Advertise on podcast: MTracey podcast

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

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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.net I’m in Santa Fe, New Mexico at the moment, but was wrangled just now to discuss recent happenings re: Congressmen Max Miller and Chuck Edwards, both of whom are being denounced for various alleged improprieties. I also give a little update on my adventure today at the New Mexico State Capitol, where legislators made a presentation on their investigative…

Here are some highlights from my recent interview with Steve Hilton, the California GOP gubernatorial candidate. You can find the full interview, alongside Richard Hanania, here. During my segments, we cover a range of my admittedly niche interests, such as Hilton’s background as David Cameron’s chief UK political strategist, the proper role of a governor in weighing in on foreign policy issues like Iran/Israel, and “sex trafficking.” 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

In light of recent events, a lot of people have asked me to opine on what stage of “MeToo” we must currently be in. Sorry to quibble, but I think the premise of the question is off — it’s been nearly a decade since “peak MeToo,” which should be considered its own distinct era at this point, and one that occurred in the past. It would shortchange all that is peculiar to 2026 to label it merely an extension of 2017. “MeToo” remains a relevant antecedent, sure, but the term no longer best captures the present, with all its era-distinctive manias and pathologies. That’s why I’m proposing a new term for today: let’s call it the “Zombie Epstein” era, for reasons I begin to sketch out in the attached stream. Yes, this stream was held at the invitation of Richard Spencer, a rather controversial fellow, who is perhaps most famous for endorsing Kamala Harris in 2024. 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

