Consorting with Epstein
Commenter “Niketas Choniates” makes a valid point:
… [T]he Epstein correspondence has shown that our “elites” are morally bankrupt clowns who exploit their connections. They don’t have to be in a pedo ring to be unfit for what they are trusted with. After Epstein was convicted in 2008 they were still sucking up to him, asking him for favors, wanting to party with him, asking for help with money or connections.
What they are showing us is that it doesn’t matter much what you do, when you’re in the big club (which we ain’t in) you’re in it forever, and they may pretend that they care about the morals of those they associate with but they really don’t.
[He then offers five examples] …
A lot of these people sucking up to Epstein were huffing and puffing about Trump’s low character.
Of course, we already knew that many people – and I’ll even amend that to most people – will make excuses for those on their side, and/or those of whom they’re fond or close, and/or those it might be advantageous to know. There are also many people who believe in forgiveness and believe that only those without sin should cast the first stone. I think most of those asking Epstein for favors, post-2008, were probably in one of those first groups rather than the latter. But I don’t think they’re unusual, nor do I think this is some special characteristic of elites – except for the fact that elites have access to other elites, and therefore are in this position more often.
Maybe I’ve become too cynical.
I also think that, rightly or wrongly, people differentiate sex with older teenagers from sex with pubescent children or children prior to puberty. It’s all offensive and it’s all a crime – and rightly so – but don’t most people consider the latter somehow worse than the former? And Epstein traded on that fact during and after his 2008 plea deal. From coverage in 2008 [my emphasis]:
One of America’s richest men, who holidayed with Prince Andrew and lent his private jet to Bill Clinton, has begun serving an 18-month jail term after pleading guilty to soliciting sex from girls as young as 14. …
Florida authorities began tracking Epstein in 2005, when a young girl told of being recruited for massages and sexual encounters with the financier. The FBI got involved soon afterwards, reportedly digging through Epstein’s rubbish and monitoring his lavish mansion to track how many girls were going in and out.
Although Epstein pleaded guilty on Monday to soliciting prostitution, he has maintained that he thought the girls were over 18.
That last part gave people on out to consider him not so very awful. Because it was a plea deal with fairly lenient punishment – plus an agreement not to pursue federal charges against him – it was possible they really did believe him. It certainly was in their interests to believe him.
Am I making excuses for them? No. I’m simply explaining what I think may have happened with many of them. In general, people tend to believe what they want to believe, and interpret facts in ways that allow them to make excuses for people about whom they wish to make excuses. The world of the rich, famous, and influential runs on knowing others who are rich, famous, and influential, and the old “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” principle. To give up their relationships with Epstein was too costly, and if there was a way to rationalize keeping the status quo, most people probably took it.
NOTE: Trump actually did sever any ties with Epstein, which is laudable.
Somebody, year or so back, said we’d hear about the pizza delivery guy and the dry cleaner. They’d be on somebody’s phone or Rolodex (old thing).
It appears, given the evidence so far, that Epstein was a fixer with tons of money. People might ask him for a reference to deal with something having little to do, or maybe nothing, with anything vile. Connect. Prof Gelerntner of Yale is one of these. He was trying to get an investor for his son’s software company, None of his correspondence went later than however that worked out. The accusation against him was that he was doing this while Epstein’s sexual perversions were supposedly common knowledge. Should have stopped there, failing in investment results not being relevant. I’d kind of go along with that, but not to the extent of placing him in the pedophile category.
Confession…I’m interested in his take on evolution–the math doesn’t work and doubting Darwin–to a point I might be more sympathetic than I should.
So?
Social progress. Liberal license. All’s fair in lust and abortion.
People differentiate sex with older teenagers from sex with pubescent children or children prior to puberty. It’s all offensive and it’s all a crime – and rightly so
It was not in Canada until the year 2008, when Epstein was convicted, and their age of consent is still not 18, and is not in many US states or in most nations in Europe (only in Turkey is it 18).
The distinction in Blackstone about malum in se (immoral in itself, illegal because it’s immoral) vs malum prohibitum (immoral because it’s illegal, but not illegal because it’s immoral) is operating here. The line has to be drawn somewhere, but because the line is arbitrary reasonable people disagree about exactly where to draw it. True biological children are so far beyond any reasonable line that malum in se operates.
No one who knew the facts of Epstein’s 2008 conviction could possibly believe it was a case of “I thought she was 18”, but I don’t know how many people were in any position to know those facts, and the state and Federal prosecutors who cut the deal have much to answer for.
