy” work in Africa. Epstein seems very disturbed by this. He asks Gates not to involve him. He finds the idea that all lives are equal “ridiculous.” He views the work being done as “Catholicism at its worst.” One is tempted to say that Nietzsche is the natural philosopher of the ruling classes. Values such as mercy, kindness, and love are deemed “slave morality”; the nature [fitra] changes, but the blood remains the same.
Another example: In a previously unpublished interview given to Steve Bannon, Epstein discusses the failure of the Newtonian universe’s tendency to measure everything. According to him, Newtonian sciences cannot explain subjective matters, such as the “strange phenomenon” called consciousness. Therefore, he believes there must be a spirit separate from matter.(3) He speaks of miracles. He asserts that women, unlike men like himself, possess a power of intuition that cannot be explained by reason. But of course, it does not end there: Naturally, women (and minorities), cast out of the rational world, are not capable of being members of a secret society named “Zodiac,” considered “the last of its kind,” as mentioned in another email!
But this delusion of ostensible “complexity” and “unpredictability” also emerges regarding the crisis-prone nature of financial markets. Here, “ideology” in the worst sense of the word grins at us: Epstein argues that the financial world is like the organic world—citing the unpredictability in our bodies, for example. Mathematics, forecasting, planning… these are futile endeavors. No one understands how the system works; the system is a miracle. Mystification and myth-making combine with destruction and the will to power. Perhaps this tendency unites today’s “philosophers” of every stripe and hue: A friend advises Epstein to read Aleksandr Dugin. He finds his views interesting and “perhaps useful.”
The final example comes from a widely circulated email: Together with Thiel, they take special pleasure in the destruction of Libya, Iraq, and Syria. According to Thiel, the more the countries in the Middle East descend into chaos and the more “bad guys” start eating each other, the less the US will have to interfere/intervene in these countries. Epstein views all this as Obama’s strategy and argues that it was “brilliantly executed.”
- Belated Conspirators
When the documents were scattered into the open, an observation by Fredric Jameson began to circulate again: Conspiracy theories were part of the poor person’s “cognitive mapping” system in the postmodern era.
Here, we are talking about making sense of a world that cannot be understood. Yet Jameson, while tracking the transformation of American metropolises in the 20th century, points to a genuine conspiracy: Financial capital and land speculation.
Discussing Robert Fitch’s book The Assassination of New York, Jameson attempts to distinguish what is a conscious conspiracy and what is the natural result of the logic of capital within the framework of production being (consciously) removed from the city and financial speculation prevailing.
A city plan prepared in the 1920s, for example, openly discusses seizing lands occupied by small businesses and laborers and driving them out of the city. It is clear there is a “conspiracy”: The ruling classes did not want to deal with the turmoil of workers, immigrants, and the petty bourgeoisie in big cities; fearing their wrath, they were simultaneously calculating how to shift capital accumulation, which was stagnating in the 1920s, to more profitable sectors such as real estate and insurance. “Unequal investment opportunities” were becoming both the result and the cause of the crisis of capitalist production.
Here, I wish to remind you that the general fear created by the working classes, while wealth increasingly accumulates in private hands, itself generates conspiracy: What could be more natural than a group of property owners—whom we might call a mere handful in number—resorting to intrigue to resist the multitude of the propertyless and maintain their order? Where does the idea come from that a class—which aims to dehumanize production from the moment it comes into the world dripping with blood and dirt, which renders the population “surplus” to accumulate ever more, and which plans to conquer even space to hide its wealth from the dispossessed—was ever “moral”?
Even Adam Smith expresses the (negative) role of secret agreements in social life in the harshest terms. People of the same trade, he says in The Wealth of Nations, seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public (he uses exactly this word) or in some contrivance to raise prices. Some may argue that this is an objection to the use of “guild” style organization as a tool to suppress competition; but I would remind you that Smith uses the same idea of “conspiracy against the public” for merchants, colonial companies, and even the nobility. The wealthy few need malice and conspiracy to rule the propertyless many.
Let us return to Jameson. Those who prepared the New York city plan were the same people who belonged to that city’s business world. The property owners organized a great upheaval through a conspiracy within the partnership of capital, planning, and scientific production. Class struggle could not be conducted any other way.