Somehow I unwittingly got roped into doing four separate podcast/TV appearances today, so that’s dominated my itinerary. I figured I would re-post to Substack the livestream I did earlier this evening on the Platner affair. You’ve likely heard that he announced he “intends” to withdraw his Senate candidacy — although as of this afternoon, he had not yet formally done so. And who knows, “intentions” can be fickle. But should the coerced withdrawal be finalized, this will go down as perhaps the most ruthless (and shameless) defenestration in recent US political history. Why do I say the hit has been manufactured? Why use that particular word? Because literally, it’s been openly divulged that the “rape accusation” rollout was facilitated by a specific individual, Cheyenne Hunt, who had openly declared her mission to take out Platner, following what she boasts was her integral role in vaporizing Eric Swalwell several months before. After which, she had joined with Democratic House members, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Debbie Dingell, Rashida Tlaib, and Becca Balint, to announce the formation of a new pressure outfit, “Reckoning Action,” and likewise announce that the next target on her list was Graham Platner. She then made good on these threats, and was openly credited for engineering the POLITICO article that spurred the denunciatory mob this week, in concert with a CNN interview of the alleged victim. It would defy reason to not also suspect that she could have been “behind” the accuser’s accusations escalating so radically since June 4, when the accuser had merely told the New York Times that she perceived Platner’s behavior to be “reckless” and “unsettling.” Then by July 6, the allegation morphs into full-blown rape. Go figure. “Rape” — the magic word everyone knows would send the Democratic Party hurtling into a frantic tailspin. So there’s just no question Platner’s neutralization was manufactured. It’s not being hidden! It doesn’t require any wild speculation. It’s being openly bragged about! “Manufactured” is also an apt word because the initial POLITICO article was clearly framed to convey to casual news consumers — the vast majority of whom will not forensically read it, of course, and only absorb the headline takeaway — that rock-solid corroboration had been uncovered that made the accusation supremely credible, and should be assumed unassailably true. But… there is no corroboration whatsoever presented in the article for the claim that Graham Platner raped Jenny Racicot in 2021. None. And yet, even news consumers whom you’d think might be a bit more sophisticated, like Nate Silver, falsely described the article as containing precisely the corroborative evidence it did not contain. The literal opening sentences of Nate’s post on the matter featured two egregious falsehoods. I wrote a Substack Note yesterday (tagging Nate) that explained these errors in detail, and never received a response, nor has there been any correction made to Nate’s post: So if this “rape accusation” rollout could have succeeded at getting Nate Silver to falsely proclaim “corroborating materials” had been produced — and thus every right-minded citizen should agree it’s been proven that Platner committed rape — that’s a phenomenal PR masterstroke. Bravo. Even though Nate himself was already primed to believe any “accusation” that might be flung Platner’s way, since he’d already been arguing for weeks/months that Platner was a big political liability for Dems, and Maine primary voters were extremely un-savvy to support him. Sensing vindication for his thesis had arrived, Nate confirmation-biased his way to the most damning interpretation of a single POLITICO article — that’s all it took — and announced the rape claim was “well-supported,” because the accuser provided “corroborating materials” such as “communications about the assault with her therapist and with a friend.” Yet it’s 100% false that any “communications” provided to POLITICO had “corroborated” that an assault or rape took place in 2021. The “communications” POLITICO cites, with both the therapist and the “friend,” corroborate no such thing. See the Substack Note for further details. The point here is that someone such as Nate, who styles himself a highly discerning media aficionado, bought into the idea that dispositive proof of Platner’s raping had been revealed — a testament to the shrewdness of the PR-manufactured initiative. I was asked on the stream tonight how I would theoretically advise Platner to proceed. Well, I know what I wouldn’t do — I wouldn’t pull a Morris Katz, the boy-wonder strategist reputed to be some brilliant political thinker, and tell Platner he ought to instantly capitulate to a raving mob, which had formed its implacable consensus in a matter of minutes on Monday. PLATNER MUST GO. Because if there’s anything we can be reasonably certain of with mobs, it’s that the furious insta-verdicts they proclaim do not tend to reflect a rational evaluation of the facts and evidence. It would therefore be foolish for Platner to bow to the mob, as a hostage to the moment, because it’s reasonably likely the fire-and-brimstone uproar will subside soon enough, and perhaps at least a smidgeon of rational thinking can eventually be introduced. What’s the alternative? Bowing to the mob is functionally the same as Platner agreeing to be branded “rapist.” Because 99% of people who ever hear about this story will never hear about any exculpatory facts or evidence that might emerge weeks, months, or years down the line. They will instead have heard that Platner was accused of rape, and that he seemingly validated this accusation by withdrawing on the spot. Even though he had just received more Democratic primary votes than any Maine senate candidate in history. So for him to terminate his candidacy even under those circumstances must mean he really did do something horrible and rapey. Purely from the standpoint of his own personal self-interest, and self-preservation, I can’t imagine telling Platner to assist in the nuking of his own reputation. But on top of that, anyone who’d claim they know for certain that Platner couldn’t possibly win in November is blowing smoke out their ass. You absolutely do not know, one way or another. Have people really not gotten wise to the folly of over-confident pundit-like projections of future electoral outcomes? Almost certainly, 2026 is going to be a sizable pro-Democrat wave year — which means even “flawed” Dem candidates will be lifted to victory by national trends. Dems and Dem-aligned independents are inevitably going to consolidate around the Dem nominee to some extent, as always happens in October/November when most people’s minds get concentrated on the general election stakes. Unlike in, say, July. But even if we stipulate that Platner’s chances of beating Susan Collins have diminished by virtue of the latest “accusations” — regardless of whether they’re credible or true — how far could his odds have really fallen? Let’s go with a harsh estimate and say he’s now only got a 30% chance of winning. That’s… not so bad? Plenty of candidates have contested plenty of elections facing far longer odds, and a 30% chance of becoming the junior Senator from Maine is a gamble plenty of political operators wouldn’t think twice about taking. Plus, I doubt the odds have even gotten that low. Sure, you can imagine some subset of voters now saying they won’t vote for Platner who otherwise would have — a percentage of older liberal women, perhaps. But I don’t buy that hardcore Democratic partisans in Maine are going to decide en masse that they’d rather have Republicans control the Senate for the second half of Trump’s term, than have a Democratic senator with some “accusations” trailing him — however appalled these voters might now purport to be in the immediate wake of the Accusation Train leaving the station. Further, Platner is adamant that the accusations are not just false, but blatantly fabricated. Why preclude that he could be vindicated on this score? The rape claim has already fallen apart to a large extent, and it’s only been like three days. Who’s to say it couldn’t be wholly disproven, or at least widely discounted for non-credibility, in the next several months? This could be accomplished, for instance, by demanding that if rape is going to be alleged, let the alleging party go and file a police report, since a rape offense that allegedly took place in 2021 is well within the Maine statute of limitations. It’s not a crazily far-fetched proposition that the claim could soon be investigated through some official government channel, and be found to lack merit. Again: what’s the alternative? Just comply with your own destruction? That would pretty much be Platner raping himself. Part of the reasoning Platner cited in the video he put out yesterday for why he “intends” to withdraw — despite maintaining that the accusations are patently, 100% false — is that national Democratic power-brokers were going to deprive him of the resources necessary to mount his campaign. Meaning, they were going to cut off his funding from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and also deny him access to the DNC voter file. So in light of these newly-imposed roadblocks, he needed to withdraw. But hold up a sec. Sure, those would be legitimate hindrances. But he could still raise money on his own, through his own campaign organization. No national entity controls that. He doesn’t have to rely on infusions from any national party vehicles to stay afloat. And he could probably raise a lot of money on his own, were he to actually be defiant, and refuse to back down in the face of what he’s declaring (with good reas

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.net I have an actual written review in progress as well. But here’s a sweet, sweet first taste. Praise god.