But just the label on what he was convicted of, even if we didn’t know worse about him, should have been enough that decent people shunned him. Plenty of our “elites” did not shun him, consequently they are not decent people. So you know a man who has to register as a sex offender, supposedly because he solicited a minor for prostitution. And he tells you it only happened because he thought she was 18. There is so much wrongness right there on the surface.
Richard Aubrey on February 16, 2026 at 4:06 pm
“I’m interested in his take on evolution–the math doesn’t work and doubting Darwin–to a point I might be more sympathetic than I should.”
I have provided this rebuttal of Gelerntner by Jerry Coyne before:
Good discussions by Jerry Coyne refuting David Gelernters’ anti-Darwin CRB Review article, and related ID assertions.
Jerry Coyne: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/computer-scientist-david-gelertner-drinks-the-academic-kool-aid-buys-into-intelligent-design/
More Coyne: Quillette article/ review critical of Gelernter’s views on Darwin
https://quillette.com/2019/09/09/david-gelernter-is-wrong-about-ditching-darwin/
David Gelernter is Wrong About Ditching Darwin
written by Jerry A. Coyne Published on September 9, 2019
Coyne also takes to task those who try to claim there are unexplainable gaps in evolution due to the Cambrian Explosion, by citing that fossil evidence of soft body animals have (finally) been found preceding the Cambrian hard body animals, as might be expected if the theory is still valid over that longer period.
Now, if we want better grounds to question some aspects of evolutionary theory, perhaps this provides a beginning:
https://www.theblaze.com/align/darwinism-is-a-dead-end-and-biologists-know-it
Darwinism is a dead end — and biologists know it
Physiologist J. Scott Turner on why purpose and intentionality are ‘fundamental properties of life.’
John Mac Ghlionn January 17, 2026
From my summary notes upon capturing this essay into Word:
“Blaze article by John Mac Ghlionn addressing the view of Dr. J. Scott Turner that Darwinian evolution via natural selection is not fully neutral and passive, at least when sufficient “intelligence” or “luck” has evolved and that causes a species to start altering its own environment in ways that “purposefully” or “incidentally” enhance its prospects for survival. Not just having a better (random) adaptation to whatever (random) changes in the environment that Nature provides on its own course.”
“The fundamental purpose of life is the continuation of life – as otherwise it would cease to exist. Purpose and intentionality may aid this result (or “goal”), but they are not essential to it, nor is any other form of “intelligence” beyond whatever created the core physical and chemical nature of matter.” The argument by Turner strikes me as a ruse to “change the rules of the game” to claim that culturally evolved changes are not “real” evolutionary changes unless they also impact the genome (like lactose tolerance, Tibetan high altitude breathing capability, etc.). But they still improve species survival capabilities (as our 8+ billion earth bound population shows). It is also a sly way to try and introduce ID into the situation when the only intelligence involved is related to emergence of very enhanced human brain synaptic behavior or contributions. If there is a divine ID involved, it occurred with the creation of the universe, and the beauty behind the core idea of survival via adaptability to expected physical and chemical changes in whatever environment life might find itself.
Sorry for the extended comment, but an even more damning viewpoint concerning Darwinian claims may be on offer by Vox Day.
I am not sure I understand Day’s argument, as I have not yet read either of his two recent books downloaded to my Kindle. I think he uses AI to help do some sophisticated statistical analysis that involves showing there is not enough time for enough generational genetic changes to occur within the timespan claimed, especially for human development. I am reserving judgement pending trying to understand his position. I understand he has a very successful background in gaming, so he is not a fool or one to make unsubstantiated claims. But “going in” I remain skeptical that this critique will fully pan out, given how well the theory already seems to explain what is observed from archeology and genetics.
https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Zero-Mathematical-Impossibility-Mathematics-ebook/dp/B0GF8RQFY4/ref=sr_1_1 Probability Zero: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution by Natural Selection (The Mathematics of Evolution Book 1)
https://www.amazon.com/Frozen-Gene-Human-Evolution-Mathematics-ebook/dp/B0GJTQ44XQ/ref=sr_1_2 The Frozen Gene: The End of Human Evolution (The Mathematics of Evolution Book 2)
If anyone has already read these, I welcome their feedback before I get a chance to do so.
Also, a Substack interview with Mr. Day is here: https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/why-is-the-probability-zero
Is it really that surprising that the elites didn’t shun Epstein for trafficking girls that could arguable pass as over 18.
Roman Polanski anally raped a 13 year old girl and that didn’t seem to lead to him being shunned by those who consider themselves our moral superiors.
And when he was finally arrested 31 years later… well you have to read the reactions of the French, Swiss and the Arts Community in general.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/sep/27/roman-polanski-arrest-switzerland-custody
R2L
Thanks for the evolution information.
