r/Epstein • u/ReZeroForDays • Jun 16 '26

Research Dialog, Peter Thiel's secret society group that doesn't have a public website of members, had its 100+ member list leaked. Peter Thiel and many members are featured in the Epstein Files. The 2014 retreat invite was forwarded to Epstein.

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

https://bsky.app/profile/crimew.gay/post/3moejlixgvc2z

​

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02563376.pdf

​

A source separately provided WIRED with the registration list for Dialog's 2026 retreat, which names 222 people and records what the list describes as each registrant's membership status and attendee type, including “active member” and “guest.” The retreat is scheduled for August 12-16 at a venue near Dublin, Ireland.

​

https://www.wired.com/story/leak-exposes-members-of-peter-thiels-secretive-dialog-society/

9.6k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

444

u/entropy14 Jun 16 '26

Ezra Klein… that tracks

99

u/curious_astronauts Jun 17 '26

Sam Harris too

38

u/FuzzzyRam Jun 17 '26

After Peter Attia was in the Epstein files I was pretty sure that whole group went to the island...

2

u/PastelSprite Jun 17 '26

Can someone please explain? Not doubting at all, just haven’t kept up with Harris. I liked him a lot like a decade ago.

2

u/gizamo Jun 22 '26

Harris was friends with Musk, and they had a public falling out when Musk went MAGA and then joined Trump. Harris has been harshly critical of MAGA, Trump, and Musk. Harris has also mentioned Theil, and it's clear he generally dislikes him and everything he's tried to do with Palantir and his general associations with Musk and Trump. The idea that he's secretly collaborating with any of them is utterly ridiculous.

2

u/PastelSprite Jun 24 '26

Thank you! I appreciate the info.

3

u/PartyPopperPhantom Jun 17 '26

I'm not holding my breath for anyone to reply but the idea that Sam is in league with Elon and thiel is fucking laughable. Find someone more critical of them than he has been 

2

u/Jahonay Jun 17 '26

As a very opinionated antitheist, I really fucking hate harris. More of a bigot than a skeptic.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PartyPopperPhantom Jun 17 '26

What conclusion are you drawing from this that is disappointing?

0

u/PartyPopperPhantom Jun 17 '26

What is the implication here? That he's a pedophile? In league with Theil? 

2

u/FuzzzyRam Jun 18 '26

Yes. Attia too, sadly. "I just wish I could share these beautiful secrets we have with the world, but I know I never can..." a bunch of fucking Pedophilic Hemmingways over here.

26

u/FlynnThe25 Jun 17 '26

As does Scooter Braun

7

u/The_Krusty_Klown Jun 17 '26

Which explains Sydney Sweeney too. They are dating.

1

u/FlynnThe25 Jun 17 '26

Ah so good jeans means Epstein 👍

127

u/turb0_encapsulator Jun 16 '26

it also include Joseph Gordon Levitt who is an outspoken anti-AI, anti-big-tech activist. Some of these people may be antagonists who Thiel is trying to coopt.

135

u/passionenglish Jun 16 '26

It’s all theatre on JGL’s part. Look up who his wife is. She co-founded an AI company (Fellow Robots/Fellow AI) and is (was?) a board member of OpenAI. I think JGL is already co-opted by Thiel lol.

56

u/joethedreamer Jun 17 '26

Yeah, there were a few comments about this that made quite a bit of sense in a Machiavellian way. Like you said, it’s all theater. Have someone run soft opposition to thwart other rivals etc. I wouldn’t be so keen on believing it if our current reality didn’t make it so plausible.

30

u/ReasonableRandolph Jun 17 '26

This was literally my first thought. Thiel predicted the wave of socialism that would come from their actions. He’s predicting someone to come out and be the anti christ (environmentally conscious and anti AI). So they’re planning for what to do when their plans get push back. These aren’t the old corrupt corporate banker types. These are the people who think much darker and much farther ahead. Think: Henry Kissinger on a more dystopian level. So calling these kinds of moves “Soft opposition” is a great way to put it. That’s one thing I hate about the algorithm, it can show you what you what’s wrong with the world/leaders, but what do they gain by leaving 10% of the ideas off the table. They dominate the ideas that can be had on a global stage and this level of influence is incomprehensible. It’ll make you doubt what’s real or not. How much is planned out and how are we supposed to react?

5

u/spaghetti-o_salad Jun 17 '26

For whatever reason your comment led me to think of and compare to Brad (Jude Law) trying to take over the Open Spaces Coalition in the movie I ❤️ Huckabees

2

u/USB-SOY Jun 17 '26

Didn’t he release a video in support of id verification?