As I briefly mentioned yesterday, this panel was a real hoot. For context, it took place May 14 in Vancouver, Canada, at something called the “Web Summit,” which I was semi-inexplicably invited to attend. For much of the “summit,” I had to resist letting my eyes glaze over as various participants explained their AI startup to me. I’m sure some of the products are probably useful, but I just can’t bring myself to care enough about the intricacies of AI “innovation” to earnestly follow whatever it is I am being educated about in LinkedIn-speak by these lanyard guys. (Which is not to say they aren’t nice guys. And yes — mostly guys. I even took selfies with a few of them, upon request, though whenever somebody asks me for a selfie, I can’t help but affably scold them for debasing themselves.) A number of times I was asked to “connect” on LinkedIn, only to inform the requestor that I (mercifully) do not use LinkedIn. Anyway, after the panel, I saw Bret Weinstein sulking around at something called the “Speakers Lounge,” and we had a few sporadic followup chats. He had already tweeted that my behavior on the panel was “pretty despicable,” and accused me of “ambushing” him. He also suggested that I had a hand in orchestrating the panel on false pretenses. I replied that I had simply been invited to attend the Web Summit, and was asked for suggestions on what might make for an interesting panel. So yeah, among my suggestions was something along the lines of, “Should we abolish all podcasts?” I’d been solicited to suggest topics with media or political relevance; obviously I wasn’t being brought there to discuss “tech,” AI, or blockchain. The guy organizing the conference did in fact take one of my suggestions, and formulated a panel premise on that basis. Or at least that’s my understanding of the unremarkable sequence of events. I had no notion that Bret Weinstein would be on the resulting panel. I honestly had little notion of what I would even be doing, or what the Web Summit even was — I’d just never been to Vancouver before, and kinda wanted to visit regardless, so this was as good an excuse as any. Turns out fellas like Aaron Mate (a Vancouver native) were also present, along with various other media types whom it would also not be 100% intuitive might get invited to such an event: Ryan Grim, Chris Hedges, Cenk Uygur, Curtis “Moldbug” Yarvin, Lauren Southern, Nate Fischer, Julius Krein, Eoin Higgins, among others. So, it was worth making the trek. But beyond that, I had no involvement in orchestrating the panel, despite Bret predictably spinning a theory that I had elaborately conspired with the organizers to “sandbag” him. I want to correct one error I made on the panel. (See, I actually correct stuff where necessary). I incorrectly referred to the March 16, 2026 podcast Bret appeared on as the “Chris Jones Show,” when in actuality it was the “Danny Jones Show.” I regret the error. I’m not sure why I jotted down “Chris” rather than “Danny” in my notes, but I did, and have no problem admitting this error! Here is the exchange I was referring to, at 27:57: DANNY JONES: And you know, that was also around the time of the George Floyd riots, and all that stuff, where people were burning cities down, and destroying everything in the streets, over one person being murdered. And I can’t help but wonder why we don’t see anything like this, now that this Epstein stuff has come out. When there’s evidence of people eating children, and molesting and trafficking children. BRET WEINSTEIN: Yeah, it’s unfathomable. Because the implications -- it’s not just that you had this group of monsters apparently engaged in all of this unthinkably evil behavior. But the relationship to power is so clear in the so-called Epstein Files that the question is, you know, we have monsters near power. That’s extremely dangerous. Bret and Danny then went on to expound a whole master-theory of Pedo Protecting Power on the basis of this totally batshit premise — that the “Epstein Files” had conclusively revealed evidence that scores of children were “eaten” by Epstein and his “monstrous” associates. Bret apparently thought that my citing this extremely recent example of his podcast oeuvre was a despicably unfair “ambush,” even though it seemed perfectly sensible that if I was going to be on a panel about how we should “abolish podcasts,” I would be well-advised to cite a couple of concrete examples of the larger critique I was making. Which, to be clear, is not that we should literally “abolish all podcasts.” That’s impossible, obviously, and podcasts themselves are a neutral medium. What I am arguing is that we should somehow dislodge the current podcast-dominant online media ecosystem, which has become an engine of lucrative hysteria-fomenting, with zero factual standards, and zero repercussions (socially, reputationally, etc.) for peddling a constant slew of garbage. Because of this warped incentive structure, garbage-peddling is actually rewarded with increased revenue, stature, and political influence. Hence, Bret going on a podcast and doing something as insane as affirming that children have been cannibalized, before an audience of millions, and then facing zero consequence for this whatsoever, is a perfect example of what I’m critiquing when I semi-facetiously proclaim that we should “abolish all podcasts.” Bear in mind, Bret has also espoused versions of his Epstein master-thesis on the #2 “News” podcast in the United States, the Tucker Carlson program. It was on the March 11, 2026 edition of that illustrious program that Bret spun out a postulation that Trump went to war with Iran because a “hidden power structure” coerced him into doing so, and of course this “hidden power structure” somehow intermingles with Epstein. Bret is so deeply disturbed by Trump attacking Iran — something he never could’ve fathomed Trump possibly doing, back when Bret was holding pro-Trump campaign rallies in 2024 — that he now feels he’s obliged to search for the real truth of how this eventuality could’ve possibly happened. And he’s landed on a hidden Epstein power structure being the real reason. Excerpt from the Tucker podcast: BRET WEINSTEIN: The reason that the Epstein phenomenon, whatever it was, is so important, is that it suggests a hidden power structure that was there for leverage. It is unfortunate that in the edit that we have been shown, we don’t have conclusive evidence of who, what they were after, or even how the leverage worked. All we can see is strong evidence that there was something. Logically it is implied that it was connected to intelligence services. Ours, likely Israel’s, who knows who else. When you see your government, your president functioning in ways that do not add up, it’s like watching a planet behave oddly because of the gravity of some object you haven’t found yet. There’s the implication that there’s something with power in this system that is undeclared, as far as we know it is unnamed, and the central question is what is it, how does it work, and how much effect is it having on what we do. Bret has similarly argued (on various podcasts) that the “Epstein Phenomenon,” as he oddly calls it, represents “the most fundamental question in the democratic republic that is the United States.” But… he thinks it makes me a contemptibly “bad person” to “ambush” him by bringing up these remarks — on a panel expressly devoted to the insanities of the current podcast media environment? OK, lol. Anyway, I have more to say about the “Web Summit,” and the various hilarities that it spawned on account of my humble presence there, but I gotta go take a ferry. I figured I would spend at least a day viewing some of the “sights” to be seen in Vancouver while I am inexplicably here. 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

