Interesting but I think it misses the context. Your "frailty of power" and "green room" frameworks risk an overly charitable, apolitical reading by focusing on universal human insecurity.
Personally, giving this take is very close to giving sympathy to people who chose to be wealth addicts and status whores while doing heinous things. I have nothing but contempt for this class when they could do so much good with their wealth and power but mainly use it for self indulgence & screwing the masses over apart from the acts directly linked to Epstein. They can cry me a river.
A sharper lens is that of pathology, operational intelligence, and, critically, enforced conformity. The behavior you describe is less about shared vulnerability and more about the specific, amplified pathology of the power-wealth-status addicted, operating within a system of rigid social conformity. This isn't just individual frailty; it's the status anxiety, empathy erosion, and narcissistic supply-seeking endemic to an ultra-wealthy ecosystem, where deviation from the in-group's norms carries the ultimate social cost: exclusion or worse.
This conformity has two powerful aspects: "play along to get along" and groupthink. The first is the strategic, & personal—the conscious decision to suppress discomfort for fear of social or professional ostracism. Norman Finklestein basically told him to F#off. The second is the emergent, collective pathology that takes hold when everyone is playing along. In the insulated green room, the lack of dissenting voices creates a potent groupthink where Epstein's increasingly aberrant world could be rationalized as eccentricity, "how the game is played," or simply none of one's business. This wasn't passive conformity; it was an active, collusive silence born of status anxiety and enforced by group dynamics.
The "green room" wasn't just a sanctuary; it was a conformity-enforcing mechanism. The desire to belong, to be "in the know," and to receive validation from the only peers who matter created immense pressure to overlook red flags, accept abnormal behavior as "eccentricity," and participate in collective debauchery. This conformity bias is what allowed the "banality of evil" to flourish—it wasn't just mundane, it was mandatory for continued membership.
Crucially, this psychological and social landscape—fueled by conformity—was the perfect operating environment for something far more calculated. To separate the "banality of evil" from Epstein's "dark centre" misses the point: the banality was the tactical surface. The flattery, the networking, this was the essential camouflage and mechanism for what evidence suggests was a sophisticated intelligence honey trap operation. Investigative work, by Whitney Webb-now validated-and others places Epstein within a long history of state directed intelligence & blackmail, where kompromat is the product and influence is the goal.
Therefore, the elites' "frailty" and their compulsive conformity weren't just tragic flaws; they were the twin self-inflected vulnerabilities exploited in a strategic game. Their desperate need for in-group validation within your transnational green room blinded them to the fact that the room was a controlled enclosure, wired for sound and blackmail. The real story here is how extreme wealth cultivates a pathological in-group conformity & strategic immorality, which intelligence operations are expertly designed to infiltrate and weaponize. The true "frailty of power" is that the very mechanisms elites use to secure their status (conformity, exclusive networks) are the precise factors through which they become controlled. It's like talking about human frailty in the context of ADF soldiers having PSD no thanks.
Thanks for the insights Simon. I'm not sure this particular contradicts my point - human frailty plays into all the toxic dynamics you're pointing out. But I do appreciate you building out this picture, because of course in a short piece I can't go into every aspect of this and you bring up some very interesting lenses on this
By the way, you seem to imagine that I separate the 'banality of evil' layers from the core, but that's not my point - my point is that there is an entire sociological structure behind heinous stuff, and - yes - human vulnerability is a crucial part of it
One thing I'd ask is who is the 'they' you mention? We sometimes speak about this as if there is a hard cut-off point to these networks, but - as I point out - these networks are multi-layered an extend into all sorts of unlikely places. I originally built these intuitions when I worked in the financial sector, which - despite imaginations from the popular press - is actually a multi-cultural mixing pot with people from radically different backgrounds and different situations, so yes, I actually am inclined to be interested in the more human side of "people who chose to be wealth addicts and status whores". I understand your anger, but I don't think it's particularly useful if you're interested in trying to understand people
(also, the other reason I'm sometimes suspicious about the 'evil elite' story coming out from many people is that I hear it a lot from middle-class and upper middle class people, who - quite frankly - in the global scheme of things are part of the elite, and part of the same structures of complicity, albeit in a more watered down version)
You’re right — the network is multi-layered, and human frailty is a core part of the machinery. I don’t disagree that these dynamics extend far down into academia, media, and finance, and that many of us operate in watered‑down versions of the same status games.
