I haven’t read the Epstein Files, so take this with a lump of salt. But from my twitter feed, I’d say it hasn’t changed my mind much. They’re just people, right? Like, a couple percent of children get sexually abused, and a disturbingly large fraction get raped, so most people probably know a child abuse victim. They may know a paedophile and even think well of them. And most likely, they don’t know they know these people. Generalize this to all sorts of behaviours, and I think you’ll find the global elite aren’t that different from the average person.
And honestly, this realization feels like a bit of a superpower. “That super high status dude over there? Yeah, he’s just some guy.” It feels like taking off starry eyed or grim-dark goggles and looking at a person, not a cariacature.
for me it seemed like files lead to conclusions that there were tens or hundreds of people who participated or at least knew about immoral activities on the island or elsewhere. Googlable things like “beef jerky” and “cheesed pizza” code-words also suggest that scope of activities was extraordinary broad and immoral. Which is kinda confusing, I wouldnt have expected such conspiracy to exist and last.
Supposed scope of JE connections and influence might mean that elite and governments are more connected than one might expect.
As far as beef jerky goes there’s an email chain where a woman is supposed to ask Francis Derby who’s Epsteins chef and seems to be getting his last paycheck soon for a beef jerky recipe. If this is a indeed a code word and not plain beef jerky, why would you ask the chef for the recipe? Given that context, what makes you sure that it’s a code word?
Here’s a video with seemingly good example and analysis. And there is a longer complitation with links. There are actually hundreds of them. Same sources covered “pizza”.
As for the recipe—I haven’t seen this mail, but it can be that sometimes epstein or his friends actually had beef jerky. definitely not in the other contexts though. Or “chef and recipe” are other nicknames and we got the situation wrong.
Basically, it sounds you haven’t tried to form your own opinion.
We are not relying on nicknames here. Francis is Francis Derby who’s now in working at the Halyard Restaurant in Greenport. There’s no reason to make up a conspiracy theory that he wasn’t a chef. There’s enough interesting information that’s a lot more clear on which you can base your beliefs.
Billionaires having odd dietary preference and a private chef to fulfill them shouldn’t be that surprising. Billionaires sending food to a lab to be analyzed for what’s in it also shouldn’t seem that strange.
As I understand it, there is no conspiracy that Francis wasn’t a chef. It’s just not an evidence against him also doing illegal cooking. “Cannibal” name is also a quite weak evidence, of course, but in the context it still is quite notable.
In the files there are many confusing discussions about food—why would Israel premier ministers in multiple messages discuss slicing pizza with Jefry Epstein? Why would beef jerky “walk”? Why would many island visitors be so interested in this particular meal, different ways of cooking and transporting it (and weirdly not delegating much of such tasks)?
I use links mostly because I don’t see enough value in writing long texts about this question myself (and digging really hard into it).
. “Cannibal” name is also a quite weak evidence, of course, but in the context it still is quite notable.
Calling a restaurant you open “Cannibal” is supposed to be evidence for what? That it fits well into a narrative and thus would be a poor choice of someone with something to hide?
It can be evidence for the fact that the person
Why would many island visitors be so interested in this particular meal
If I would go over to a friend who only consumes a given meal for a while, I would be curious to try that meal.
But more concretely why do you think many island visitors were interested in this particular meal? The emails are mainly about Jeffery wanting to consume a lot of it (and it seems for a time no regular food and just beffy jerky). First Francis was the chef that cooked it and then when another chef called Steve from GUEST HOSPITALITY made it Jeffery wasn’t happy with the quality of it and you have people communicating about the recipe that Francis used to recreate it.
There are talks about finding the recipe which is:
Recipe : 2 lb of jerky
1/3organic tamari soy sause
3 tablespoon =weet soy sauce kecap Manis
2 tblsp ginger
2 tbs lemongrass ( fresh cut)
As far as delegation we have an email from Rachael Bova (working for GUEST HOSPITALITY 594 Broadway) to Lesley Groff (who was the assistent of Epstein saying):
Jeff had asked to have a sample of his beef jerky tested for nutritional value. Attached are the results I just received, please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
The attachment is titled (COA DEFAULT_EMAIL.pdf) COA standing for Certificate of Analysis is what you would expect for testing.
Doing nutritional testing to know whether or not to supplement something makes sense if you only eat a specific food.
Why would beef jerky “walk”?
That’s not what any email is saying the emails say things like: “Jojo is here and will walk the jerky over to Jeffrey...Please you just go on your own to Leon’s office. Melanie is Leon’s assistant I will alert Melanie you are coming to see Jeffrey. Reply back please! 🙂”
I think it’s quite plausible that a billionaire sits at their desk and has someone walk his meal over to them and that you have communication between assistants over that.