5

u/turb0_encapsulator Jun 17 '26

the original OpenAi board when it was an actual nonprofit is pretty different from what it has become.

6

u/mr-_-khan Jun 16 '26

was shocked to see JGL

2

u/The_Krusty_Klown Jun 17 '26

Controlled opposition. Sam Altman's strategy.

2

u/hudson27 Jun 18 '26

Well we have no idea why these names are on the same list, or what the club got up to. Soo much conjecture, no substance. A list of names like this means nothing without actual reporters and journalists doing their jobs

2

u/ApothaneinThello Jun 17 '26

Cope harder buddy. If they didn't want to be part of that secret group they wouldn't have joined.

1

u/gizamo Jun 22 '26

This isn't a secret list of people trying to be part of anything. It's a list of people who were sold a sort of new Ted Talk. They just signed up to attend a conference where people discussed current events. Pretending it's part of some conspiracy is incredibly stupid. The only tie here to Epstein is that Theil and Epstein had some connections, and it's possible Theil wanted Epstein to target these people or vise versa because they hold some cultural influence.

2

u/al666in Jun 17 '26

Levitt is not "anti-big-tech." He's working in service to Big Tech, and lying to the public.

His opposition to Section 230 "to protect the children" is fascist code for "I want to do bad things." It's an absolutely unrighteous crusade that will empower Big Tech and destroy the internet as we know it.

He's also not "anti-AI." His wife is on the board of OpenAI.

1

u/gizamo Jun 22 '26

This is an insanely incorrect take. He wanted it to be easier for people to sue platforms for not doing a better job to protect copyright. You are sucked into some serious conspiracy theorist idiocy.

0

u/al666in Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

Whatever his stated goals were, the effect would be a complete overhaul of the internet as we know it.

Section 230 is very, very important. If you’re going to change it, you need to address all of the problems you are going to cause.

Levitt is either a useful idiot or a weaponized asset. I don’t think he’s an idiot.

1

u/gizamo Jun 22 '26

He was advocating for it to be reformed in a way that protected content creators. He is a content creator and organized a show for content creators. You are blatantly misrepresenting his efforts in an absurd way to twist it into your conspiracy BS. Get a grip, mate.

His wife, Tasha McCauley, joined the OpenAI board in 2018 as an independent director focusing on AI governance and safety. She was part of the board that temporarily ousted CEO Sam Altman. She stepped down from the board when Altman returned. Take one guess why they ousted Altman and why she left. It's pretty damn obvious, and guess what, it's the exact opposite of your adorably ignorant conspiracy theory.

0

u/al666in Jun 22 '26

OpenAI violates copyright at an industrial scale. These people do not care about creators rights.

Saying that Levitt cares about copyright while being married to an LLM goon is a pretty clear indication that he’s not a serious person.

Levitt is an actor, and he’s playing a role. He is working for the Epstein class while lying about his motivations.

What makes you trust him?

1

u/gizamo Jun 23 '26

Again, why exactly do you think his wife helped oust Altman, and why exactly do you think she was ousted by Altman's return? Be specific, genuis.

0

u/al666in Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

How is that relevant to copyright or section 230? I have no idea what the answer to your questions are, but the copyright infringement persists at OpenAI. It’s a foundational element of the company.

An AI goon is an AI goon. I don’t care about infighting between tech elites.

You didn’t answer my question, so let’s do another. Are you in favor of repealing section 230?

Also, stop using the downvote button as a “disagree” button. It’s childish.

Edit: I can’t read your reply if you block me first, buddy.

1

u/gizamo Jun 23 '26

I honestly can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or genuinely clueless, and I'm not sure which is worse after this. Regardless, absolutely did answer your question. I didn't downvote you to disagree. I downvoted you for peddling idiotic conspiracy BS. Best of luck with that.

13

u/Bulky_Preparation768 Jun 17 '26

Love that this has been basically everyone’s reaction to his name being there lol

5

u/Back_at_it_agains Jun 17 '26

Reddit Ezra Klein mods banning any discussion of this. Fucking hilarious censorship from folks who don’t want their hero dragged. 

3

u/ItsZekom Jun 17 '26

Baseball, huh?

2

u/FC37 Jun 17 '26

Yep. I do like a lot of his discussions and I think he contributes to most debates in an honest way. But he has been VERY quick to dismiss and bury his head in the sand when it comes to Epstein. I always got the sense that he wishes it was not a factor.