But acknowledging that doesn’t flatten moral responsibility. It clarifies it. I strongly concur with C. Wright Mills here: there is a Power Elite — a tier where control over major institutions coalesces, where social, economic, and political command converges. That’s not a conspiracy; it’s a structure. And within that structure, psychological need meets undeniable agency.
Think of it like climate change. We can all reduce our footprint, but 100 companies account for over 70% of industrial emissions. The system — its infrastructure, subsidies, and policy locks — is built and maintained by a concentrated elite. The rest of us make choices inside a cage they designed.
Epstein’s world worked the same way. Yes, there were academics and journalists who engaged with him, initially out of vanity, careerism, or FOMO — that’s the “watered‑down complicity” you note, where ambition begins to blur ethical lines. But that’s just the entry point. The profound failure belongs to those who, once inside that orbit and confronted with its corrupt and predatory reality, chose to normalize it, excuse it, or leverage it for their own gain. They didn’t just reply to an email; they made an ongoing series of choices to value access over conscience. Their power wasn’t just greater in degree; it was different in kind. They didn’t just play the game — they helped protect the stadium. Chomsky has broken many hearts here.
This revision makes a clear distinction: one group exhibits a failure of judgment common in status-seeking environments. The second group—the true targets of your contempt—commits a failure of morality, using their significant power and position not to stop a monster, but to coexist with him for their own benefit. But at the top were people who could shape laws, silence investigations, and green‑light impunity. Their power wasn’t just greater in degree; it was different in kind. They didn’t just play the game — they owned the stadium.
So when you ask “who is ‘they’?” — it’s Mills’ tier: where status anxiety meets structural power. Their psychological need for validation and power trips is human, but expressing it through a system of abuse and blackmail — while having every resource to walk away — is where “frailty” becomes moral failure.
Let me be clear: my contempt isn’t a claim to innocence or moral superiority. It comes from a personal place as I don’t give myself excuses or sympathy so I won't do it here either. & as a vegan I strongly see most of humanity as hypocritical quasi-moral actors. Also I believe in enough for needs, not for greed. That’s my baseline. And from that view, watching those with vastly more than enough use their excess not for good, but to prey on the vulnerable and protect their own access, isn’t just weakness, it’s a profound, chosen moral failing & context power & degrees matter.
So we can trace the human motives without softening the reality: at or near the top were individuals who, when faced with a choice between conscience and access, chose access — and enabled monstrous acts. That’s not a tragedy of universal frailty. In this case it’s the failure of a powerful few. And that failure deserves to be named.
Having said that, the West under US hegemony has just become a criminogenic system enabled by many levels of society. So even without Epstein and his Israel-linked honeypot & money‑laundering operation, we would still have elites — and many of those lower on the ladder — on a path to take us over the collapse cliff.
By the way, I tried to contact you about your SDR speech and whether it still plays a part of your thinking. I’d like to run something by you about it.
Why would you want to "understand" these people? You should be angry. More than angry. We should all be tearing down every institution that these vile creatures have polluted. We should be setting up the guillotine in the public square and beheading these disgusting objects. I am not angry. I am incandescent with rage. We ALL should be.
Well I'll just ask you the same question I asked Simon. Who is the 'they' you talk about? My piece covers everyone from Noam Chomsky to Curtis Yarvin and Steve Bannon, and the point I was making didn't concern whether or not you should be angry or not, but how do you explain the fact that someone like Chomsky ends up talking to someone like Bannon
“They” are all those who when overtures were made or invites issued did not say “no”. Or at worst, once they saw what the green room was enabling, did not either report it, or denounce it. FFS! If you knew someone was organising the sort of abuse that Epstein was, would you hang around with him? Would you send him emails? It’s not that difficult a decision, surely?
As for why the ended up talking - once you are involved, you have a connection. They were all insiders, and wanted to continue to be, so their values, principles and morals were discarded. But, knowing how this sort of corruption happens is not “understanding” it. I don’t. I can see how, but I can’t ever get my head around why. I also feel that trying to work out why is immoral in itself. There can be no justification or excuse. I don’t want to hear why, I want to hear why they did NOT reject the whole dsigusting circus.
People like Bannon and Yarvin are grifters who have found a grift that works. That is all. There is nothing more profound than that. Grifters may exchange tips, and even admire others tricks. So they hang together on occasion. Chomsky and some of the others were marks. They were vain and easily flattered. Epstein’s circle was a grifter network which mixed marks with grifters, and sometimes the individuals were both. But studying these people too closely corrodes the soul.