Okay, maybe you are correct. The point about “cannibal” name is deeper though—yes, it would be kinda stupid to feed theories which you would prefer to hide. On the other hand you may find it very funny to do “crime at the light of the day”/power move or advertisement with hint (anyway no one would expect such arrogance and take it seriously) . And it’s a priory very unlikely to call your restaurant cannibal, I suppose. So I think that the name is the evidence for the crimes, in the end.
Ok, I’ve looked through ~75% of emails mentioning “beef jerky” on https://jmail.world/search?q=beef+jerky. Haven’t seen anything weird in them, no euphemisms, nothing. They just talk about beef jerky cooked by Francis Derby, who used to work as a chef in a restaurant called Cannibal.
I take your points individually, but I don’t synthesize them in the way I think you might.
To start, the top 0.01% wealthiest people are far from a representative sample from the public. I would expect them to have statistically different personality traits and perceptions even before attaining massive wealth. There is a causal (albeit stochastic) connection between their drives and their outcomes.
Next — even if they were sampled in a representative way — the journey to reaching such a level changes people. Once there*, it affords opportunities of all kinds that are (a) unavailable to the 99.99% and (b) can be hidden or swept under the rug in various ways.
Path dependence matters! Humans are incredibly adaptable for better and worse. From one lens, we can certainly talk about core evolutionary drives, but the way the top 0.01% manifest these drives in their bubble can feel shocking to the rest of us.
* To be clear, I expect most people at that level continue to strive upwards. There is always someone more powerful, at least in some area, to compare oneself against.
I don’t think we disagree. To say a bit more about my thinking here, let’s take the very rich as one example of unusual people. The very rich mostly got where they are by being really exceptional in one area. Otherwise, they’re not that different from people you actually know. Probably, you know someone who’s got pretty similar psychology to them, absent one or two idiosyncratic traits/quirks e.g. Seymour Cray, who believed machine elves told them to build super computers and thought it was a good idea to listen to them. Probably, you know someone who has crazy supernatural beliefs like that, except their beliefs aren’t as adaptive nor are they that competent. The remaining differences can largely be attributed to the difference in contexts between Seymour Cray and that crazy person you know.
Like, what I’m getting at here is that an unusual person is just a relatively minor neurological variant on some guy you probably know, who was placed in a different context. If their positions were swapped, they’d behave more similarly than would be credited by people who believe the super rich are inhuman demons or whatever.
I haven’t read the Epstein Files, so take this with a lump of salt. But from my twitter feed, I’d say it hasn’t changed my mind much. They’re just people, right? Like, a couple percent of children get sexually abused, and a disturbingly large fraction get raped, so most people probably know a child abuse victim. They may know a paedophile and even think well of them. And most likely, they don’t know they know these people. Generalize this to all sorts of behaviours, and I think you’ll find the global elite aren’t that different from the average person.
And honestly, this realization feels like a bit of a superpower. “That super high status dude over there? Yeah, he’s just some guy.” It feels like taking off starry eyed or grim-dark goggles and looking at a person, not a cariacature.
for me it seemed like files lead to conclusions that there were tens or hundreds of people who participated or at least knew about immoral activities on the island or elsewhere. Googlable things like “beef jerky” and “cheesed pizza” code-words also suggest that scope of activities was extraordinary broad and immoral. Which is kinda confusing, I wouldnt have expected such conspiracy to exist and last.
Supposed scope of JE connections and influence might mean that elite and governments are more connected than one might expect.
If I search for cheesed pizza in Jmail I get zero results https://jmail.world/search?q=cheesed+pizza
As far as beef jerky goes there’s an email chain where a woman is supposed to ask Francis Derby who’s Epsteins chef and seems to be getting his last paycheck soon for a beef jerky recipe. If this is a indeed a code word and not plain beef jerky, why would you ask the chef for the recipe? Given that context, what makes you sure that it’s a code word?
Here’s a video with seemingly good example and analysis. And there is a longer complitation with links. There are actually hundreds of them. Same sources covered “pizza”.
As for the recipe—I haven’t seen this mail, but it can be that sometimes epstein or his friends actually had beef jerky. definitely not in the other contexts though. Or “chef and recipe” are other nicknames and we got the situation wrong.
Basically, it sounds you haven’t tried to form your own opinion.
We are not relying on nicknames here. Francis is Francis Derby who’s now in working at the Halyard Restaurant in Greenport. There’s no reason to make up a conspiracy theory that he wasn’t a chef. There’s enough interesting information that’s a lot more clear on which you can base your beliefs.
Billionaires having odd dietary preference and a private chef to fulfill them shouldn’t be that surprising. Billionaires sending food to a lab to be analyzed for what’s in it also shouldn’t seem that strange.