- Trends: What are we on the dawn of?
The only point we need to underline is this: Again, Lukács argues that the place where non-proletarian masses realize they are being directly exploited is monetary and commercial capital. Fascism turns this into racist demagoguery by distinguishing between “rapacious” capital and “productive” capital.
I suspect the trend that the Epstein documents vaguely offer us regarding the future consists of a narrative that the “old style” financial regime is to be left behind. The emphasis—sometimes demagogic, sometimes genuine—placed by Trump and the capital group behind him on “Main Street,” production, and re-industrialization against the Wall Street elites shaken by the 2008 crisis, may form the background of these documents.(4) The disconnect with Netanyahu and techno-capital’s fascination with Zionism strengthens this opinion. In a world where representatives of the proletariat are rarely seen, it is not surprisingly that non-proletarian masses take sides on the ground where they believe the source of exploitation lies.
Indeed, the fact that no judicial consequences arise while the filth is scattered about implies that certain individuals likely to be liquidated are being cleared from underfoot to sharpen the line they actually represent. In this respect, looking at what is left out of the Clintons’ testimonies to the US Congress, rather than what is in them, will provide us with a better idea.
(1) Lunatic ideas or ravings are also present: For example, former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland wants the new world currency to be the ruble, not the renminbi, in an email. There is no stopping wagging tongues!
(2) A very striking example: In an email sent in 2017 to Landon Thomas, then a New York Times reporter, Epstein offers significant clues regarding the Qatar-Deutsche Bank-Donald Trump relationship. According to Epstein, Qatar is Deutsche Bank’s largest financier (along with BlackRock, according to market data); and Deutsche Bank finances Trump.
(3) In The Destruction of Reason, György Lukács lists the introduction of “supra-rational” concepts such as intuition among the distinguishing features of philosophical irrationalism. The failure of the mechanical philosophical view and the new problems it created are thus seen as proof of the “supra-rational” in natural phenomena as well: “This is the basis on which all social progress can be questioned, the Devil can be presented as the ‘first revolutionary,’ and every effort towards freedom and equality can be vilified.”
(4) It is obvious that there is disagreement within the “Trumpist” camp as well. For instance, speaking at a meeting in the Vatican in 2014, Steve Bannon stated that he was opposed to libertarian capitalism, which he termed “Ayn Rand capitalism,” as well as “state-sponsored” capitalism. Bannon is also known for his verbal spats with Elon Musk, one of the leaders of the techno-libertarian camp in the second Trump era.
America
US fiscal outlook unlikely to see major relief from AI boom, Yale model shows
If the United States experiences an artificial intelligence-driven productivity boom in the coming years, it will translate into stronger economic growth, but the benefits to the nation’s fiscal outlook will remain limited.
With US public debt already high and rising rapidly, and given the lack of political will to reduce deficits through traditional measures such as spending cuts and tax increases, many have pinned their hopes on an AI boom to allow the country to grow its way out of its fiscal challenges.
However, new modeling from the Yale Budget Lab, reported by Axios, reveals that while an AI-driven productivity surge would improve the fiscal situation, the positive impact would not be as substantial as widely anticipated.
The primary reason is that a large portion of national income is highly likely to shift away from labor—which the US taxes at relatively high rates—and toward machines and software, or capital, which face lower tax rates.
The top federal income tax rate on labor income is 37%. In contrast, the corporate tax rate is 21%, while the top rate on long-term capital gains is 23.8%.
Furthermore, a significant portion of capital ownership is held through tax-exempt vehicles, such as retirement accounts and charitable foundations.
Consequently, even if companies generate higher profits through AI while spending less on human labor, these profits will not translate into the kind of revenue growth seen during past economic expansions, when the labor share of national income remained more stable.
In a scenario where AI provides only a slow boost to GDP growth, the Yale team’s model indicates there would be very little change in federal revenues by 2030.
Under a rapid AI-driven growth scenario, where annual GDP growth reaches 3.3% in the coming years and the labor share of income falls, federal revenues would increase by $216 billion in 2030.
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline projection, the US budget deficit in 2030 will stand at $2.2 trillion.
This deficit figure is approximately ten times larger than the revenue increase projected under the Yale team’s most optimistic AI growth scenario.