I appreciate the fact that you're angry, but I think you should also appreciate the fact that you just have a different approach to me. I do think studying the ambiguities of power is important, and I don't think it's good enough to look at historical abuses (whether it's Epstein or the Nazis) and say 'these things happened because of evil people, and now I'm so angry!' I mean, you can say that, but unless your solution for society is simply to eliminate anyone you think is evil, you're not going to get very far with that
I am not personally angry. It’s more of a metaphorical fury. I am not saying that these things happen because of evil people. These things happen because weak, self-indulgent people get used by others that are psychopathic and manipulative. Evil is a religious concept that I don’t subscribe to. But that doesn’t mean that there are not things that are wrong that no weakness can excuse or justify. I happen to believe that we all should take personal responsibility for our actions. Everyone who said yes to Epstein is culpable. Should there be consequences? Yes. What should happen to them is not in my power.
It’s fine to try to take an outside stance, as if you are an observer studying humanity from space, so long as you realise that this is a pretence. You are a human with all the weaknesses and flaws and biases of any other human. Your explanantions have no power. Even if you explain how the Nazis arose, will that stop a similar event happening? Obviously not because we can all see several genocides happening AT THIS MOMENT. Will your analysis of Epstein and his network prevent more such networks, more such abuses? No. It does nothing except provide some intellectual stimulation.
Would killing everyone who showed psychopathic traits improve humanity? Possibly, but it would also be a pyschopathic action. We would become what we were trying to destroy. We need to create a society that keeps psychopaths in check, and reinforces moral behaviour while discouraging and diminishing immoral action. That’s what I think.
This is a fascinating read, and rings with a lot of truth... but it also makes it a little too easy to overlook the fact that the 'batshit fragiles' also get sucked out by a riptide into deep unchartered waters, where their bizarre power + narcisissm also brings along with it all kinds of potential bloodbaths, incl. rape, murder, mafioso behaviors, and geopolitical wars w/ gruesome-scale massacres and/or genocides...
"...they can use such a bank balance to express those vulnerabilities in the form of [...]"
...and gain access to and influence within the corridors of power, from which they can unleash real material harm on hundreds of thousands of people, out of revenge or spite for their own alienation.
But this is a good one, Brett, and I think you have indeed only just put a finger on something important and insightful here. I feel compelled to respond to something in just about every paragraph but I won't.
Instead I'll share this with you, if you haven't already seen it, because likewise DeBoer is onto something but the full picture eludes him. I think you are both talking about the same thing.
I like the way this shifts attention from elite omnipotence to elite vulnerability.
One thought it prompted for me is whether the loneliness you describe isn’t just a personal cost of power, but something the system quietly requires, a kind of social thinning that makes coordination and complicity easier to maintain.
The green room then isn’t just relief from pressure, but part of how the pressure is managed.
> There’s even something strangely endearing about the fact that the masters of the universe want to joke with each other, or send each other memes, or have selfies together.
Is there? Nazi elites also joked with each other, had photo moments together, or complained about the weather, just as they comitted unimaginable attrocities.
I also presume they drunk coffee, brushed their teeth, yawned, and did other stuff common folks do. Because the evil is not in what they have in common with the average Joe, but in the actions that they don't have in common.
> When looking at that table full of photos collected by Epstein (see above), you sense that while this super-connected power-broker was a master manipulator in a web of influence, he was also simultaneously like that kid who tries to get his status by being seen around the in-crowd, and placing himself in the middle of it.
Why, how else did any social climber get status, ever?
Sure, of course Nazi's did that, because Nazis were millions of random Germans from different backgrounds who ended up the same situation. I understand your disgust, but if we're at all interested in trying to understand why people do things, we have to go beyond 'they are evil'
Yeah, but I wrote "Nazi elites [did that too]" which narrows it down considerably from "millions of random Germans".
Agree about going beyond the "they are evil", but I read it as "see how endearingly similar to us they are" because they do some things everybody else does anyway. They ocassionally joked? They felt insecure about their status? That's a big club of 8 billion. What's really important in understanding them is what they did that most people don't and wont do. If status insecurity or "frailties elsewhere" made you do those things, billions would do those things.
Yes but note the second paragraph of the essay, where I talk about the economic system 'selecting' certain people. That system is an ecosystem, and there are only so many predators that are allowed in an ecosystem - even if 8 billion people tried to get into those top positions, it's systemically impossible.
