What conclusions do people draw from the Epstein files about the global elite? It seems like a kind of interesting and amazing window into a huge swath of wealthy and powerful people.
I haven’t dug in that much yet, but so far I’m struck by how sleazy many of them seem and how rarely they push back against unethical behavior. And how bad at spelling and inarticulate people who, in other contexts, seem fairly intellectual (e.g. Larry Summers), are in their casual communications.
I’m unsurprised by the lack of evidence of other mass conspiracies.
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.
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.
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.
Just the sheer number of prominent people he had connections with, including who likely saw him doing illegal and/or highly immoral activities. I previously had more the model that a) conspiracies are unlikely (“Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead”), especially in the age of modern information technology, and b) the rare conspiracies that are sustained do so through direct and substantial state support (black ops, government threats, etc). And while Epstein clearly had a lot of elite connections, it didn’t seem like the conspiracy was super-legible to the state as an entity, nor one that required a bunch of state interventions to sustain.
A substantial amount of the files are redacted, and there’s apparently a lot that hasn’t been released at all yet either. It’s hard to get a good idea of something if you can only see a small percentage of it, especially when that small percentage has been curated. Right now it feels kinda like going to North Korea, seeing a show village and declaring the country a rich and free democracy. The play looks great, and you’ll never know otherwise if you don’t get a look behind the curtains. And when the curtains do open, surprise there’s even more curtains!
And one of the big issues here is with trust. Maybe a redaction is personal information of a victim, or maybe it’s something else that needed to be covered up because it looked bad. The unknown is unknown after all. I’m not sure how much I can trust the Trump admin here at all when there’s already been multiple controversies with unwarranted redacting and the multiple u-turns that have already occured around the files, so “nothing to see behind the curtains” is not particularly convincing. At the very least the behavior has been very very suspicious.
There’s also some really interesting things to consider about the arguments around the files. One common claim was “if there was anything potentially damaging for Trump in them, why did the Biden admin not release it”. Now we know there is tons of stuff about Trump. Nothing that is definitive proof of criminal behavior, but things like the birthday book letter and accusations certainly seem like they could have been harmful for his campaign.
So now we’re stuck with “There is potentially damaging material about Trump in there, so why did the Biden admin not release it?”. Perhaps they’re more ethical than the argument makers thought and didn’t think it fair to leak those files. Or maybe there’s something that both admins don’t want revealed, whether it be a third party or a MAD scenario. I don’t know, but it again sure is weird!
I might be deferring too much to other people on this, but my understanding is that releasing the files would make it easier for Maxwell to argue that she didn’t get a fair trial, since it would be impossible to find an unbiased jury, it would be obvious that the government was politicizing her case and potentially tilting the scales unfairly, and it would create risks with witnesses.
That’s not what the person you are linked to is saying. They are just claiming that the DOJ has a habit of not releasing their case files.
There’s no reason to assert that this habit just exist because of arguments about biasing the Jury, a stronger reason for that general habit is likely that releasing case files can sometimes bring evidence to light that was ignored at the trial and that makes the convicted person look innocent which isn’t what the DOJ wants. Prosecutors don’t want the defense to have access to all the evidence that can used to argue innocence.
Apart from that you wouldn’t need to open the full case file to selectively leak embarrassing information from it about Trump and/or start a case against Trump and put the victims accusing Trump on the stand.
I think what we learned about Bill Gates can be extrapolated to similar people, or at least raised as a possibility for them. Before the Epstein releases, pretty much everyone thought of him as dorky-but-broadly-well-intentioned, and the fact that he jumped at the chance to commit adultery and then attempted to conceal the resulting disease from his wife certainly blows a hole into that perception of him. I’d expect that many other publicly silly/wholesome rich people are likewise less than upstanding in their private behavior.
Aside from that, it does tell us a few more cultural things about the ruling class:
There’s very little stereotypical decorum in Epstein’s personal communications; he and his friends talk a lot more like edgy internet users than anything else.
There isn’t the increase in political sophistication that you’d expect to see. Epstein’s political emails, specifically those ranting about Trump later on, seem in line with the kind of thing I’d see from his age cohort on reddit, or facebook, or substack. No special insights; his brilliant plan to “get Trump” in the runup to 2020 involved running some unpopular figure who had zero voter overlap with him as a third party candidate.
There’s very little subtlety or guile—Epstein talked to a Harvard law professor and even a board member of a Holocaust museum about his sex tourism habits very explicitly, with seemingly no concern for plausible deniability.
