Epstein Panic as a Perfect Storm
The West Memphis Three
All criminal investigations require two types of evidence: witness testimony and material evidence. When material evidence is absent, witness testimony remains our only option.
There are seemingly thousands of cases where we can find faulty witness testimony. Hundreds of these involve an element of “satanic conspiracy.”
Right off the bat, it should be understood and admitted that serial killers are a real phenomenon. There are sexual sadists who get pleasure out of torturing and inflicting maximum pain on their victims, and then they mutilate and even cannibalize the bodies. However, these sadists are not “ideologically” or religiously motivated. Rather, their sadistic sexuality usually stems from personal experiences in childhood, or possible genetic inheritance from sadistic parents.
Even if we can explain “how” sadistic tendencies originate, there remains the question of “why”?
Stanislav Grof, in his work on Holotropic Consciousness, explains human sadism as a product of “perinatal trauma.” Grof believes that because childbirth is a painful, scary, frightening experience, humans carry with them echoes of that trauma with them throughout their life, which they externalize through rape, warfare, and abuse.
Grof’s theory is poetic, but it is not scientific. We can observe sadistic behavior in animals, like cats. Sadistic behavior among animals isn’t limited to predation. We must also consider the fact that, among many species, rape is not an exceptional behavior, but the universal form of copulation. Cats, for example, have a spiky penis, which digs into the vagina of the female to prevent her from escaping.
Putting that graphic example aside, animals also fight over females and compete over resources and territory. Lions are even known to kill cubs of other males. When we example the animal world objectively, we find that mammalian life is full of rapists, child-murderers, and warfare. None of this is unique to humans or the particularities of human child birth. Can the Grof thesis account for the tendency of ants to go to war against one another? If not, it must be discarded.
I mention Stanislav Grof because he is an intelligent “spiritualist” who attempts to mix his mysticism with more scientific approaches. For example, his research into breathwork techniques and psychedelics could be considered more plausible. Grof serves as a foil for my purposes: he is an intelligent man who radically fails to apply even the most basic scrutiny to his theory of sadism.
Grof, at the very least, attempts a novel approach. His intentions are decent: he wants to help people resolve their inner suffering and reduce warfare and genocide. In comparison, he makes the Christian approach that much more ridiculous.
The Christian belief in Satanism is rooted in Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism invented the idea of Satan in the character of Angri Maynu. Angri Maynu is fully and unambiguously evil. Judaism lacks this God, but Christianity re-introduces it. The three Magi are not Rabbis, but Zoroastrian priests.
The idea of a Persian cultural imperial project within the bounds of the Roman Empire should not surprise us -- Mithraism fascinated many Roman citizens just as powerfully as early Christianity. But unlike Mithraism, Christianity not only appealed to Persian mysticism, but also to Jewish ethnic traditions, and Hellenic philosophy.
Whatever defense one might make of Zoroastrianism, the figure of Angri Maynu, as adopted by Christians as “Satan,” has been used to explain human sadism through a spiritual lens rather than a naturalistic one. This has led, over the millennia, to the most frenzied conspiracies, witch hunts, and superstitions. The Epstein Panic is only the latest of these.
Consider the following testimony from a star witness:
Three men kidnap three children. Each of the children are stripped naked, hogtied, sexually abused, and finally murdered in a satanic ritual under a full moon. Rumors spread that the children were skinned alive with their faces cut off. One of the men admits committing the crime, casually, at a baseball game. Another of the men confesses completely, with lurid details. Open and shut.
The mob demands retribution. And who wouldn’t? Three little boys are dead -- two confessions have been made. What more evidence do we need? Anyone doubting the evidence should be viewed with suspicion -- are they also part of this satanic cult?
A cult expert is brought in to testify. With PhD in hand, he claims, with absolute certainty, that the murders are due to a satanic cult which is sweeping the nation. Whether or not you believe in Satan, clearly, these Satanists do, and they’re operating under his influence.
On the other hand, the supposed “casual confession” was actually an edgy joke made by a teenager into death metal. The description of events laid out by the star witness was a contradictory story, with many factual errors, given by someone with an IQ of 80.
