This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Especially the fundraising/VC space where once somebody is identified as rich and open as a possible source of investment, everybody will beat a path to their door and be as convivial as possible to try and extract some of the sweet techbux. Sure Epstein had a rich seam of interest in whoremonging but he was also a billionaire who was incredibly connected
The reallll interesting questions come from how he became a billionaire and how he got those initial connections.
Its possible that he managed to social-proof his way into elite circles and was exceptionally good at convincing rich people he had a magic touch.
It is very, VERY rare for someone to become a 'legitimate' billionaire without starting a company that takes off to success/getting early equity in a startup, or being a famed celebrity who leverages their image heavily.
He did neither of those.
Which suggests (to me) some sort of organized criminal enterprise as the last likely option. And virtually no such enterprise can operate at such levels without either intimidating, buying/bribing, or being tacitly approved by some government entity.
So I dunno, what hypotheses do we have for how he bootstrapped the connections and billions whilst leaving very, very little trail of how he did it.
Epstein was a millionaire, not a billionaire.
Secondly, There is a very large, very ordinary gray zone of questionable to even illegal wealth portfolio that does not require a "global child sex trafficking" conspiracy to explain.
His connections begin to make sense when you treat "the elites" in his orbit as ordinary human beings capable of stupidity, vanity, and bad judgment than as a cold, coordinated hivemind operating from the top floor of Evil Inc.
Both "victims" and "connections" tell us he was an ambitious smooth talker who was super duper good at attaching himself to powerful people and making them feel like they were getting something valuable. His knowledge about the architecture of modern finance was impressive, we're told. Combine his knack for sociability with above average intelligence and it's easy to see why men like Chomsky would be charmed by him.
Charisma is the ability to get someone to do what they would not otherwise do. That is a higher-base-rate explanation for things like the Wexner relationship than a sophisticated, government tolerated and Mossad-led blackmail enterprise that somehow left almost no operational footprint. At least nothing to actually.... convict any of his friends.
And this is an age where such large scale, systematic trafficking and blackmail of the kind imagined would generate multipple records, witnesses, communications, financial trails, opportunistic leaks and competing incentives among so-called participants. To me, that's a much harder sell than a disordered, opportunistic socialite who climbed socially, engaged in some illegal sexual activity with underage girls (personally), and left behind a mess that looks more chaotic than engineered.
Gotta be specific when there's 3 orders of magnitude of space there.
He was alleged at $600 million at the time of his death, although that surely fluctuated a lot, although much of that wasn't liquid. He worked hard to keep it from public disclosure throughout his legal process.
That's a HUGE amount to reach if you start from the bottom. I reserve some probability for a series of 'lucky' trades. A dude in New York in the '90's and early 2000s could stumble around and turn 10 million into 200 if he had some pure luck and a little bit of finagling the system.
But I find some form of massive insider trading to be the most likely way to bootstrap whatever seed money he obtained into the secretive empire he actually did create.
And yet, if he was really insider trading for decades you'd expect him to probably get even richer than he apparently was. So the part where I go out on a limb for real is the assumption that much of his wealth did not actually belong to him and was occasionally siphoned off for other purposes.
Plausible, but also what one might expect people to say to slough off some blame and avoid further investigation. It is 'proven' that plenty of important people he associated with stayed quiet about whatever activity they observed, for a long time, so he sure used some method to keep things under wraps.
Its not proof that "EVERYONE WAS IN ON IT!" but it suggests some unifying factor keeping people from commenting. Similar to the Diddy situation. One guy was the nexus of a whole ton of bad behavior, and virtually nobody of import was willing to be the one to break omerta for years and years (except 50 Cent that glorious bastard). And Diddy is like an inverse Epstein in that he was CONSTANTLY seeking public attention.
The thing is IT DID generate such records, there were various leaks and both victims and staffers occasionally coming forward to add details, although it was mostly about the sex trafficking stuff.
The problem being that the financial trails are the ones that we've gotten very little insight to, and have been kept particularly secret... which is where I think the meat of the actual conspiracy would be found.
And being clear, I don't believe that blackmail was the primary goal of anything he did. If intelligence agencies want Kompromat on someone, they have a bajillion other ways to get it.