“On the one hand, all else equal, faster productivity growth will yield more tax revenue,” wrote John Iselin and Ryan Nunn of the Yale Budget Lab. “On the other hand, our current tax system may not be structured to efficiently raise revenue from the economic activity AI creates.”
Speaking to Axios, Iselin added: “While we project that the growth of AI will increase tax revenues, without significant changes to how the US taxes capital income, the federal government will leave substantial revenue on the table.”
These projections are not definitive forecasts. The range of possibilities for how an AI boom might unfold and affect the fiscal landscape remains vast.
Axios highlights several critical questions:
How far will the labor share of income fall? How will this shift affect inequality among wage earners?
On the spending side, will the existing social safety net face massive liabilities to support displaced workers, or will job losses become so widespread that Congress is forced to offer more extensive aid than current laws dictate?
Tax policy is not set in stone. In a world where AI displaces human employment and the US faces a fiscal dilemma, Congress could consider shifting a greater share of the tax burden onto capital.
Ultimately, the objective is not to treat the Yale Budget Lab’s data as absolute truth. Rather, it is to demonstrate that the interaction between an AI-driven growth surge and federal tax revenues is not as direct or positive as those confronting an intractable deficit problem might hope.
America
Anthropic reaches historic $1.5 billion settlement with authors in landmark AI copyright lawsuit
Anthropic has reached a $1.5 billion settlement with a group of authors who accused the artificial intelligence company of using their books without authorization to train its Claude chatbot. The class-action settlement was approved by a federal court in San Francisco.
The agreement marks the first major lawsuit among dozens filed by rights holders against technology companies in the US to resolve with a significant settlement.
The authors initiated the lawsuit in 2024, accusing Anthropic of using pirated versions of their books to train its AI models without securing the necessary permissions.
According to a report by Reuters, Aparna Sridhar, Anthropic’s Head of Issues and Policy, said in a statement: “We reached this agreement in 2025. The settlement follows a landmark court ruling, which remains valid today, establishing that training artificial intelligence on books constitutes fair use under copyright law.”
Justin Nelson, an attorney representing the plaintiff authors, described the development as a “historic settlement.” Nelson added that the agreement reached with Anthropic could be considered the largest monetary payout in the history of copyright law.
Meanwhile, some authors and publishers declined to participate in the class-action lawsuit, choosing instead to file independent lawsuits against Anthropic. The judicial processes for these individual cases against the company are ongoing.
Prior to this development, Anthropic filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon in March to challenge an attempt by the US Department of Defense to blacklist the company on national security grounds.
In June, the US government decided to block foreign users from accessing the company’s most advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5.
David Sacks, a US investor and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, explained that the restriction was implemented after it was discovered that the integrated safety mechanisms within the models could be bypassed.
Two weeks after that restriction was imposed, the US government restored access to the most powerful model, Mythos 5, for select American entities, including major corporations and government agencies.
America
US voter support for Iran conflict collapses as fuel prices surge and midterm risks mount
American voter support for the war in Iran is eroding rapidly following the collapse of the ceasefire process, with public opposition reaching historic levels in a remarkably short timeframe.
According to a survey conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, four out of five respondents anticipate that the hostilities will persist for a long time. Meanwhile, nearly half of those surveyed in a The Economist/YouGov poll estimate that the war will last for a year or longer. As public backing for the military campaign disintegrates, Donald Trump’s net approval rating for his decision to attack Iran has plummeted to minus 30%.
While it took six years of active involvement in the Vietnam War for public opposition to reach such a critical threshold, the war in Iran has generated a comparable level of rejection in just six months.
Speaking to The Economist, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia emphasized that the key takeaway is not merely the depth of the opposition, but the unprecedented speed with which it has formed. Sabato noted that the conflict in Iran has registered the lowest level of public support of any American military engagement since polling on such interventions began, a trend that has remained constant since day one. Warning that a prolonged conflict will inevitably drive up costs, Sabato projected that this dynamic will translate into a severe political penalty for Trump and the Republican Party in the upcoming midterm elections.
Historically, US military interventions have initially enjoyed robust public support before gradually decaying over time. For instance, the US-led operations launched against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 initially secured the backing of approximately 90% of the public.