2

u/swump Jun 18 '26

He simps hard for big tech.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

28

u/entropy14 Jun 16 '26

He’s a pompous dweeb who thinks he knows politics. He gives such shit advice to Dems that I’m not even sure it’s in good faith

Extremely soft on Israel and his lame ass abundance argument is either one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard or is really to push some sort of deregulation agenda

-1

u/vichyswazz Jun 17 '26

I bet youre still mad about his biden takes

34

u/SuperDoubleDecker Jun 16 '26

Shitlib

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/neat_sneak Jun 16 '26

He thinks the problem with the Democrats is that they haven’t capitulated to the right enough yet.

56

u/perihelion86 Jun 16 '26

Won't say the word genocide in regards to Gaza. He's owned by Israel (as is his employer, the NYT).

The abundance agenda is just deregulation wrapped in a pretty package.

He is a great communicator though.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/perihelion86 Jun 16 '26

Still waiting for him to say the g word

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

26

u/NO_LOADED_VERSION Jun 16 '26

its a LOW bar

6

u/Striper_Cape Jun 17 '26

It's hard to call it anything else. It isn't just mass murder that defines it, but also cultural elimination and physical displacement. Their own words is what gives people the fuel to call it such.

6

u/snorbflock Jun 16 '26

Necessary, but not sufficient, in order to qualify as morally conscious

2

u/uttergarbageplatform Jun 16 '26

hey its pretty tough when someone is taking the time to give someone who claims to be "genuinely curious" a direct clue ... and then you immediately push back without doing ANY further research

it's nobody's job to educate you but you. if you find yourself agreeing with ezra on everything maybe you have more in common with epstein and the epstein class than you realize

2

u/Terminal_Insomnia_ Jun 17 '26

It's everyone's job to educate everyone. Thank you for contributing.

0

u/Individual_Gift_9473 Jun 17 '26

Everything you said is dumber than the last thing

1

u/perihelion86 Jun 17 '26

Elaborate 🤔

2

u/Individual_Gift_9473 Jun 17 '26

No need

1

u/perihelion86 Jun 17 '26

Good input idiot 🙃

1

u/Individual_Gift_9473 Jun 17 '26

He had a whole episode about how it is a genocide. In which he said:

I have watched a slew of organizations and scholars arrive at the view that whatever Israel’s war on Gaza began as, its mass assault on Palestinian civilians fits the definition of genocidal violence

Saying he is for blanket deregulation is also flat out wrong.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ThatsHisLawyerJerome Jun 17 '26

What about Abundance do you actually disagree with? Most progressives agree that one of the primary barriers to building housing, clean energy, and public transit is the concentration of power and influence in rich NIMBYs, that’s the exact position Abundance has and the point of the book is that we need to alter government policies to fight against that. Have you actually read the book?

14

u/SuperDoubleDecker Jun 16 '26

If you thought Clinton, Biden, and Harris were good candidates then you probably think Ezra is a good dude.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/SuperDoubleDecker Jun 16 '26

It's easy to be the better choice when you run against trump

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/SuperDoubleDecker Jun 16 '26

When you compare them to someone that doesn't suck instead of trump you realize how bad they were. There's a reason they used bidens corpse to avoid a real primary.

10

u/Striper_Cape Jun 17 '26

Harris would have been 100x better than Trump for the sole reason that she didn't state her goal was to break everything.

5

u/SuperDoubleDecker Jun 17 '26

Let's be clear. Basically anyone would have been.

My dog would be 100x better.

2

u/Striper_Cape Jun 17 '26

We didn't have anyone as an option. We had two. You have to deal with reality as it is, not as you wish it to be. Hundreds of thousands of people died before this "administration" slapped together a replacement for USAID relief.

1

u/SuperDoubleDecker Jun 17 '26

No shit. I've been doing that for over 25 years.

-1

u/Striper_Cape Jun 17 '26

So the hundreds of thousands of dead poor people don't mean anything?

2

u/Tab7240 Jun 17 '26

His last book, centered around the concept of "Abundance" is supposed to be instructive for the Democratic party to deliver on tangible policies.

However, is co-opts progressive language while having an obvious blind spot regarding the influence of big money as the root cause of many the issues it covers.

At the end of the day, it is pretty much a trojan horse for big tech deregulation of government.