As I understand it, there is no conspiracy that Francis wasn’t a chef. It’s just not an evidence against him also doing illegal cooking. “Cannibal” name is also a quite weak evidence, of course, but in the context it still is quite notable.
In the files there are many confusing discussions about food—why would Israel premier ministers in multiple messages discuss slicing pizza with Jefry Epstein? Why would beef jerky “walk”? Why would many island visitors be so interested in this particular meal, different ways of cooking and transporting it (and weirdly not delegating much of such tasks)?
I use links mostly because I don’t see enough value in writing long texts about this question myself (and digging really hard into it).
Calling a restaurant you open “Cannibal” is supposed to be evidence for what? That it fits well into a narrative and thus would be a poor choice of someone with something to hide?
It can be evidence for the fact that the person
If I would go over to a friend who only consumes a given meal for a while, I would be curious to try that meal.
But more concretely why do you think many island visitors were interested in this particular meal? The emails are mainly about Jeffery wanting to consume a lot of it (and it seems for a time no regular food and just beffy jerky). First Francis was the chef that cooked it and then when another chef called Steve from GUEST HOSPITALITY made it Jeffery wasn’t happy with the quality of it and you have people communicating about the recipe that Francis used to recreate it.
There are talks about finding the recipe which is:
As far as delegation we have an email from Rachael Bova (working for GUEST HOSPITALITY 594 Broadway) to Lesley Groff (who was the assistent of Epstein saying):
The attachment is titled (COA DEFAULT_EMAIL.pdf) COA standing for Certificate of Analysis is what you would expect for testing.
Doing nutritional testing to know whether or not to supplement something makes sense if you only eat a specific food.
That’s not what any email is saying the emails say things like: “Jojo is here and will walk the jerky over to Jeffrey...Please you just go on your own to Leon’s office. Melanie is Leon’s assistant I will alert Melanie you are coming to see Jeffrey. Reply back please! 🙂”
I think it’s quite plausible that a billionaire sits at their desk and has someone walk his meal over to them and that you have communication between assistants over that.
Okay, maybe you are correct. The point about “cannibal” name is deeper though—yes, it would be kinda stupid to feed theories which you would prefer to hide. On the other hand you may find it very funny to do “crime at the light of the day”/power move or advertisement with hint (anyway no one would expect such arrogance and take it seriously) . And it’s a priory very unlikely to call your restaurant cannibal, I suppose. So I think that the name is the evidence for the crimes, in the end.
Ok, I’ve looked through ~75% of emails mentioning “beef jerky” on https://jmail.world/search?q=beef+jerky. Haven’t seen anything weird in them, no euphemisms, nothing. They just talk about beef jerky cooked by Francis Derby, who used to work as a chef in a restaurant called Cannibal.
Sure, but lots of people co-ordinate to do bad things. E.g. drug traders, groomers etc. So I expect some rich people will get up to this stuff, too.
I take your points individually, but I don’t synthesize them in the way I think you might.
To start, the top 0.01% wealthiest people are far from a representative sample from the public. I would expect them to have statistically different personality traits and perceptions even before attaining massive wealth. There is a causal (albeit stochastic) connection between their drives and their outcomes.
Next — even if they were sampled in a representative way — the journey to reaching such a level changes people. Once there*, it affords opportunities of all kinds that are (a) unavailable to the 99.99% and (b) can be hidden or swept under the rug in various ways.
Path dependence matters! Humans are incredibly adaptable for better and worse. From one lens, we can certainly talk about core evolutionary drives, but the way the top 0.01% manifest these drives in their bubble can feel shocking to the rest of us.
* To be clear, I expect most people at that level continue to strive upwards. There is always someone more powerful, at least in some area, to compare oneself against.
I don’t think we disagree. To say a bit more about my thinking here, let’s take the very rich as one example of unusual people. The very rich mostly got where they are by being really exceptional in one area. Otherwise, they’re not that different from people you actually know. Probably, you know someone who’s got pretty similar psychology to them, absent one or two idiosyncratic traits/quirks e.g. Seymour Cray, who believed machine elves told them to build super computers and thought it was a good idea to listen to them. Probably, you know someone who has crazy supernatural beliefs like that, except their beliefs aren’t as adaptive nor are they that competent. The remaining differences can largely be attributed to the difference in contexts between Seymour Cray and that crazy person you know.
Like, what I’m getting at here is that an unusual person is just a relatively minor neurological variant on some guy you probably know, who was placed in a different context. If their positions were swapped, they’d behave more similarly than would be credited by people who believe the super rich are inhuman demons or whatever.
Childhood sexual abuse is actually closer to 12% https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11756604/