There seems to be a sharp drop in sincere egalitarianism/cosmopolitanism past a certain level of wealth and power. Epstein and his close associates seemed to view shared ethnic/religious affiliation as very important, and regularly joked about those that did not share those qualities.
The emails regarding Alice de Rothschild’s SAT scores indicate that, contra popular sentiment a while back, you really can’t buy a perfect SAT score no matter how many tutors you can afford. 550 reading and 520 math suggest that anyone painting the wealthiest and most powerful families as a reserve of extreme intelligence and competence is off base.
There’s very little subtlety or guile—Epstein talked to a Harvard law professor and even a board member of a Holocaust museum about his sex tourism habits very explicitly, with seemingly no concern for plausible deniability.
This implies that it’s just a random conversation between Epstein and a board member of the Holocaust museum, but the person you’re talking about was Epstein’s lawyer and they were discussing it in the context of his legal defense.
I’m unsurprised by the lack of evidence of other mass conspiracies.
Presumably, elites are smart enough to know to put certain information not into an email. There’s one episode where Epstein invites Elon Musk by saying:
any plans for ny . the opening of the genereal assembly has many interesting people coming to the house
Musk replies:
I run and lead product design/engineering for two complicated companies. Moreover, SpaceX is about to launch what is arguably the most advanced rocket in history. Flying to NY to see UN diplomats do nothing would be an unwise use of time.
do you think i am retarded, . ? just kidding , there is no one over 25 and all very cute
The law to release the files explicitly only asked the FBI to release their files and not the CIA to release theirs. At one time Epstein was doing a FOI to the CIA to ask them for CIA files about him and he was flying around in a former CIA jet, so the CIA probably does have files on him.
Not much. First of all there is a lot of algorithmic sensationalization around the content of these files. There are also a lot of financial incentives for victims to make claims up and for these claims to be amplified. Maybe pizza and grape soda are code, or maybe they are just random words that appear a few times in millions of files for whatever reason. I also already knew a lot of rich and powerful men were sex fiends. Presumably, given base rates of rape/pedophilia/etc. a percent of them were involved in those acts too.
e.g. If you dug around Bill Gates’s background even before Epstein, it’s apparent that he had many affairs with other women while he was married. People like Elon make it obvious. There were always secret sex parties in wealthy places.
What conclusions do people draw from the Epstein files about the global elite? It seems like a kind of interesting and amazing window into a huge swath of wealthy and powerful people.
I haven’t dug in that much yet, but so far I’m struck by how sleazy many of them seem and how rarely they push back against unethical behavior. And how bad at spelling and inarticulate people who, in other contexts, seem fairly intellectual (e.g. Larry Summers), are in their casual communications.
I’m unsurprised by the lack of evidence of other mass conspiracies.
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.
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.
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.
Childhood sexual abuse is actually closer to 12% https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11756604/
I’ve updated somewhat in the direction that conspiracies, especially illegal conspiracies, are more possible/likely than I originally thought.
Is there anything specific in the files that made you update or more the general feel of the media reporting?
Just the sheer number of prominent people he had connections with, including who likely saw him doing illegal and/or highly immoral activities. I previously had more the model that a) conspiracies are unlikely (“Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead”), especially in the age of modern information technology, and b) the rare conspiracies that are sustained do so through direct and substantial state support (black ops, government threats, etc). And while Epstein clearly had a lot of elite connections, it didn’t seem like the conspiracy was super-legible to the state as an entity, nor one that required a bunch of state interventions to sustain.
A substantial amount of the files are redacted, and there’s apparently a lot that hasn’t been released at all yet either. It’s hard to get a good idea of something if you can only see a small percentage of it, especially when that small percentage has been curated. Right now it feels kinda like going to North Korea, seeing a show village and declaring the country a rich and free democracy. The play looks great, and you’ll never know otherwise if you don’t get a look behind the curtains. And when the curtains do open, surprise there’s even more curtains!
And one of the big issues here is with trust. Maybe a redaction is personal information of a victim, or maybe it’s something else that needed to be covered up because it looked bad. The unknown is unknown after all. I’m not sure how much I can trust the Trump admin here at all when there’s already been multiple controversies with unwarranted redacting and the multiple u-turns that have already occured around the files, so “nothing to see behind the curtains” is not particularly convincing. At the very least the behavior has been very very suspicious.