My primary interest might be exemplified in a debate recorded decades ago. Scientific Creationists on one side, evolutionary biologists on the other. Hadn’t heard of the first but I learned if you want to argue evolution with them, leave your lunch money at home.
But the issue that continues to echo, to be dramatic about it, was that on the side of the evo folks were the head of the ACLU and the head of the Americans United for The Separation of Church and State. The latter was Rev, Barry Lynn. It was a long time ago, so he may have retired.
It is the role of evolution in our society which interests me. If you can spell it without looking it up, you’re an intellectual giant compared to those half-wit creationists. Since things are not settled (BURN THE HERETIC!!!) in the field; punk eek vs gradualism or evolution by jerks versus evolution by creeps, the True Believers looking at it from the outside get really exercised when such subjects are discussed. They’re nervous that….Something might upset their seat on the pinnacle of intellectual superiority.
Behe’s irreducible complexity lost in court but, from what I’ve seen, the issue was it might be taught in school and those icky creationists would have a leg up. But the actual principle is still harder to address. Everything your body does by use of a physical Thing–eye, antler, et forcetera, has a cost. It would be selected against due to the cost, no matter how de minimis. See the theory of evolution, were not the benefit greater over time and circumstance. But half an eye, or just the hole in the head for the eyeball, are net negative and, until the whole optical thing got evolved and hooked up, would have been at the least a metabolic cost and….selected against. See the theory of evolution.
From the outside, it’s fun to watch this stuff going on, particularly those apparently askeered of any threat to their only claim to know jacksquat.
More relevant is the same process about “KNOW” other thing. Like Trump is a racist. Discussing this gets certain classed very upset because, if he weren’t, where would they be? He HAS to be a racist, therefore the facts supporting it must exist.
The Ark Encounter in Kentucky is interesting. Well done for the purpose. One technique is that you leave there Knowing Things. Discussing the Lost Squadron, you learn characteristics of the P38. So you Know Something. And it’s relevant because the aircraft were buried in a horizontal position instead of nose down–the difference is relevant to the argument but not here–and in addition to that, you know what the Germans called it and how the weapons caused it to be nose-heavy and….that’s relevant to the argument… The fact that you end up Knowing Things increases the power of the sales pitch.
A further point is that evolution’s True Believers would never deny science. Science being whatever suits the Big Shots. For example, going out, to the beach or wherever, would get millions killed of Covid. But riots, thousands standing on each others’ feet yelling for six hours is okay. You wouldn’t argue wit that, would you? It’s SCIENCE.
@RichardAubrey: But half an eye, or just the hole in the head for the eyeball, are net negative and, until the whole optical thing got evolved and hooked up, would have been at the least a metabolic cost and….selected against.
The topic is actually Epstein and his friends, but “half an eye” is not a net negative. It’s better than no eye. Even a “hole in the head” allows for the sense of the direction from which light is coming. If the hole is mostly sealed over it makes a pinhole camera eye like a chambered nautilus has. When it’s only a little sealed over it’s an optically poor one and when it’s sealed over but for a pinhole it’s a better one. Easy to see yourself by looking at the image rendered by smaller and smaller pinholes: the image is dimmer but sharper.
From a light sensitive spot of skin to the complexity of an octopus eye, there is found a gradual continuum of improvements in eyes.
It is not true that an entire vertebrate-type eye needs to be in place for an eye to have any function at all.
Nikita.
True. Could be an eye stalk. But at the least, there’s a cost to the nutrition which .must be paid for or it will be selected against.
Epstein has become the beer commercial meme:
The Most Interesting Man in the World.
I don’t think that’s a good sign.
well they aren’t very elite, how did he manage to get the attention of the rockefellers and the rothschilds, because of one intro from bear stearns, the dubai ports guy, was trying to get a deal done in nigeria, what specially talent did he have for that enterprise,
what are the consequences of belief in evolution, at a societal level, I posit it’s not good,
its interesting that the local da krischer didn’t seem really interesting in investigating epstein, as opposed to go after bete noires like Rush Limbaugh, because reasons
(this came from a converaation with andrew weissman a bete noire in good standing, to our lights
from the enron task forcc, to the mueller witchhunt, which included the plea bargain that served michael cohen in good stead,
Didn’t mean to do it, but the slightest mention and…..evolution is being defended vigorously. It has a unique place in our culture, unlike any other issue not germane to how things go from year to year.
Why not Newton versus Einstein in terms of matter and movement and energy?
I don’t have any particular interest in it for its own sake but I enjoy watching the Struggle.