At the time, President George W. Bush presented a clear, direct justification for the invasion, targeting the Taliban for harboring the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks. According to Gallup data, it took 13 years for public support for the occupation—which ultimately claimed the lives of more than 2,000 US service members and wounded another 20,000—to fall below 50%.
Economic consequences directly impact voters
Thus far, 17 US service members have been killed in Trump’s war in Iran. While this figure is low from a strictly military standpoint, the economic ramifications of the conflict have directly and rapidly disrupted the daily lives of American consumers.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which was fully open prior to the military operations, has triggered a sharp rise in fuel prices. Although Trump has asserted that the US military presence has broken the regional blockade and enabled oil to flow at higher volumes than ever, concrete economic data does not support his claims.
The price of Brent crude oil has climbed from $72 to $88 per barrel since the beginning of July. In the domestic retail market, the average price of gasoline in the US has risen from approximately $3 per gallon before the war to nearly $4 per gallon.
Gallup historical data shows that during the Vietnam War, which involved large numbers of American ground troops, voters consistently identified the conflict as the most important problem facing the nation.
While the war in Iran has not yet been designated in those exact terms, voters consistently identify the high cost of living and a lack of leadership as their primary concerns in current polling. This shift indicates that despite the relatively low number of military casualties, the war in Iran is poised to become a major electoral liability for the Republican Party.
Support for the military campaign is also sharply polarized along political lines. Among Democratic voters, the net approval rating for the war stands at minus 84%, while among independents it rests at minus 52%.
Even within the “MAGA” Republican base—the only major demographic group to back the initiative, with a 72% approval rating—cracks are beginning to appear. According to a Washington Post/Ipsos poll, more than half of Trump’s core supporters indicated for the first time that they approve of his job performance only “partially” rather than “strongly.” Among Republicans who do not self-identify with the MAGA movement, support for the war has swung from a positive net approval of 26% in April to a net negative of 25%.
Budgetary debates in Congress
In response to the shifting public mood, Democratic lawmakers are intensifying their opposition. During the July 14 confirmation hearing for Jules Hurst, the nominee to oversee the Pentagon’s budget, Democratic senators accused the administration of systematically understating the financial toll of the conflict.
The Pentagon has put the cost of the war at approximately $30 billion, asserting that the figure primarily reflects spent munitions and fuel.
However, Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan, estimated that the true cost is more than six times that amount when factoring in the repair costs for American bases and the broader economic damages suffered by consumers. Slotkin also criticized the Pentagon’s commercial relationships with companies in which Trump’s sons hold business interests.
Conversely, Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican fighting to retain his seat in a highly competitive district in New York, dismissed the opposition’s criticisms as “nonsense.”
Lawler argued that Trump made a difficult but necessary decision to eliminate the threats posed by Iran’s nuclear program and its active sponsorship of terrorist groups. While acknowledging that he does not know how long the conflict will last, Lawler maintained that the Iranian regime is untrustworthy and only understands the language of military force. His Democratic opponent, military veteran Cait Conley, countered that Trump has dragged the United States into a conflict lacking clear military objectives or a viable exit strategy.
According to The Economist‘s midterm election forecasting model, Lawler faces a 68% probability of losing his seat in November. The same model projects an 82% probability that Democrats will win a majority in the House of Representatives, and a 45% chance of taking control of the Senate.
Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace observed that Trump’s compounding difficulties in extricating the US from Iran recall the famous lament of former US President Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War: “I feel like a hitchhiker caught in a hailstorm on a Texas highway. I can’t run, I can’t hide, and I can’t make it stop.”
-
Russia2 weeks agoGreek shipowners secure $3.8 billion transporting Russian oil despite G7 sanctions pressure
-
Europe2 weeks agoNATO deploys Palantir AI software to track Russian troop movements on eastern flank
-
Asia1 week agoEnding Western reliance on China requires $23.6 trillion in investment by 2050, study shows
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoThe architect of NATO 3.0: Elbridge Colby
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS revokes Iran oil license and launches airstrikes following Strait of Hormuz tanker attacks
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoCanada selects Germany’s TKMS for landmark 12-submarine order valued at 20 billion euros
-
Asia2 weeks agoChina weighs restricting foreign access to advanced AI models and tightening technology controls
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTrump prepared to offer Türkiye path back to F-35 program at NATO summit
