Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Epstein case is the fact that the so-called "conspiracy theory" that he was murdered in his prison cell to stop him talking is now the mainstream and normie view.
Indeed, if you want to have an "edgy take" on the case, you have to resort to the idea that his death is just a case of suicide, compounded by basic bitch, "affirmative action" incompetence—as RamZPaul argues.
Another option is to accept the now ubiquitous theory that he was murdered, but then put an unexpected spin on it. But what is the expected spin on a "pedo billionaire" getting bumped off in his jail cell to stop him spilling the beans on his fellow elites?
Stefan Molyneux pretty much gives a perfect example of this in a recent video, seeing Epstein's death as both a confirmation that he was blackmailing powerful people for political reasons, as well as grounds for invalidating a lot of the legislation that was presumably passed under such pressure.
Such a view, however, is premised on a endearingly naive view of what the political process is and/or should be. The fact is that practically all policy, all of the time, is pretty much a dirty process pushed forward by vested interests, bribery, and corruption, with occasional injections of hysteria from mobilised minorities. If we invalidate any policy made by those in Epstein's shadow, why stop there? The whole canon of legislation and executive policy in our societies is tainted in similar ways.
Moving on, another thing the Epstein case is noticeable for is the weaponisation of the P-word, by which I mean "paedophile."
In our own sad, sullied, and dirty age, the P-word has come to represent the "last gasp saloon" of sexual puritanism, that centuries-old pleasure of feeling morally superior to others based on sexual continence and/ or normalacy.
Other forms of puritanism have arisen in recent decades to replace sexual puritanism, such as those based on attitudes to Blacks, homosexuals, women, and the environment, but none of them quite match the magnificent swell of superiority we feel when our puritanical fervour is aroused by sexual matters. The fact that the Epstein case allows us to feel this superiority with regard to a veritable smorgasbord of our so-called "highers in betters"—and that's just the ones we know about—is sheer anti-establishment catnip.
But, let's be honest, the Epstein case, as it appears at present, is not really about paedophilia as it is precisely understood (i.e. as sexual attraction to prepubescent children) or even hebephilia (i.e. sexual attraction to early adolescent children). It is really much more a case of smudge and fudge, of hiding sexual boundaries and then tricking VIPs into crossing them.
The fact is that very few of those highly intelligent VIPs that we have seen named would be naive enough to knowingly engage in a vice as damaging to their prospects as blatant sex with children on the hospitality of a dubious acquaintance like Epstein, who was, in addition, suspiciously bending over backwards to be as accommodating as possible.
A much more likely scenario is that those VIPs concerned were tricked into having sex with "barely illegal" teens tarted up to look like twenty somethings.
Sure, most of the bigwigs involved deserve everything they have coming to them, but, looked at honestly, the manner in which they appear to have been gulled was clearly an underhanded trick that many if not most red-blooded men would fall for. After all, how many of us would look twice at an apparently adult, attractive young woman, blown away by how important and successful we were on the world stage, especially as female attractiveness is based on how young and fresh a woman is? I'm pretty sure quite a few guards would drop. So, I find it hard to be too judgmental on any of Epstein's victims who were lured into making what we shall refer to as "an honest mistake."
The meme of "evil, paedophiliac elites" that is growing like a carbuncle on the back of this case looks more and more like a fantasy of underclass ressentiment than an accurate reflection of how the real world actually works.
But will we actually find out how the real world works in the flotsam-and-jetsom-strewn wake of this case? Will it reveal the cogs and gears that turn the global machine? Will we see lit up, as if by a flare, a vivid picture of the networks, trade-offs, bribes, threats, and occasional acts of blackmail that lead to the bastardized decisions on which this planet blindly shuffles forward?
Epstein's sudden death suggests that every effort will be taken to keep those workings as much in the dark is possible. Also, the hysteria that is now being generated is probably as much part of the smokescreen as the apathy that will inevitably set in unless more dominoes fall soon.
Indeed, if you want to have an "edgy take" on the case, you have to resort to the idea that his death is just a case of suicide, compounded by basic bitch, "affirmative action" incompetence—as RamZPaul argues.
Another option is to accept the now ubiquitous theory that he was murdered, but then put an unexpected spin on it. But what is the expected spin on a "pedo billionaire" getting bumped off in his jail cell to stop him spilling the beans on his fellow elites?
Stefan Molyneux pretty much gives a perfect example of this in a recent video, seeing Epstein's death as both a confirmation that he was blackmailing powerful people for political reasons, as well as grounds for invalidating a lot of the legislation that was presumably passed under such pressure.
Such a view, however, is premised on a endearingly naive view of what the political process is and/or should be. The fact is that practically all policy, all of the time, is pretty much a dirty process pushed forward by vested interests, bribery, and corruption, with occasional injections of hysteria from mobilised minorities. If we invalidate any policy made by those in Epstein's shadow, why stop there? The whole canon of legislation and executive policy in our societies is tainted in similar ways.
Moving on, another thing the Epstein case is noticeable for is the weaponisation of the P-word, by which I mean "paedophile."
In our own sad, sullied, and dirty age, the P-word has come to represent the "last gasp saloon" of sexual puritanism, that centuries-old pleasure of feeling morally superior to others based on sexual continence and/ or normalacy.
Other forms of puritanism have arisen in recent decades to replace sexual puritanism, such as those based on attitudes to Blacks, homosexuals, women, and the environment, but none of them quite match the magnificent swell of superiority we feel when our puritanical fervour is aroused by sexual matters. The fact that the Epstein case allows us to feel this superiority with regard to a veritable smorgasbord of our so-called "highers in betters"—and that's just the ones we know about—is sheer anti-establishment catnip.
But, let's be honest, the Epstein case, as it appears at present, is not really about paedophilia as it is precisely understood (i.e. as sexual attraction to prepubescent children) or even hebephilia (i.e. sexual attraction to early adolescent children). It is really much more a case of smudge and fudge, of hiding sexual boundaries and then tricking VIPs into crossing them.
The fact is that very few of those highly intelligent VIPs that we have seen named would be naive enough to knowingly engage in a vice as damaging to their prospects as blatant sex with children on the hospitality of a dubious acquaintance like Epstein, who was, in addition, suspiciously bending over backwards to be as accommodating as possible.
A much more likely scenario is that those VIPs concerned were tricked into having sex with "barely illegal" teens tarted up to look like twenty somethings.
Sure, most of the bigwigs involved deserve everything they have coming to them, but, looked at honestly, the manner in which they appear to have been gulled was clearly an underhanded trick that many if not most red-blooded men would fall for. After all, how many of us would look twice at an apparently adult, attractive young woman, blown away by how important and successful we were on the world stage, especially as female attractiveness is based on how young and fresh a woman is? I'm pretty sure quite a few guards would drop. So, I find it hard to be too judgmental on any of Epstein's victims who were lured into making what we shall refer to as "an honest mistake."
The meme of "evil, paedophiliac elites" that is growing like a carbuncle on the back of this case looks more and more like a fantasy of underclass ressentiment than an accurate reflection of how the real world actually works.
But will we actually find out how the real world works in the flotsam-and-jetsom-strewn wake of this case? Will it reveal the cogs and gears that turn the global machine? Will we see lit up, as if by a flare, a vivid picture of the networks, trade-offs, bribes, threats, and occasional acts of blackmail that lead to the bastardized decisions on which this planet blindly shuffles forward?
Epstein's sudden death suggests that every effort will be taken to keep those workings as much in the dark is possible. Also, the hysteria that is now being generated is probably as much part of the smokescreen as the apathy that will inevitably set in unless more dominoes fall soon.