My theory is that he ended up as the nexus/fall guy of some kind of slush fund for, at a guess, one or multiple state intelligence agencies. Maybe Mossad, CIA, or whatever. A 'good' way to launder and multiply such a fund would be aggressive but secretive insider trading or similar 'inside' deals. His initial appearance/rise happened right around The Iran-Contra affair. No I am not alleging a connection there, just illustrating that we have an existence proof of this sort of conspiracy. A good way to keep such deals and talks 'off the books' it to have them in person. ESPECIALLY on a plane or island you control to minimize surveillance and eavesdropping risk. If you want to convince a VIP with insider knowledge to make an in-person appearance, a good inducement is promising sexually available young women. That some of them are underage by a couple years helps to align the incentives against mentioning the meeting. Basically, get people with specialized knowledge on your plane and on your island, show them a good time, and insinuate they ought not disclose anything that was done or discussed. Pump out insider information that you can then trade on to keep the piggy bank topped off.
I agree he was indulging his own personal proclivities, but I also think that was his recruitment pipeline so as to have such girls available on short notice.
I am not convinced that he was doing everything with primary motivation of maintaining his own lifestyle at that level indefinitely. At some point, it would be easier to 'retire' to Eastern Europe or Thailand or something if you just want to molest teenage girls constantly with minimal risk.
I do not go all the way down the "satanic child sacrifice rites and adrenochrome harvesting" rabbit hole. I'm trying to avoid too large a complexity penalty.
I point as another piece of evidence to this:
Ghislaine Maxwell's ability to remain hidden for a relatively long time. It makes very little sense that she would be able to orchestrate the creation of various shell companies, buy a huge property, hire and maintain armed security, and otherwise maintain her cover without the assistance of competent third parties to act on her behalf. Suffice it to say I entirely DISBELIEVE she's enough of a mastermind to pull if off through only her own volition.
The fact that she's still alive is, to me, conditional proof (conditional on such a conspiracy existing) that things have 'moved on' and there's very little she can do to disrupt their current activities.
So in short, I think his 'secret sauce' was insider trading, funded by Gov't agencies that needed off-books ways to make and clean money, and he was a reliable and controllable asset, with proven ability to ingratiate to otherwise hard targets to extract information they used for rapid financial gains, and maintaining an image of elusive megarich eccentric playboy was in fact good cover for moving large sums of money around without raising eyebrows. Indulging his proclivities was both part of his tactics, and a good way to keep him in line, and thus 'they' stuck a thumb on the scale when lesser government agencies tried to snag him for the sex stuff.
That last part really is the most compelling for me. It remains unclear why else he'd have gotten such a sweetheart deal when he was pretty well dead to rights on various serious charges, and other wealthy dudes in the area were sent to prison despite aggressive efforts to avoid it.
But if he really just a charismatic manipulator who did it all for the love of the game, by and large, I'd still want to know that truth because holy cow that's some dedication, the psychology of such a person has to be fascinating.
And you still don't need a conspiratorial explanation for this. In private wealth management, especially when one ultra high net worth client dominates the book, the gap between “assets under management,” “assets under control,” and “personal net worth” is routinely large and not so transparent. Confusing the three is how the mythology gets built.
Why? It's not a video game score. Returns are consumed, diversified, parked in illiquid assets, spent on lifestyle, used to maintain the social machinery that generated the access, or simply not compounded at the theoretical maximum. A person can extract large sums over time and still end up with a mid-to-high 9-figure estate rather than a clean, ever growing billion dollar balance.
Again, assets under management, assets under control, and personal beneficial ownership are different things. An asset manager with broad discretion over a principal’s non-core assets can live extremely well, direct capital, and accumulate personal wealth through fees and extraction without those assets ever being “his” in a balance sheet sense. You do not need a siphoning conspiracy to explain the gap between apparent power over money and audited personal net worth.
People stay quiet for ordinary reasons. Reputational risk, civil liability, not knowing the full scope, and simple conflict avoidance. This is not unique to "Epstein friends".
Take it from a CA, the absence of a clean, public track record of investment returns is not the smoking gun you might think it is. Many private managers never publish audited, strategy-level performance. When the client is one dominant principal who has granted broad authority, the usual external checks are weaker still. That creates room for both scummy but legal fee capture and for misappropriation.
This is retrofitting a few nothingburgers. If you take every awkward fact, supply the most elaborate remaining narrative that can absorb them, and treat the absence of contradiction as support, BOOM. A very coherent conspiracy. Aggressive, secretive insider trading run for the benefit of one or more state agencies is possible in principle. It is also an extremely complex, high risk activity. Professional intelligence services already have established channels for moving and growing covert funds. Inserting a flamboyant, sexually reckless, attention seeking private operator as the central node adds operational risk without obvious compensating advantage.
