Risk and Extortion XCIX: The Anti-Semantics of anti-Semitism Accusations

“Epstein Class”, Anti-Semitism, and the Practice of Anti-Semanticism

Matthew Schmitz published an opinion piece in the Washington Post (12 February 2026) arguing that the Epstein files had produced “an extraordinary outpouring of antisemitism,” and implying that use of the “Epstein class” framing by Democratic politicians contributed to this climate. Khanna responded directly on X, naming Schmitz and rejecting the characterisation: “I reject conspiracy theories. But we must call out rich and powerful men who act above the law.”

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt accused Khanna of anti-Semitism for: (a) using the phrase “Epstein class”; (b) using the term “neoconservatives” in critique of US Iran policy; and (c) appearing in a documentary that also featured antisemitic commentator Ian Carroll. Greenblatt also attacked Sen. Chris Van Hollen for criticising AIPAC.

These accusations generated significant pushback from within progressive and critical media. Ryan Grim, reporting for Drop Site News, argued that Greenblatt had “weaponized concerns about antisemitism to boost Likud,” rendering himself analytically unreliable on the question. Matt Duss observed that Greenblatt had “effectively marginalised himself with exactly this kind of reckless slander.”

The analytical significance: when the charge of anti-Semitism is applied to the words “neoconservatives” and “Epstein class” — both of which name political-institutional categories rather than ethnic ones — the charge functions as a semantic prohibition, not an ethical finding. This is the structure of anti-semanticism.

This blog entry investigates public statements characterising the phrase “Epstein Class” as anti-Semitic. It does so within the analytical framework I have proposed ibn previous blogs, which distinguishes between anti-Semitism and anti-semanticism — the latter understood as the delegitimisation or suppression of meaning-making itself.

The governing philosophical principle underlying this note is the following: If one claims that capitalism is evil because it is controlled by Jews, one implies that capitalism ceases to be evil when it is not controlled by Jews. This is logically untenable: capitalism is capitalism regardless of which ethnic group benefits from it. The systemic critique is analytically independent of the ethnic identification of its agents — and is in fact weakened, not strengthened, by that identification.

This formulation separates systemic or institutional critique from ethnic attribution. It further implies that the accusation of anti-Semitism, when levelled at systemic critique, may itself function as an epistemological closure — shutting down legitimate inquiry by routing it through a protected semantic category. That closure is what this note terms anti-semanticism.

A second distinguishing principle is also operative: the Jewish people globally are not equivalent to the Israeli state, and the Israeli state’s political programme of Zionism is not equivalent to Jewish identity or Jewish religion. This distinction, maintained by Jewish scholars including Judith Butler and Noam Chomsky, underpins any rigorous analysis of the discourse under examination.

The phrase “Epstein Class” was coined by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), a progressive congressman who played a leading legislative role in obtaining the release of the Epstein files. Its semantic content, as defined by its originator, refers to a sociological class characterised by elite impunity: wealthy and politically connected individuals who operate outside the accountability structures that apply to ordinary citizens.

Khanna has described this class by reference to figures including Bill Gates, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, and Elon Musk — a membership list that is empirically heterogeneous with respect to ethnicity and religion. The American Prospect framed the concept explicitly as class analysis: the Epstein files as a window onto “the impunity the rich and powerful possess as a social class.”

The phrase has since been used by other political actors across ideological lines:

• Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY): used it to describe the billionaire network funding attacks against him, noting that the people involved “were certainly rubbing shoulders” with those in the files.
• Matt Duss (foreign policy advisor to Bernie Sanders and AOC): applied the term to those he characterised as driving the US toward war with Iran without popular mandate.
• Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA): used it in a public speech; subsequently included in the same antisemitism accusation as Khanna.

AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann stated that Khanna was “echoing antisemitic tropes” in the context of his criticism of Israeli government policy and pro-Israel lobbying. This occurred in relation to Khanna’s support for a Gaza genocide resolution led by Rep. Rashida Tlaib. The charge was applied to institutional criticism of AIPAC as an organisation — not to any statement about Jewish people.

A central analytical failure in the discourse is the flattening of three genuinely distinct positions into a single accusation of anti-Semitism. Sociological analysis requires distinguishing them:

Register 1: Theological and Political Anti-Zionism

This position holds that the political project of Zionism — the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish ethnostate — is problematic on political, humanitarian, or theological grounds. It is the historic position of the Roman Catholic Church (Saint Pius X, 1904; Vatican diplomacy through the mid-20th century). Tucker Carlson has recently described Christian Zionism as a “Christian heresy.” This is a theological and political position that does not require, and in its coherent forms explicitly rejects, ethnic hostility to Jewish people.

Register 2: Paleoconservative and Progressive Anti-Interventionism

This position objects to Israeli political influence on US foreign and military policy on constitutional, democratic, and fiscal grounds. It is shared across the political spectrum, from Pat Buchanan on the right to Bernie Sanders on the left. The use of “neoconservatives” or “Epstein class” as descriptive categories in this context names political-institutional actors, not an ethnic group.

Register 3: Conspiracist Anti-Semitism

This position identifies Jewish people as an ethnic-religious agent responsible for global events — financial control, sexual exploitation networks, political manipulation. This is the position of Candace Owens (“satanic pedophiles who work for Israel”), Nick Fuentes, and parts of the far-right online ecosystem. It is genuine anti-Semitism in the classical sense: it racialises the critique and attributes agency to ethnicity rather than to institutions.