It's true that one sub-text of this essay is 'elites are humans too', but the biggest sub-text for me is that the true power in our system does not lie in humans, but in complex structures that transcend individual people. The problem that 'evil elite' narratives have is precisely that they massively understate the power of the capitalist system itself, by imagining that the agency within it lies in these powerful individuals, when in reality it could be that the powerful individuals are mere pawns that simply go along for the ride
I realise that you are airing a particular take on this whole horrible setup, in an attempt to explain how people like Epstein operate and why people are pulled in to their orbit. As you say, its your substack and you can write what you want. My issue with it is that we already know what is wrong with our society, we just can't bring ourselves to change it. Mentioning the Nazis reinforces this, as the great promise of Nuremberg was "Never Again", yet we have had genocide after genocide, tyrant after tyrant, (neo)fascist after (neo)fascist, self-indulgent elite after self-indulgent elite, corrupt politician after corrupt politician, and wave after wave of exploitation, colonialism, abuse, mass murder, and extreme inequality. We have done the lessons, but we keep making the same mistakes. So, no I do not want to understand these people, I want to change the world so that such people no longer control it.
It may be part of the reason so many of the "elite" (can we not find a better word, one without the suggestion that these grotesques are 'better' than the rest of us) were attracted to hang around with this seedy, creepy manipulative pervert, but it doesn't explain the paedophilia, rape and sexual abuse they seemed happy to indulge in. A need to relax and be with "equals" could involve country walks, chats around the fire, a shared interest in philately, a game of billiards,even a book club - but, no, instead they relaxed by depravedly debauching other human beings.
There is something deeply wrong with a society whose so-called "elite" choose to behave like this. Those b*ast*rds don't get off with "they were lonely". All humans are lonely, and a large reason for it is the lowest-common-denominator race-to-the-bottom greed-is-good exploitative economic system we have allowed to dissolve our culture into an empty frenzy of consumption in a desperate and obviously futile search for fulfilment. Who are the biggest proponents, and seeming beneficiaries of this vapid system? These ghouls. Soulless and hollow but striding the world on their jets and yachts as if they have found the answer, while in truth they are wondering why if they have so much they still have this vacuum inside, and it seems to grow as fast as they find things to cram into it. It is all a pretence, but its real effects are destroying the world and everyone and everything in it.
It seems in many ways that you're agreeing with the second paragraph of my article, in which I point out that our system exploits people's weak point and - yes - turns them into 'ghouls' who, having become deeply alienated from themselves and the world, have to fill that void with stuff, power etc
Also, for the record, the essay never claims to explain every aspect of elite pathology, so of course you cannot explain rape etc through the lens of elite loneliness (Also, rape and sexual violence is a far more endemic and widespread problem that extends beyond the elites of society, and beyond capitalist systems too, so coming to a full understanding of toxic male violence requires going beyond analysis of elites)
But surely the key point about Epstein is what his circle did. Not that there was this network of influence that crossed many boundaries. Those undoubtedly exist widely and most of them we never hear about. We heard about this one BECAUSE of the specific things they did. That’s essential to the whole scandal. There was a conspiracy of the rich and powerful to cover up the abuse of women and girls is why we are talking about it. If it were just a conspiracy to share contacts and exchange ideas - so what else is new?
I'd just like to draw your attention to the subtitle of the article, which explicitly sets out that I'm simply exploring elite loneliness as a topic, and I'm not claiming to explain anything else. If you want to see a different article, then fine, but on my Substack I do get to choose what things I want to explore, and I personally do happen to think it's super important to also draw broader lessons about elite connectivity that are more 'banal' than the 'abhorrent core of sexual abuse' that I explicitly mentioned in the openings sections
I think your theory about the green room is useful, but I don’t think it explains why the group did the particular things they did. It is those particular things which have led to all the subsequent fallout. So, while interesting, it seems to me to be missing the real point.
Sorry, the sentence was a mess, i retry: Loneliness goes to the rich like to the poor, money don't buy peer's company/relation/recognition/appretiation/approval/ "friendly mirror".
Interesting but I think it misses the context. Your "frailty of power" and "green room" frameworks risk an overly charitable, apolitical reading by focusing on universal human insecurity.