Two of the four witnesses in the Maxwell trial, Annie Farmer and Anouska De Georgiou, were found NOT to have suffered illegal sexual activity. Check out this whole thread and the links within the comment.
They did not have him dead to rights. Many of the encounters involved teenagers who were themselves part of the recruiting network. Many of them admitted to lying about being 18 and also instructed the new recruits to lie as well. That creates credibility and motivation issues at trial. Witnesses who were paid, who brought others, who gave changing accounts, or who had their own exposure. The lead detective’s later deposition makes the difficulty explicit:
Then there was the difficulty of reconstructing specific acts years later, and the risk that a jury would see a messy, transactional, partially consensual-appearing activity rather than the forced commercial enterprise the more serious statutes contemplate. The case wasn't unwinnable, but not without risks. Prosecutors genuinely feared Epstein might get an acquittal in 2007. So what happened 12 years later? The Trafficking Victims Protection Act became more elastic and more aggressively used in the intervening years. Witness availability, civil litigation, and political attention had also changed.
Finally, the NPA was hardly a "sweetheart" deal. Sex offender registry is not a gentle slap on the wrist, not in Florida of all places. It restricts housing, employment, travel, and ordinary social life in general. Sure, he was not yet the global symbol he became after 2019, but the relevant circles already knew him as a rich man who had taken a sex offense plea involving minors and was required to register. That status limited certain forms of respectability even if it did not expel him from every elite room.
More options
Context Copy link
My take is that he was just stupid. Norms were different. The girls consistently say they claimed to be 18. He was reckless and didn't check IDs well. Often they brought fake IDs. I think he thought he wasn't going to get caught. Then when he did he correctly predicted he would get a reasonable, survivable sentence, since it was 2008 and nobody was woke yet. He then failed to predict the government would betray him after radical feminism leveled up over the next 10 years. Ghislaine Maxwell failed to predict she would be the next target. As a French citizen, all she had to do was fly to France when Epstein was arrested and move several million to a French account and be content to hang out with Polanski for the rest of her life. Nope. She thought the media was the only thing to fear so she hid out in New Hampshire with some security guards. She must have been surprised when she found out the United States is no longer the «free country» she grew up in through the harsh reality of the cuffs going on and never coming off. My only conclusion is they were boomers that thought they had freedom and still lived in 1976. At this point Europe may be poorer but it is substantially freer.
Only on this one axis (of dubious value IMO). They don't have free speech, guns, or a Fourth/Fifth Amendment.
I believe this is a big part of the axis we are discussing, and they have better privacy and due process in most countries than the US now. Many European countries have guns (as if that's important), and they have almost as much free speech as the US. I will say the US wins on free speech due to only the topic of HBD and no other topic, although that can be done remotely so doesn't matter. Just do your free speech in English from US servers while living in Europe if talking about race is really that important (That's the only topic they lose on in free speech). Fun fact is most of the HBD intellectual sphere is based in Europe and, there are no hate speech arrests, in part because they do this.
No, (some) European nations also suppress political speech and straight-up ban specific political parties in a way the United States does not. They restrict religious speech and religious expression, and some of them heavily restrict or ban home education. They objectively restrict firearms more heavily than in the United States, and they also generally have higher tax burdens. I'm not even sure you are as correct about privacy as you think – while Europe loves to talk about the GDPR, my understanding is that their government-run CCTV networks are generally much more developed than the ones in the United States. And likewise my understanding is that in some European countries (e.g. Poland or Italy) a judge is not required to sign off on a warrant - a prosecutor can do that, which would be considered a very alarming breach of due process in the English tradition. Some European nations also have mandatory conscription, which is a practical imposition on freedom even if you do not consider it a principled one.
I also am skeptical that you are as correct as you think about European attitudes towards sexuality. Looking at Germany, the UK, France, Spain, Italy, and Poland, all of them except for Italy set the final age of consent at 18, and Italy sets it at 16 (which is the age of consent in many US states). It is true that Germany, Italy, France, and Poland all shave a year or two [edit to clarify: off of 16] off in many circumstances, but I don't think it is as much of a free-for-all as you might think (for instance, as per Wikipedia, "while the age of consent is 14 in Germany, it is illegal for a person over 21 to engage in sexual activity with a person under 16 if the activity exploits the inexperience of the younger person"). I suspect that these laws are likely written to avoid entrapping teenagers, not to allow middle-aged men to hook up with 15-year olds risk-free, even if Europe is often generally more "sex positive" than in the United States.