The Smoking Gun

The application of the anti-Semitism charge uniformly across all three registers is the anti-semanticist move this note aims to identify. It protects a specific political-institutional cluster from scrutiny — the Israeli state, AIPAC, neoconservative foreign policy — by routing all criticism through ethnic identity.

A distinct but related dimension concerns the documented and alleged connections between Epstein’s operations and Israeli state intelligence. It is analytically necessary to address this separately, because conflating it with antisemitic conspiracy theory is itself an act of anti-semanticism. The question is empirical, not ethnic.

What is documented in primary sources:

• An FBI memo from the Los Angeles field office (October 2020) reported a source who described Epstein as a “co-opted Mossad agent” who had been “trained as a spy.”
• An email sent by Epstein himself in 2018 references Robert Maxwell threatening to expose his work for Mossad unless paid £400 million. Epstein apparently believed Maxwell had functioned as an intelligence operative gathering information on the United States.
• Robert Maxwell’s funeral was attended by former PM Yitzhak Shamir, former President Chaim Herzog, and at least six serving or former heads of Israeli intelligence — a state-level acknowledgment of a relationship.
• Epstein’s files document funding of the Friends of the Israeli Defence Forces, the Jewish National Fund, and settler-linked organisations, alongside 36 documented visits from former PM Ehud Barak.
• Epstein collaborated with Barak on Carbyne, a police technology venture developed with Israeli intelligence Unit 8200. Robert Maxwell’s own arms-brokering activities in 1948 — transferring weapons from the Czech SSR to Zionist forces — represent the historical continuity from which the Maxwell-Epstein network emerges.

Former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe has stated he met Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in the 1980s operating a Mossad honeytrap. Steven Hoffenberg, Epstein’s early business partner, stated before his 2022 death that Epstein had admitted Mossad ties. Former US Attorney Alexander Acosta reportedly stated he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and to leave him alone. Julie K. Brown — the investigative journalist who broke the Epstein story — has said that intelligence connections are “not beyond the realm of possibility.”

Ahron Bregman, lecturer at King’s College London with direct expertise in Mossad operations, has stated: “It is unlikely that Epstein was not approached by the Mossad.” This framing — probable approach, uncertain outcome — represents the most analytically defensible position.

The Epstein-Mossad connection is not an uncorroborated conspiracy theory. It is a documented proximity with multiple primary-source touchpoints, assessed as probable by credible investigators, and connected to a longer history of Maxwell-family intelligence operations. Whether it constitutes a formal operational relationship remains unconfirmed.

To dismiss this inquiry as anti-Semitic is itself an anti-semanticist operation: it immunises a specific set of institutional actors — Israeli intelligence, the Maxwell network, arms-dealing and blackmail operations intersecting with Israeli state interests — from the scrutiny that any equivalent network of non-Jewish actors would receive without comment.

Tucker Carlson merits separate treatment because his rhetoric occupies an analytically ambiguous position. He is frequently grouped with Candace Owens as a representative of anti-Semitic discourse, but the grouping obscures a meaningful distinction.

Carlson’s primary register is theological and paleoconservative anti-Zionism. He has called Christian Zionism “a Christian heresy” — a position with roots in mainstream Catholic theology and paleoconservative foreign policy stretching back to Pat Buchanan. His concern is with US foreign policy entanglement and the displacement of American Christian political identity by what he regards as an alien theological commitment.

His rhetorical approach to the Epstein-Mossad claim is deliberately constructed: he has explicitly stated “there is nothing antisemitic about saying that” while making the claim — performing innocence as a rhetorical device. This is different from Owens, who asserts Jewish conspiratorial agency directly.

However, Carlson’s carefulness has observable limits. He appeared to suggest a Jewish hand behind the death of Charlie Kirk. He platformed Nick Fuentes — a Holocaust-minimising white nationalist — calling him “enormously talented” without challenge. These instances suggest the theological-political framework is not fully insulated from the conspiracist one, and that the border between them can be exploited by actors with less principled intentions.

The discourse around “Epstein class” demonstrates a recurrent epistemological structure:

• A phrase is coined to describe a documented sociological phenomenon: elite impunity, the insulation of wealth from legal accountability.
• Because the phenomenon is associated with individuals some of whom are Jewish, and because genuinely anti-Semitic actors are also engaging with the same material, the phrase is declared anti-Semitic.
• This declaration functions to close the critique — not by refuting it, but by making it morally unspeakable.
• The institutional actors who benefit from this closure — AIPAC, Zionist political networks, intelligence-adjacent financial operations — are thereby protected from the scrutiny they would otherwise face.

If capitalism is evil because Jews run it, capitalism becomes acceptable when they do not. The ethnic attribution does not sharpen the critique — it dissolves it into prejudice. Conversely, a systemic critique that does not reduce to ethnic attribution cannot be refuted by invoking ethnicity. The attempt to do so is the anti-semanticist move.

The appropriate sociological response is not to ignore the genuine presence of anti-Semitic actors in this discourse — they are real, documented, and dangerous. It is to refuse the conflation of that presence with every form of systemic institutional critique, and to insist on the analytical distinctions that make rigorous inquiry possible.