There’s also some really interesting things to consider about the arguments around the files. One common claim was “if there was anything potentially damaging for Trump in them, why did the Biden admin not release it”. Now we know there is tons of stuff about Trump. Nothing that is definitive proof of criminal behavior, but things like the birthday book letter and accusations certainly seem like they could have been harmful for his campaign.
So now we’re stuck with “There is potentially damaging material about Trump in there, so why did the Biden admin not release it?”. Perhaps they’re more ethical than the argument makers thought and didn’t think it fair to leak those files. Or maybe there’s something that both admins don’t want revealed, whether it be a third party or a MAD scenario. I don’t know, but it again sure is weird!
Releasing the files would have damaged their legal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, and the final appeal didn’t get denied until Oct 2025.
Why do you think it would have damaged the case and made her getting her appeal through more likely? What argument do you think she could have made?
I might be deferring too much to other people on this, but my understanding is that releasing the files would make it easier for Maxwell to argue that she didn’t get a fair trial, since it would be impossible to find an unbiased jury, it would be obvious that the government was politicizing her case and potentially tilting the scales unfairly, and it would create risks with witnesses.
That’s not what the person you are linked to is saying. They are just claiming that the DOJ has a habit of not releasing their case files.
There’s no reason to assert that this habit just exist because of arguments about biasing the Jury, a stronger reason for that general habit is likely that releasing case files can sometimes bring evidence to light that was ignored at the trial and that makes the convicted person look innocent which isn’t what the DOJ wants. Prosecutors don’t want the defense to have access to all the evidence that can used to argue innocence.
Apart from that you wouldn’t need to open the full case file to selectively leak embarrassing information from it about Trump and/or start a case against Trump and put the victims accusing Trump on the stand.
I think what we learned about Bill Gates can be extrapolated to similar people, or at least raised as a possibility for them. Before the Epstein releases, pretty much everyone thought of him as dorky-but-broadly-well-intentioned, and the fact that he jumped at the chance to commit adultery and then attempted to conceal the resulting disease from his wife certainly blows a hole into that perception of him. I’d expect that many other publicly silly/wholesome rich people are likewise less than upstanding in their private behavior.
Aside from that, it does tell us a few more cultural things about the ruling class:
There’s very little stereotypical decorum in Epstein’s personal communications; he and his friends talk a lot more like edgy internet users than anything else.
There isn’t the increase in political sophistication that you’d expect to see. Epstein’s political emails, specifically those ranting about Trump later on, seem in line with the kind of thing I’d see from his age cohort on reddit, or facebook, or substack. No special insights; his brilliant plan to “get Trump” in the runup to 2020 involved running some unpopular figure who had zero voter overlap with him as a third party candidate.
There’s very little subtlety or guile—Epstein talked to a Harvard law professor and even a board member of a Holocaust museum about his sex tourism habits very explicitly, with seemingly no concern for plausible deniability.
There seems to be a sharp drop in sincere egalitarianism/cosmopolitanism past a certain level of wealth and power. Epstein and his close associates seemed to view shared ethnic/religious affiliation as very important, and regularly joked about those that did not share those qualities.
The emails regarding Alice de Rothschild’s SAT scores indicate that, contra popular sentiment a while back, you really can’t buy a perfect SAT score no matter how many tutors you can afford. 550 reading and 520 math suggest that anyone painting the wealthiest and most powerful families as a reserve of extreme intelligence and competence is off base.
This implies that it’s just a random conversation between Epstein and a board member of the Holocaust museum, but the person you’re talking about was Epstein’s lawyer and they were discussing it in the context of his legal defense.
Presumably, elites are smart enough to know to put certain information not into an email. There’s one episode where Epstein invites Elon Musk by saying:
Musk replies:
Epstein replies:
The law to release the files explicitly only asked the FBI to release their files and not the CIA to release theirs. At one time Epstein was doing a FOI to the CIA to ask them for CIA files about him and he was flying around in a former CIA jet, so the CIA probably does have files on him.
Not much. First of all there is a lot of algorithmic sensationalization around the content of these files. There are also a lot of financial incentives for victims to make claims up and for these claims to be amplified. Maybe pizza and grape soda are code, or maybe they are just random words that appear a few times in millions of files for whatever reason. I also already knew a lot of rich and powerful men were sex fiends. Presumably, given base rates of rape/pedophilia/etc. a percent of them were involved in those acts too.
e.g. If you dug around Bill Gates’s background even before Epstein, it’s apparent that he had many affairs with other women while he was married. People like Elon make it obvious. There were always secret sex parties in wealthy places.