Personally, giving this take is very close to giving sympathy to people who chose to be wealth addicts and status whores while doing heinous things. I have nothing but contempt for this class when they could do so much good with their wealth and power but mainly use it for self indulgence & screwing the masses over apart from the acts directly linked to Epstein. They can cry me a river.
A sharper lens is that of pathology, operational intelligence, and, critically, enforced conformity. The behavior you describe is less about shared vulnerability and more about the specific, amplified pathology of the power-wealth-status addicted, operating within a system of rigid social conformity. This isn't just individual frailty; it's the status anxiety, empathy erosion, and narcissistic supply-seeking endemic to an ultra-wealthy ecosystem, where deviation from the in-group's norms carries the ultimate social cost: exclusion or worse.
This conformity has two powerful aspects: "play along to get along" and groupthink. The first is the strategic, & personal—the conscious decision to suppress discomfort for fear of social or professional ostracism. Norman Finklestein basically told him to F#off. The second is the emergent, collective pathology that takes hold when everyone is playing along. In the insulated green room, the lack of dissenting voices creates a potent groupthink where Epstein's increasingly aberrant world could be rationalized as eccentricity, "how the game is played," or simply none of one's business. This wasn't passive conformity; it was an active, collusive silence born of status anxiety and enforced by group dynamics.
The "green room" wasn't just a sanctuary; it was a conformity-enforcing mechanism. The desire to belong, to be "in the know," and to receive validation from the only peers who matter created immense pressure to overlook red flags, accept abnormal behavior as "eccentricity," and participate in collective debauchery. This conformity bias is what allowed the "banality of evil" to flourish—it wasn't just mundane, it was mandatory for continued membership.
Crucially, this psychological and social landscape—fueled by conformity—was the perfect operating environment for something far more calculated. To separate the "banality of evil" from Epstein's "dark centre" misses the point: the banality was the tactical surface. The flattery, the networking, this was the essential camouflage and mechanism for what evidence suggests was a sophisticated intelligence honey trap operation. Investigative work, by Whitney Webb-now validated-and others places Epstein within a long history of state directed intelligence & blackmail, where kompromat is the product and influence is the goal.
Therefore, the elites' "frailty" and their compulsive conformity weren't just tragic flaws; they were the twin self-inflected vulnerabilities exploited in a strategic game. Their desperate need for in-group validation within your transnational green room blinded them to the fact that the room was a controlled enclosure, wired for sound and blackmail. The real story here is how extreme wealth cultivates a pathological in-group conformity & strategic immorality, which intelligence operations are expertly designed to infiltrate and weaponize. The true "frailty of power" is that the very mechanisms elites use to secure their status (conformity, exclusive networks) are the precise factors through which they become controlled. It's like talking about human frailty in the context of ADF soldiers having PSD no thanks.
Thanks for the insights Simon. I'm not sure this particular contradicts my point - human frailty plays into all the toxic dynamics you're pointing out. But I do appreciate you building out this picture, because of course in a short piece I can't go into every aspect of this and you bring up some very interesting lenses on this
By the way, you seem to imagine that I separate the 'banality of evil' layers from the core, but that's not my point - my point is that there is an entire sociological structure behind heinous stuff, and - yes - human vulnerability is a crucial part of it
One thing I'd ask is who is the 'they' you mention? We sometimes speak about this as if there is a hard cut-off point to these networks, but - as I point out - these networks are multi-layered an extend into all sorts of unlikely places. I originally built these intuitions when I worked in the financial sector, which - despite imaginations from the popular press - is actually a multi-cultural mixing pot with people from radically different backgrounds and different situations, so yes, I actually am inclined to be interested in the more human side of "people who chose to be wealth addicts and status whores". I understand your anger, but I don't think it's particularly useful if you're interested in trying to understand people
(also, the other reason I'm sometimes suspicious about the 'evil elite' story coming out from many people is that I hear it a lot from middle-class and upper middle class people, who - quite frankly - in the global scheme of things are part of the elite, and part of the same structures of complicity, albeit in a more watered down version)
You’re right — the network is multi-layered, and human frailty is a core part of the machinery. I don’t disagree that these dynamics extend far down into academia, media, and finance, and that many of us operate in watered‑down versions of the same status games.
But acknowledging that doesn’t flatten moral responsibility. It clarifies it. I strongly concur with C. Wright Mills here: there is a Power Elite — a tier where control over major institutions coalesces, where social, economic, and political command converges. That’s not a conspiracy; it’s a structure. And within that structure, psychological need meets undeniable agency.