Beware, there is modest disagreement in this video. I’m traumatized. I’m a Survivor now. 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

UPDATE: I have agreed to fight Jim Acosta in Las Vegas on July 4, 2026 on the condition that Epstein Survivors surround the ring in bikinis. 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

Enjoy, or enjoy whatever else you choose to do instead of watching. 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.net We also finish up, half-heartedly, the “Worst Podcast” March Madness tournament, which was rigged from the outset.

Enjoy tonight’s stream. Or don’t. I won’t be offended either way. I could only take so much of me, either. 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.net Also: Hungarian election antics, Eric Swalwell’s defenestration, Tucker-ology update, and more.

Today I did an interview with Joe Kent, the former Director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, who you might recall made a big splash when he resigned from the Trump Administration on March 17, in opposition to the Iran War. While I thought Kent displayed unusual integrity by resigning, I also found the substance of his accompanying letter a bit questionable, especially insofar as it seemed to displace all decision-making agency away from Trump and onto Israel. Which is an argumentative move lots of right-leaning critics of the war have been trying to make for the past six weeks. To me, this gives woefully short shrift to Trump’s clearly-expressed Second Term ideology of global conquest and resource extraction. Anyway, following his resignation, Joe Kent jumped immediately onto the Podcast Circuit. Which is rife with epistemic problems, as we’ve often discussed. So I wanted to get into some things with him that maybe he has not addressed yet, or at least hadn’t addressed from the angle that I wanted to approach from. Matt Taibbi was supposed to co-pilot the interview, but his hotel Wifi crapped out and he had to abort. Don’t fret though, because Joe Kent has graciously agreed to join the two of us on a forthcoming expeditionary mission to Greenland. Let me know what you think. 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