It is true that the level of freedom in the US (and Europe) can vary tremendously, depending on where you are, and I'm not trying to minimize that. But as far as I can tell, your gloss is directionally wrong. Where I think Europe as a whole probably has a comparative advantage versus the United States is in consumer rights.
This is a reasonable age of consent law, while the United States has a completely unreasonable set of laws. Despite the inability of the United States to pass a reasonable law, they also enforce it with shameless vigor and severity. I don't believe Epstein or Maxwell could be prosecuted in Europe. If they were, they would probably be out within a few years.
Yes well, that's not my assessment of French law at least, given what I have read in French on the discourse regarding the topic there. But that's besides the point. To Americans it's just other teenagers and middle aged men. The laws are actually incredibly lax for middle aged men in the United States, Epstein aside. They can do almost anything with a little 18 year old 30 years their junior, whom they are the professor of and so on. What about young men? Americans hate young men and their laws are designed practically to criminalize them on this topic. Epstein yet again is a red herring. There is a statistic that 70% of age of consent cases in the United States involve men under 25 with girls over the age of 14. These cases just don't exist in most of Europe. They're the majority of cases in the United States. Per POSIWID, it's hard not to say that the purpose of United States enforcement of these laws is just to terrorize young men trying to date. It's gotten so bad that 18 year olds are scared to date 17 year olds in many places, because of the general air of terrorism the government puts out on the topic (not every normie 18 year old is going to consult a lawyer to find out about his local Romeo and Juliet laws, the terrorism in the media is what will influence him).
More options
Context Copy link
The UK sets it at 16. What do you mean by 'final'?
More options
Context Copy link
By the tiniest of margins. They at least considered Stop Killing Games, but still rejected it. The bar is extremely low.
More options
Context Copy link
The age of consent in the UK is 16, unless 'final age of consent' means something different to the normal use.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which countries are you thinking of? The big ones the US hears about are UK/Germany, and they both seem harsher on natives committing speechcrime, such as liking a meme or calling a violent criminal a mean name, than immigrants committing gang rape. Is it the Netherlands that keeps convicting that right-wing politician for saying unpleasant but true things about Islam?
You're probably thinking of Geert Wilders, although there are plenty other interesting cases.
More options
Context Copy link
UK is way worse than the US. I'm talking about continental Europe (I think Anglos are the problem -- the rest of the Anglosphere is mostly worse than the US). I think it is Belgium which persecutes Dries Van Langenhove (he is from Flanders). He is getting plenty of due process and the sentence is relatively light. When these laws come to the United States it will be ten years for the «very serious crime».
As far as I know they've been after him for 5 years and thanks to due process he might do 1 year in a decent quality of life European prison. If it were the United States after him for posting the wrong bytes on the internet he'd already be in prison and he'd have 10 years left, and good 'ol Americans would joke how much he is probably getting raped by black men inside.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Objectively, he hobnobbed with some incredibly smart people, some of whom openly considered him a friend.
I consider that Bayesian evidence against him being stupid, despite his lack of credentials.
Either way, those smart people had some reason to be around him, and he probably could have gotten some advice from them to further his own goals, so this doesn't really change my read.
My model of the situation doesn't have him as the genius mastermind, anyway.
In terms of his general intelligence, I concur. It was at least top 10% in the nation, which is hard to call stupid. Nonetheless, it was foolish. Considering he stopped what he was doing I think he must have realized it eventually. As for the later arrest, old people decline and regardless tend to stay stuck in the past. He still modeled the US government like it was a reasonable and fair entity, as worked in 2008 and before. He was not ahead of the curve with updating to it being more of a USSR-style tyranny where nearly every sentence is close to life unless you're a common criminal, and deals can't be trusted because they won't be honored. Which is exactly what happened to him. In a very USSR style way, the state threw out their deal to not prosecute over the events before 2008 and only in jail did he realize it would be like being shipped off to Siberia, not like facing a fair trial with a humane, 8th amendment respecting sentence.
I don't know how many arrests will have to be made for fake «very serious» crimes that were most definitely not very serious 50 years ago will have to be made, based on witnesses that are testifying about events from so long ago that under a reasonable statute of limitations it would be inadmissible, who are also getting paid or looking to make money from lucrative parallel lawsuits, until people with superior options and exposure to this kind of thing flee like it's East Germany and start hanging out wherever else, non-Anglo Europe mostly, maybe Dubai and adjacent places. Andrew Tate is a recent example. He reasoned with Romania, he will likely not reason with the UK, to whom he was shipped to by «United States federal law enforcement» for «very serious» crimes. And if he does, should he come back to the US, that will be his last mistake, because a sealed federal indictment (very Soviet of the United States) will be waiting for him and one day he will disappear into federal prison never to come back out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The best published estimates of Epstein's peak net worth are around $350 million.