Think of it like climate change. We can all reduce our footprint, but 100 companies account for over 70% of industrial emissions. The system — its infrastructure, subsidies, and policy locks — is built and maintained by a concentrated elite. The rest of us make choices inside a cage they designed.
Epstein’s world worked the same way. Yes, there were academics and journalists who engaged with him, initially out of vanity, careerism, or FOMO — that’s the “watered‑down complicity” you note, where ambition begins to blur ethical lines. But that’s just the entry point. The profound failure belongs to those who, once inside that orbit and confronted with its corrupt and predatory reality, chose to normalize it, excuse it, or leverage it for their own gain. They didn’t just reply to an email; they made an ongoing series of choices to value access over conscience. Their power wasn’t just greater in degree; it was different in kind. They didn’t just play the game — they helped protect the stadium. Chomsky has broken many hearts here.
This revision makes a clear distinction: one group exhibits a failure of judgment common in status-seeking environments. The second group—the true targets of your contempt—commits a failure of morality, using their significant power and position not to stop a monster, but to coexist with him for their own benefit. But at the top were people who could shape laws, silence investigations, and green‑light impunity. Their power wasn’t just greater in degree; it was different in kind. They didn’t just play the game — they owned the stadium.
So when you ask “who is ‘they’?” — it’s Mills’ tier: where status anxiety meets structural power. Their psychological need for validation and power trips is human, but expressing it through a system of abuse and blackmail — while having every resource to walk away — is where “frailty” becomes moral failure.
Let me be clear: my contempt isn’t a claim to innocence or moral superiority. It comes from a personal place as I don’t give myself excuses or sympathy so I won't do it here either. & as a vegan I strongly see most of humanity as hypocritical quasi-moral actors. Also I believe in enough for needs, not for greed. That’s my baseline. And from that view, watching those with vastly more than enough use their excess not for good, but to prey on the vulnerable and protect their own access, isn’t just weakness, it’s a profound, chosen moral failing & context power & degrees matter.
So we can trace the human motives without softening the reality: at or near the top were individuals who, when faced with a choice between conscience and access, chose access — and enabled monstrous acts. That’s not a tragedy of universal frailty. In this case it’s the failure of a powerful few. And that failure deserves to be named.
Having said that, the West under US hegemony has just become a criminogenic system enabled by many levels of society. So even without Epstein and his Israel-linked honeypot & money‑laundering operation, we would still have elites — and many of those lower on the ladder — on a path to take us over the collapse cliff.
By the way, I tried to contact you about your SDR speech and whether it still plays a part of your thinking. I’d like to run something by you about it.
My best,
Simon
Why would you want to "understand" these people? You should be angry. More than angry. We should all be tearing down every institution that these vile creatures have polluted. We should be setting up the guillotine in the public square and beheading these disgusting objects. I am not angry. I am incandescent with rage. We ALL should be.
Well I'll just ask you the same question I asked Simon. Who is the 'they' you talk about? My piece covers everyone from Noam Chomsky to Curtis Yarvin and Steve Bannon, and the point I was making didn't concern whether or not you should be angry or not, but how do you explain the fact that someone like Chomsky ends up talking to someone like Bannon
“They” are all those who when overtures were made or invites issued did not say “no”. Or at worst, once they saw what the green room was enabling, did not either report it, or denounce it. FFS! If you knew someone was organising the sort of abuse that Epstein was, would you hang around with him? Would you send him emails? It’s not that difficult a decision, surely?
As for why the ended up talking - once you are involved, you have a connection. They were all insiders, and wanted to continue to be, so their values, principles and morals were discarded. But, knowing how this sort of corruption happens is not “understanding” it. I don’t. I can see how, but I can’t ever get my head around why. I also feel that trying to work out why is immoral in itself. There can be no justification or excuse. I don’t want to hear why, I want to hear why they did NOT reject the whole dsigusting circus.
People like Bannon and Yarvin are grifters who have found a grift that works. That is all. There is nothing more profound than that. Grifters may exchange tips, and even admire others tricks. So they hang together on occasion. Chomsky and some of the others were marks. They were vain and easily flattered. Epstein’s circle was a grifter network which mixed marks with grifters, and sometimes the individuals were both. But studying these people too closely corrodes the soul.