Am I a “satanic denier”? Am I “covering for pedophiles,” and trying to bring harm to victims? Or am I merely applying reasonable standards of skepticism, which 18 years later, we validated with DNA evidence?
Murder is one of the most serious crimes that a human can commit. Theoretically, other crimes might rise to that level -- financial fraud, or vegetative induction, for example. If billions of dollars are stolen from a charity, leading to the deaths of thousands of people, that is certainly worse than a single murder. Vegetative induction describes the manner in which a person might be reduced to a vegetative state, no longer capable of a real human life.
While rape is a terrible crime, it does not rise to this level. Rape victims can get married and have kids; they can work jobs; they can have relationships and tell jokes. This is not to lessen the crime of rape, but to state, in unequivocal and categorical terms, that rapists are simply not as criminal as murderers.
Using some sort of utilitarian quantification, it could be argued that the murder of a 99 year old man with terminal cancer is less heinous than the repeated and daily rape of a person for years on end. Fair enough: but if we compare apples to apples, it is more difficult to argue that child rape is truly worse than child murder. Somehow, this fact seems to have become controversial.
I am open to the idea that rape -- in some cases -- is somehow equivalent to murder, although I am extremely skeptical of the idea. But let us assume that murder and rape are equivalent. Even so, murders and rapes mostly occur among the lower classes -- specifically, murder and rape are most concentrated among black-on-black crimes in inner city ghettos. If you oppose rape, it makes no sense at all to attack white men, Jews, or “the elites,” who are responsible for less than a fraction of 1% of 1% of total rapes.
The Nick Fuentes line on Epstein is not that he is a Satanist, but that he is a Jewish ethnocentrist who controls our government using sexual blackmail. While this is a much more sensible sounding thesis, I would deny Fuentes any credibility by the following analogy.
The case of the West Memphis Three, the mainstream rumors were that three children were raped and murdered in a Satanic ritual. But what if a sensible man “Fick Nuentes,” were to claim that this is too far -- all that happened was a regular murder, with no rape or Satanism involved. Would that be a more “sensible” thesis?
Less lurid, sure. But still no material evidence, and dependent on an unreliable, 80 IQ witness. Making shit up doesn’t suddenly become “sensible” just because you’ve removed the most lurid and salacious details.
The epistemics of “moderation” are insipid. But that’s the populist game that Fuentes is playing. If the mob says “cut off all your fingers,” and I tell you to not cut off any fingers, Fuentes says, “well, I’m a moderate, why not just two or three fingers?” How about: no.
There is plenty of evidence that Jeffrey Epstein committed major financial crimes, including insider trading and hiding money in offshore banking accounts. He gained this money like Carl Icahn, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken, and so many others: through insider knowledge, acting as a middle man for bigger players. For a detailed look into the methods of these criminals, I strongly recommend James B. Stewart, Den of Thieves.
Epstein had political opinions that many find offensive or even treasonous. He promoted eugenics; he was clearly critical of the politics of Benjamin Netanyahu; he freely joked about the “goyim”; and perhaps worst of all, he proposed meetings with Vladimir Putin where he planned to make Russia the financial capital of the world, and Ruble the new global reserve currency. This plot in particular seems motivated by Epstein’s particular hatred of the Chinese, and fear that, without a strong Russia, China would eventually come to dominate the world.
Epstein had sex with a 17 year old, the day before her 18th birthday. He received massages from girls between the ages of 14 to 18, although they lied about their ages and used fake IDs to deceive him. Epstein freely used prostitutes and shared them with his friends -- including Donald Trump, who he seems to have introduced to Melania as a high-end escort.
It is quite scandalous to imagine that the first lady of the United States was introduced to the president via “human trafficking.” Is Melania, therefore, a “victim”? Or are sex workers milking the “sexual trafficking panic” for attention and lucrative payouts?
Wait wait wait -- are we suggesting that prostitutes might be exaggerating to obtain money??? Say it ain’t so…
But yes, it is fairly obvious that prostitutes have every conceivable incentive to claim that their consensual sexual activities were in instead “rape” to obtain hefty settlements from international banks seeking to make the problem go away. Give the Dane the Danegeld, and he comes back for more.