Epstein's main source of wealth is his relationship with Les Wexner, who founded L Brands, a retail empire which ended up owning (among other brands) Victoria's Secret, Abercromie & Fitch, and Bath & Body Works. Googling suggests Wexner had a peak net worth of $9.6 billion, so Epstein got about 4% of it. Epstein was, over a 20-year period, managing basically all Wexner's assets apart from his L Brands stock, as well as large parts of his personal life.
It is just about plausible that Epstein was exploiting Wexner's trust to charge ridiculously high fees (charging 2-and-20 to buy leveraged S&P futures is a good living if you can get it) to manage Wexner's non-L Brands assets and made the $350 million in a legal-but-scuzzy way. It is also possible, and in my view more likely given Epstein's history of criminality, that he was embezzling. But you don't need a non-Wexner sources of dirty money to explain Epstein's wealth.
Incidentally, Wexner met Epstein before Maxwell did (1987 vs "early 1990's") and was deeply involved in pro-Israel activism, so if Epstein was a Mossad asset it makes a lot more sense that Wexner rather than Maxwell made the initial contacts. Top conspiracy theory is that of course Wexner did not in fact display uncharacteristic naivety in his relationship with his majordomo, and was in fact deliberately overpaying Epstein as a way of paying him under the table for his work for Israel. (I'm not sure why I don't believe this one - it actually makes a lot of sense).
I don’t think the full truth of Wexner and Epstein’s relationship will come out for a while, if ever. My understanding is that Wexner was always zionist (as zionism generally becomes more fervent the smaller a jewish community is outside of israel, growing up in ohio probably made him moreso than most), but that Epstein pushed him to become more involved in galas, events, the MEGA group in part as way to expand Epstein’s own social circle. He did this with plenty of secular / non-Jewish civic events too, hence the endless pictures of Epstein at everything, but that was part of it.
But the money isn’t particularly interesting. Israel in the late 80s and early 90s was poor, much poorer than most other developed countries. GDP per capita was half that of the UK for example, which Israel has now overtaken. The Mossad did not have hundreds of millions of dollars to spare to channel through Wexner or anybody, if they had the money by whatever means, they had other things to spend it on instead of a vague 40 year influence operation with as yet completely unclear outcomes led by a compulsive liar with no real loyalty to Israel beyond his ethnicity (and given even Israeli Jews have been arrested for spying for Iran in the most recent war, that’s hardly a guarantee).
A real diversified retail conglomerate type billionaire with (unlike say a lot of tech billionaires) a lot of relatively liquid assets is a whale fall event for anyone who has any proximity to the money, especially in a decade when equities returned like 500%. 2 and 20 was more than enough, even with Epstein making relatively poor financial decisions (and he mostly seems to have just handed Wexner’s money to a few big Wall Street banks, which would have made him one of their largest and most lucrative wealth management clients ever - since other people with that net worth would have more competent family offices unwilling to hand $20m a year to JP Morgan to do nothing) he could siphon several hundred million dollars.
His net worth actually seems to have peaked in 2008, but he lost a lot of money in the crash having invested in some CLO funds.
I think I agree with you there - if Wexner was paying Epstein to run a Mossad-linked blackmail ring, he was using his own money and not Mossad's.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did he even need to charge that much? 0.25% of $9.6 billion is still $24 mil annually, and over 20 years... hell, if anything, only charging a 0.25% AUM fee would have probably been seen as too low to have value by someone with that worth.
Most of Wexner's net worth was his L Brands stock, which Epstein won't have been taking a management fee on. If Wexner was like other founder-CEOs his non-L brands net worth would have been less than a billion for most of the period.
If Wexner was paying Epstein a management fee on his own stock in his own company of which he was the full-time founder-CEO, we are back in the territory of "Wexner was using fund management fees to pay Epstein under the table for something else"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For one, this theory is notably light on specifics. What was the work performed? What information was obtained, and what outcomes were achieved? And why was this particular channel chosen over more conventional ones? Absent those details, it functions more as a way of making the residual awkwardness of the relationship feel intentional rather than foolish.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link