I appreciate the fact that you're angry, but I think you should also appreciate the fact that you just have a different approach to me. I do think studying the ambiguities of power is important, and I don't think it's good enough to look at historical abuses (whether it's Epstein or the Nazis) and say 'these things happened because of evil people, and now I'm so angry!' I mean, you can say that, but unless your solution for society is simply to eliminate anyone you think is evil, you're not going to get very far with that
I am not personally angry. It’s more of a metaphorical fury. I am not saying that these things happen because of evil people. These things happen because weak, self-indulgent people get used by others that are psychopathic and manipulative. Evil is a religious concept that I don’t subscribe to. But that doesn’t mean that there are not things that are wrong that no weakness can excuse or justify. I happen to believe that we all should take personal responsibility for our actions. Everyone who said yes to Epstein is culpable. Should there be consequences? Yes. What should happen to them is not in my power.
It’s fine to try to take an outside stance, as if you are an observer studying humanity from space, so long as you realise that this is a pretence. You are a human with all the weaknesses and flaws and biases of any other human. Your explanantions have no power. Even if you explain how the Nazis arose, will that stop a similar event happening? Obviously not because we can all see several genocides happening AT THIS MOMENT. Will your analysis of Epstein and his network prevent more such networks, more such abuses? No. It does nothing except provide some intellectual stimulation.
Would killing everyone who showed psychopathic traits improve humanity? Possibly, but it would also be a pyschopathic action. We would become what we were trying to destroy. We need to create a society that keeps psychopaths in check, and reinforces moral behaviour while discouraging and diminishing immoral action. That’s what I think.
This is a fascinating read, and rings with a lot of truth... but it also makes it a little too easy to overlook the fact that the 'batshit fragiles' also get sucked out by a riptide into deep unchartered waters, where their bizarre power + narcisissm also brings along with it all kinds of potential bloodbaths, incl. rape, murder, mafioso behaviors, and geopolitical wars w/ gruesome-scale massacres and/or genocides...
Sure, but that's part of the point - they do
"...they can use such a bank balance to express those vulnerabilities in the form of [...]"
...and gain access to and influence within the corridors of power, from which they can unleash real material harm on hundreds of thousands of people, out of revenge or spite for their own alienation.
But this is a good one, Brett, and I think you have indeed only just put a finger on something important and insightful here. I feel compelled to respond to something in just about every paragraph but I won't.
Instead I'll share this with you, if you haven't already seen it, because likewise DeBoer is onto something but the full picture eludes him. I think you are both talking about the same thing.
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/constituent-parts-of-a-theory-of
That looks really interesting - thanks Kermit! I'll put on my reading list
I like the way this shifts attention from elite omnipotence to elite vulnerability.
One thought it prompted for me is whether the loneliness you describe isn’t just a personal cost of power, but something the system quietly requires, a kind of social thinning that makes coordination and complicity easier to maintain.
The green room then isn’t just relief from pressure, but part of how the pressure is managed.
Glad you like it. And yes, I'd buy that argument - really interesting idea!
> There’s even something strangely endearing about the fact that the masters of the universe want to joke with each other, or send each other memes, or have selfies together.
Is there? Nazi elites also joked with each other, had photo moments together, or complained about the weather, just as they comitted unimaginable attrocities.
I also presume they drunk coffee, brushed their teeth, yawned, and did other stuff common folks do. Because the evil is not in what they have in common with the average Joe, but in the actions that they don't have in common.
> When looking at that table full of photos collected by Epstein (see above), you sense that while this super-connected power-broker was a master manipulator in a web of influence, he was also simultaneously like that kid who tries to get his status by being seen around the in-crowd, and placing himself in the middle of it.
Why, how else did any social climber get status, ever?
Sure, of course Nazi's did that, because Nazis were millions of random Germans from different backgrounds who ended up the same situation. I understand your disgust, but if we're at all interested in trying to understand why people do things, we have to go beyond 'they are evil'
Yeah, but I wrote "Nazi elites [did that too]" which narrows it down considerably from "millions of random Germans".
Agree about going beyond the "they are evil", but I read it as "see how endearingly similar to us they are" because they do some things everybody else does anyway. They ocassionally joked? They felt insecure about their status? That's a big club of 8 billion. What's really important in understanding them is what they did that most people don't and wont do. If status insecurity or "frailties elsewhere" made you do those things, billions would do those things.
Yes but note the second paragraph of the essay, where I talk about the economic system 'selecting' certain people. That system is an ecosystem, and there are only so many predators that are allowed in an ecosystem - even if 8 billion people tried to get into those top positions, it's systemically impossible.