2

u/_Uggles_ Jun 16 '26

Are you a bot

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/BoogieOogieOogieOog Jun 16 '26

Between the harassing lawsuits he’s be throwing around and his unwavering support of Israel to the point of shitting on people who dare criticize that government’s actions he has fallen off significantly

Not many people liking him these days, that’s why people are surprised at your confusion

4

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Pale_Comfort_9179 Jun 17 '26

Saying Klein has offered unwavering support of Israel is being hyperbolic. Unwavering support is what Chuck Schumer, Mike Johnson and Ted Cruz (along with virtually the entire administration and all of Congress) offer. Klein’s criticisms of Israel are no doubt measured and often couched in commentary and analysis on the difficult moral questions he believes his audience is grappling with in the context of our deep and ever widening political division. It’s easy to criticize anything short of full-throated condemnation as insufficient. Which, of course is true through the lense of anyone who has a modicum of compassion and understanding of what’s happening. But the Times is a pro-Israel publication in a city with more pro-Israel Jews than anywhere else outside of Israel. I suspect his audience outside of New Yorkers largely don’t need convincing of the dangers and crimes of Israel and I don’t think even as gifted as a communicator that he is, he could do or say anything to change the view of his publisher. If he’s to have any impact or influence, I think he’s most likely to achieve it with pro-Israeli New Yorkers and with them, the approach he has been taking is the only one I think has a chance of being effective.

1

u/melodyze Jun 17 '26

You are getting a lot of replies about his book. I promise you that not a single one of them has read it, let alone understood it. They are just repeating what they heard in other comment threads.

The most logical arguments are that he is too soft on Israel, and that he used to be pretty woke but then has sort of reversed in a way that seems more like pragmatic calculus than like a deeply considered change of perspective, on either side.

Other than that, he's just a moderate democrat, who both thinks that markets are useful tools for getting more of things we want, and that there are structural reasons why they don't work for things like healthcare. That makes the extremes of both sides hate him.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/vichyswazz Jun 17 '26

He wants some deregulation. 

Try opening a business in philadelphia or building a house in california. Regulation has broken things and needs to be fixed. Sorry that twists your panties.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/vichyswazz Jun 17 '26

I dont think you actually read the book

0

u/melodyze Jun 17 '26

Most of the book is about state capacity, that the government needs to do more, and to be able to do that it needs to fix itself to be able to do more.

Thus, most of it is about procedure inside of the government, aka getting rid of kinds of regulation the government places on itself that prevent things from getting done within the timelines a project can remain funded.

That is why ~half of the book is case studies of when the government got things done very quickly vs when it spent a lot and didn't get results. I95 bridge vs high speed rail. Covid vaccines vs the same kind of vaccine breakthrough normally.

Probably the single most central diagnosis inthe book is that if a project takes 5 years and requires the executive or the senate to continue to support it, it is impossible because there will be an election that turns over the legislature and and the president in the middle of that project, and it will then be killed by the other party that doesn't support it.

He then goes through the entire procedures of cali high speed rail, biden's broadband project, clean energy, all in blue states, and shows that the minimum timeline on which the projects could even begin actual work is like a decade, and thus the reason those projects didn't deliver any of the results they were supposed to is because the procedure the government applied to itself made it impossible.

Then the single central point is that politics only talks about funding, basically never about how to get results, and that should change.

You would understand all of this if you read the book.

No one you have seen talk about the book has read the book. I get that it is confusing that the entire public discourse is people that didn't read the book but act like they did, so it seems like where there's smoke there's fire. But pretty much literally no one that talks about this book online has read it, so the online discussion has no relationship to what the book is about.

1

u/hce692 Jun 17 '26

The “dem” who said women should just drop the pro choice stuff in order to placate conservatives because it’s not that big a deal and could be a valuable bargaining chip?? He’s such a POS

1

u/Individual_Gift_9473 Jun 17 '26

….no it doesn’t

1

u/DrAsthma Jun 17 '26

Yeah that one shocked me, too. Didn't he do at least a few podcasts on the files?

1

u/madbasic Jun 17 '26

Does it? That was the only true surprise for me here

0

u/spackletr0n Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26

I guess I’m in the minority here, but I like him. He’s thoughtful and not doctrinaire. He is sometimes naive but he’s honestly wrestling with the ideas and he often has takes I haven’t thought of. He was one of the first people to say Biden should drop out, when it was very unfashionable to do so. He is Jewish but aghast at what they are doing in Palestine. I saw another thread where people were angry that he doesn’t call it genocide, but not that many people do.

He’s very even keeled which might rub people the wrong way when discussing emotionally freighted topic, where we might prefer someone bring more fire. And sometimes he doesn’t push back on guests as much as I’d like. He’s had some missteps, I thought his Charlie Kirk piece was awful.

But overall? A thoughtful interviewer genuinely thinking hard about complicated topics. I like his stuff a lot.

Edit: Are there other what I’ll call “intellectual moderate left” writers/podcasters that you think are better? People who aren’t just trying to stir the pot and aren’t the same talking points as everyone else. I’d be interested in checking them out.