Everyone has an incentive to keep the Epstein Panic going:
Former prostitutes want more money for their “non-profit organizations,” where they can cash in on a salary as “ambassadors against sex trafficking.”
Christians want to allege “Satanic influence” to argue that secularism is destroying sexual morality.
Russia-shills want to keep us focused on sexual scandal to avoid Epstein’s uncomfortably close relationships with the Kremlin.
Antisemites want to focus on Epstein’s Jewish identity to fuel conspiracies about Jewish supremacy.
Zionists have participated in the tarring-and-feathering of Epstein in order to condemn his left-wing friend, Ehud Barak.
Very few people have an interest in opposing all of these interests simultaneously. It’s not often that you find someone who hates Zionists, and antisemites, and Russians, and Christians, and prostitutes.
Ahem.
Well, hate is a strong word. Let’s just say I am skeptical of all these groups. And I will continue to be skeptical, until they can put together serious evidence, beyond questionable witnesses and ambiguous jokes.
Leaving aside the conspiratorial contingencies for a second, let's take a brief step back.
Is there, amid much of this ambivalent Epstein-trutherism of either kind now pervading longform social media, the slightest pretense to even simulate sincere concern for ones fellow countrywomen? Your nations mothers, sisters, daughters. Women in general? Children in general? The world, in general?
A good chunk of you people seem to have the affective profile of a latently traumatized, teenaged member of 764. Endergonic avatars of civilizationally-suicidal psychosis. It's bizarre how you could even justify this flippant mode of attendance, with your real faces, to something so heinous (regardless of your own perception of the event), like it's fantasy football. As though any of you had actual reason to maintain an explicitly "second-order" image of it all, as though you don't live in the same world as anyone else, as though the plausible deniability of "ironic detachment" had any purchase in said world where there's nothing but, and you know it. Perhaps you don't, though. The bad news is; you could, and the risks may be fatal. I'd suggest you don't sit in genuine silence for too long.
Bring back outrage as the lowest common denominator of political discourse. In hindsight, it is psychologically preferrable to our current one; monstrously cynical punditry bordering on sadism, with no apparent endgame beyond the next persons' reply.
How fucking deeply, deeply alone does one have to feel to behave in this direction? How long can the human nervous system even handle a lack of intimate affiliation this cruel? You are forsaken experiments, unaccounted n=1s. Babies die spontaneously from a lack of trusted touch. Elderly widows succeed their longtime spouses often within days. I think if you lost internet access indefinitely, most of you peoples worst nightmare might end up coming true - you'd find the courage to kill yourselves, and not by the kind of suicide that occurs out of heroism, either. On the contrary. That much you're aware of. A whimper.
I don't think there is anything you people wouldn't go and have done unto your next of kin, for the right amount of money, fame, influence, capital of any sort. You'd regret it, sure, but you'd take an offer high enough. You betray in your chosen forms of expression, chosen priorities of discussion and chosen audiences a character akin to moral prostitution, less-than-worthless kinds of human being, who in any sphere where people paid attention to communal bonds the likes of which you possess none, would be sleuthed out for what you are and dealt with appropriately. You're solipsists, sociopaths who don't quite realize they really are sociopaths, because they merely became them, when the computer finally got them to. Sociopaths in the attendance to others only, whilst themselves every bit as vulnerable as their intractable peers. Sociopaths who would sob and never stop sobbing if they one day did attain the self-awareness they earnestly believed to have.
The fact that elites do ritual sacrifice for a variety of reasons doesn't seem so far fetched in my opinion. It also makes sense that the elite control "democracy" and power through a network like that of Epstein, like the painting of Clinton in Drag seems plausible as a representation of how they see politicians as little play things they control. People like Noam Chomsky in this network who was always seen as an anti-establishment figure also feels very eye opening and true. The kind of scale of collusion at the top of our elite that gets revealed is shocking but very plausible.
What i don't understand is that the elite are probably in full control of what gets released and what gets censored so for all these parties, isn't it counterproductive to tell the public how power and corruption in the elite actually functions? Aren't they willingly telling on themselves? why? Are they just trying to punish some people like trump, musk, etc.? Also who first pushed the Epstein theory? Was it planted by some hidden actors as well?