It's true that one sub-text of this essay is 'elites are humans too', but the biggest sub-text for me is that the true power in our system does not lie in humans, but in complex structures that transcend individual people. The problem that 'evil elite' narratives have is precisely that they massively understate the power of the capitalist system itself, by imagining that the agency within it lies in these powerful individuals, when in reality it could be that the powerful individuals are mere pawns that simply go along for the ride
I realise that you are airing a particular take on this whole horrible setup, in an attempt to explain how people like Epstein operate and why people are pulled in to their orbit. As you say, its your substack and you can write what you want. My issue with it is that we already know what is wrong with our society, we just can't bring ourselves to change it. Mentioning the Nazis reinforces this, as the great promise of Nuremberg was "Never Again", yet we have had genocide after genocide, tyrant after tyrant, (neo)fascist after (neo)fascist, self-indulgent elite after self-indulgent elite, corrupt politician after corrupt politician, and wave after wave of exploitation, colonialism, abuse, mass murder, and extreme inequality. We have done the lessons, but we keep making the same mistakes. So, no I do not want to understand these people, I want to change the world so that such people no longer control it.
Btw there's no "we" either. It's just bunch of random dudes on substack.
In summary a horseshoe of left and right storytellers (Harari) exchanging notes on how to get followers
It may be part of the reason so many of the "elite" (can we not find a better word, one without the suggestion that these grotesques are 'better' than the rest of us) were attracted to hang around with this seedy, creepy manipulative pervert, but it doesn't explain the paedophilia, rape and sexual abuse they seemed happy to indulge in. A need to relax and be with "equals" could involve country walks, chats around the fire, a shared interest in philately, a game of billiards,even a book club - but, no, instead they relaxed by depravedly debauching other human beings.
There is something deeply wrong with a society whose so-called "elite" choose to behave like this. Those b*ast*rds don't get off with "they were lonely". All humans are lonely, and a large reason for it is the lowest-common-denominator race-to-the-bottom greed-is-good exploitative economic system we have allowed to dissolve our culture into an empty frenzy of consumption in a desperate and obviously futile search for fulfilment. Who are the biggest proponents, and seeming beneficiaries of this vapid system? These ghouls. Soulless and hollow but striding the world on their jets and yachts as if they have found the answer, while in truth they are wondering why if they have so much they still have this vacuum inside, and it seems to grow as fast as they find things to cram into it. It is all a pretence, but its real effects are destroying the world and everyone and everything in it.
It seems in many ways that you're agreeing with the second paragraph of my article, in which I point out that our system exploits people's weak point and - yes - turns them into 'ghouls' who, having become deeply alienated from themselves and the world, have to fill that void with stuff, power etc
Also, for the record, the essay never claims to explain every aspect of elite pathology, so of course you cannot explain rape etc through the lens of elite loneliness (Also, rape and sexual violence is a far more endemic and widespread problem that extends beyond the elites of society, and beyond capitalist systems too, so coming to a full understanding of toxic male violence requires going beyond analysis of elites)
But surely the key point about Epstein is what his circle did. Not that there was this network of influence that crossed many boundaries. Those undoubtedly exist widely and most of them we never hear about. We heard about this one BECAUSE of the specific things they did. That’s essential to the whole scandal. There was a conspiracy of the rich and powerful to cover up the abuse of women and girls is why we are talking about it. If it were just a conspiracy to share contacts and exchange ideas - so what else is new?
I'd just like to draw your attention to the subtitle of the article, which explicitly sets out that I'm simply exploring elite loneliness as a topic, and I'm not claiming to explain anything else. If you want to see a different article, then fine, but on my Substack I do get to choose what things I want to explore, and I personally do happen to think it's super important to also draw broader lessons about elite connectivity that are more 'banal' than the 'abhorrent core of sexual abuse' that I explicitly mentioned in the openings sections
I think your theory about the green room is useful, but I don’t think it explains why the group did the particular things they did. It is those particular things which have led to all the subsequent fallout. So, while interesting, it seems to me to be missing the real point.
Loneliness doesn't accept bakshish to "leave you alone"
Explain?
Sorry, the sentence was a mess, i retry: Loneliness goes to the rich like to the poor, money don't buy peer's company/relation/recognition/appretiation/approval/ "friendly mirror".
It was just a synthesis of your nice monologue.
Ah yes. As Bob Marley said 'some people are so poor, all they have is money'